SP can’t have any other employment, if they acknowledged that it would be another ethics charge.

I guess you could claim being a governor is a type of acting job/show, too, and she could hire a cosmetic/clothing department on the state’s dime (and just leave the clothing behind when her term is over). Any ”consumables” would have to be taxed, of course.

I assume she clothes herself and does her own make-up, now, so why would that change in running for V.P.? The campaign committee could just give her a list of recommended attire and make-up and she could dress accordingly. If she desires to hire out, that would be on her dime or her taxes.

This could, also, allow her to preserve her current standard of ”reasonable” instead of inflating it to ”outrageous” if she know she’s paying for it out of pocket.

By the way, was she charging the state per diem and collecting her usual salary while campaigning for V.P.? If so, that’s rich…I’d like to hear how miss governor 24/7 was devoting 100 percent to Alaska and to campaigning for V.P. Somebody got shortchanged. If I lived in Alaska I would have filed and ethics charge immediately.

On the times that I have done shows where I needed to be ‘costumed’, a reputable professional company provides that costume for me. I do not pay for it, I use it on the job, and I do NOT get to take it home with me. It’s a business expense of the producing company. I have always been responsible as most actors are for my own hair and make-up, unless the make-up is so specialized that a separate make-up artist is required (which the producing company supplies) and if my hair is not quite right, I wear a wig (again, provided).

So, in the way I see it, SP and JM (and yes, all candidates) are ‘acting’. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for them to have the appropriate hair, costumes and make-up. But I think a politician’s goal in acting is meant to convince people that they are “regular people”. If so, ya don’t need a make-up artist, or hair specialist, and you can certainly pay for your own hair cuts and make-up, as most actors have to do. As for wardrobe, I’ve spent at least $5000 over my lifetime on clothes I could not take as tax deductible under IRS laws because they were considered ‘street wear’ rather than costumes. All men’s suits and SP blouses, jackets and skirts, AND shoes, would certainly fall in that category. Do we have a precedent that a political party/campaign bought a male candidate their suits and shoes to compare to this? It may be that this is a new, precedent setting issue.

But I must say, for reasons many of you have mentioned, I’m not crazy about what it appears that precedent is.

Here’s what I would honestly be OK with for political candidates’ use of their campaign funds:

1) Expenses for hair, clothing and make-up must be reasonable (yeah, someone would have to go into lawyerese to define ‘reasonable’)
2) Expenses would be applied only to the candidate, NOT spouse, children, parents, etc.
3) Any clothing, other apparel, make-up, etc. kept by the candidate MUST be declared as a gift and taxes paid on the retail (paid) value of the item.

This is a complicated issue, and I do have more thoughts, but I have to go teach now!

If Palin, receives a russian sable from some donor and wears it for a couple months during the winter, but returns it in the spring (or whenever) does that mean she can claim it is ”non disclosable”?

Why is so much importance put on who gave it to her?

I’m sorry if this is so obvious to everyone else, but if you can help me get a clue, I’ll be forever informed.

If Palin was given those clothes for her personal use, how can they be an “expense”? Those clothes should not only be itemized as a political payment/gift/contribution/donation on the state/federal disclosure form but also as income on her federal tax returns.

_____________________

What Palin & Meg are claiming is that the “expense” was an RNC campaign expense, the same as they paid out for lighting and stage props, and since Palin returned the “gifts” that she does not need to claim them on her disclosure. Basically the Palin case is that she received no benefit from these “gifts” since they were all returned.