Friends, check out the Linda Ackerwoman campaign expense report at the California Secretary of State’s website.
We noticed this odd line item.
| 10/19/2009 | ACKERMAN, DICK | OFFICE EXPENSES | $654.40 |
Ackerwoman’s campaign forked over $654 bucks to her husband under the crypric description of “office expenses.”
Heh heh. Never miss a trick.
Could Dick actually be charging his wife’s campaign for some sort of services rendered? Well, why not? She made a killing as a “consultant” on his campaigns, and what the Hell, turnabout is fair play, right? Read more.
This just illustrates my point that until we remove the politics form government(lookup the two words) we will fall deeper in despair as a country. We are losing our beloved rights to the politicians who as this “carpetbagger”(get a dictionary) slogan proves the show the childish ignorance that run wild in our uniformed sound bite media.
It’s very common for candidates (or their spouses) to pay campaign expenses and then get reimbursed. The FPPC cateogry for office expenses is quite broad but does not include consulting. Consulting fees are reported separately.
So I’m supposed to be upset at 654 dollars of private money possibly being squandered when a 1 Trillion Dollar + piece of legislation just got passed during a recession??? Makes perfect sense.
I just have to say if you’re gonna pick apart campaign reports-learn how to read ’em. The $654 is itemized on schedule G…it was a reimbursement.