Who should cover the cost of President Trump's Minneapolis campaign rally?

there have been many recent press articles claiming the Trump campaign "is not paying it's bills"

well that's because the campaign is not responsible for those bills. unless agreed upon prior to the rally, the city is responsible for the costs incurred by a campaign rally.

it should also be noted that most campaigns do not cover city security costs. this is the way it's been for decades .. and in fact Obama has several outstanding "requests" that have never been paid. and Clinton. and Sanders from 2016.

Obama's unpaid "requests" were as a sitting president, while campaigning for a second term. like Trump.

only in cases where the event is held at city owned sites such as city parks and venues are campaigns required to pay to use those locations. at private venues unless there is a signed agreement upfront the City is responsible for the costs and it has been that way for decades.


yet the press makes Trump out to be a penny pinching meanie for not paying .. when he isn't required to but little to nothing is said about Democrats doing the same thing.


let's look into this, shall we? i'm not going to post entire articles here .. just the links and some selected highlights (here's poking a stick in yer banned eye, yssup rider)


Who should cover the cost of President Trump's Minneapolis campaign rally?

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/1...-rally-in-mpls


"Trump doesn’t have to pay the city back. The Federal Election Commission doesn’t have any rules requiring campaigns to cover local costs, but some candidates do pay them."


"Sen. Amy Klobuchar's campaign said there were private security officers and city police at her presidential campaign kick-off at Boom Island in Minneapolis in February, but the campaign reimbursed the city for the officers, as well as the parking lot and park rental".


"Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s campaign did not return requests for comment on whether they reimbursed the city of St. Paul for extra costs related to an August campaign rally that attracted thousands."


"Some cities don’t even bother billing federal candidates for their visits. The city of Duluth didn't invoice Trump after his campaign rally last fall because officials have been told in the past that they shouldn't expect to get any reimbursement from federal candidates, city spokesperson Kate Van Daele said. That rally cost Duluth $69,000, according to a data request."


Target Center operator: Covering Trump rally costs would be campaign contribution

http://www.startribune.com/target-ce.../?refresh=true


"The company that operates Target Center told the city of Minneapolis that it could not cover the city’s costs for President Donald Trump’s re-election rally Thursday because that would be considered a campaign contribution, city records show.


The city says its contract with AEG, which operates the city-owned arena, requires the company to cover event-related police and other city services, estimated at $530,000 for the Trump rally. But AEG warned that if the campaign didn’t pay those costs, it would have to cancel the event, according to an e-mail sent by an AEG official to the city Saturday."


"By Tuesday, after threats of a lawsuit and sniping between Mayor Jacob Frey and the president on Twitter, the Trump campaign announced AEG would honor the contract without extra cost to the campaign and the rally would go on as scheduled."


Springfield Asks Obama to Pay Up for Campaign Event

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/poli...138678564.html


"Three and a half years after a rally by then candidate Barack Obama in Springfield, city officials in the state capitol say they are left holding the bill for police overtime."


“They contacted the DNC. They contacted the Obama campaign,” he said but no one wanted to pay. “That’s when the finger pointing began because the Obama campaign said we are a private organization, we are not responsible for the security.”


Cities to Trump, Clinton and Sanders: pay your police bills

https://publicintegrity.org/federal-...-police-bills/


"Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders may not remember much about the rallies they each held last year in Green Bay, Wisconsin.


But officials at Green Bay City Hall sure do. And they’re miffed the three politicos have stiffed them on police protection bills totaling $24,000.


That’s because the Trump campaign — despite receiving demand letters and collection notices — doesn’t acknowledge in federal campaign financial disclosures that it owes cities a cent. Nor does the Clinton campaign, which hasn’t paid at least $25,000 in bills. The Sanders campaign, in contrast, says in federal campaign filings that it owes $449,409, spread among nearly two-dozen municipalities and law enforcement agencies.


The differing approaches make it difficult to determine just how many security-related bills have been sent to the major White House hopefuls since their campaigns began touring the nation in earnest in mid-2015. The Trump, Clinton and Sanders campaigns wouldn’t comment.


Complicating cities’ collection efforts: local officials often can’t force campaigns to pay unless they signed a formal, contractual agreement with the campaigns, which many have not."


Secret Service won’t pay Newport Beach for police at Obama event

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...730-story.html


"A Secret Service official said Newport Beach city administrators are asking the wrong people to pay for police protection at presidential campaign events.


It’s the service that is responsible for the candidates’ security, not the campaigns, said Max Milien, an agency spokesman. Any cost concerns should be directed to the agency.


Newport Beach City Manager Dave Kiff billed the campaigns of President Obama and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney for police security at their separate fundraisers this year in the city.


Now that the Romney campaign paid its bill, the city is left in the awkward position of trying to collect from Obama."


Why hasn’t the Trump campaign paid all its police security bills?

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/13/why-...ity-bills.html


"That depends on who you ask. The cities are adamant Trump should pay up. But in many of these cases, there are no signed contracts between the municipal governments and the Trump campaign. The cities dispatched police officers to secure Trump’s events because they believe public safety required it — and the U.S. Secret Service asked for it."


are we beginning to see the common denominator here? no contract, no obligation. and it's not just that meanie Donny Trump! the Dems including the Kenyan traitor and the Hildebeest didn't pay either.

if these cities are so fucking concerned about the costs then they should require all the candidates .. Democrat or Republican .. to sign a contract to cover cost, or shut the fuck up about it after the fact.

Any person, bank, city, entity, etc. who extends credit to Trump deserves to get ripped off. His record is proven.

The cities should pay Trump to show up.

He brings in 50,000 self supporting capitalists, many of whom rent hotels, buy things, go to restaurants, shopping, etc.

The cities should charge the candidates for security regardless of party affiliation and the charges should be reasonable. That is, they should charge their actual EXTRA out of pocket expenses, with no padding. The taxpayer shouldn't have to pay. It's the same principal for sports stadiums -- make the owners of the teams and the people attending the events pay for them, not the taxpayer.

AntiFa

Just more haters ,,,,,,,

Prince

The cities should charge the candidates for security regardless of party affiliation and the charges should be reasonable. That is, they should charge their actual EXTRA out of pocket expenses, with no padding. The taxpayer shouldn't have to pay. It's the same principal for sports stadiums -- make the owners of the teams and the people attending the events pay for them, not the taxpayer. Originally Posted by Tiny

I don't have a better answer than this. however, in the case of, say, Dallas, maybe nothing should be charged.. there was so many people from outside Texas yesterday, that the city had to have benefitted from local taxes on hotels, restaurants, etc.. and from my vantage point, the Cops didn't do a whole lot.. blocked a few streets from through-traffic, and stood around.

Omar

Any person, bank, city, entity, etc. who extends credit to Trump deserves to get ripped off. His record is proven. Originally Posted by Lapdog

credit has nothing to do with it

thank you uninformed poster!

The cities should charge the candidates for security regardless of party affiliation and the charges should be reasonable. That is, they should charge their actual EXTRA out of pocket expenses, with no padding. The taxpayer shouldn't have to pay. It's the same principal for sports stadiums -- make the owners of the teams and the people attending the events pay for them, not the taxpayer. Originally Posted by Tiny

all they have to do is require a signed agreement or no rally. and the true costs seems to be a point of contention.

I don't have a better answer than this. however, in the case of, say, Dallas, maybe nothing should be charged.. there was so many people from outside Texas yesterday, that the city had to have benefitted from local taxes on hotels, restaurants, etc.. and from my vantage point, the Cops didn't do a whole lot.. blocked a few streets from through-traffic, and stood around. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

several articles i linked to cite the economic benefits. for Dallas that can come close to offsetting the costs, in smaller towns not so much.

The cities should pay Trump to show up.

He brings in 50,000 self supporting capitalists, many of whom rent hotels, buy things, go to restaurants, shopping, etc. Originally Posted by friendly fred

What???????????????

They camp out in their fucking cars eating spam.

The cities should charge the candidates for security regardless of party affiliation and the charges should be reasonable. That is, they should charge their actual EXTRA out of pocket expenses, with no padding. The taxpayer shouldn't have to pay. It's the same principal for sports stadiums -- make the owners of the teams and the people attending the events pay for them, not the taxpayer. Originally Posted by Tiny

This is the correct answer....

This is the correct answer.... Originally Posted by WTF

given your vast business acumen, i'm sure you are well versed in signing contracts?

all these cities need to do is require a signed contract to have the campaigns cover the costs incurred. it's that simple and you'd think some city manager/administrator would know this.

the point of the thread is the fact that the liberal press regularly denigrates Trump but says nothing about the fact that the Democrats typically do not sign any agreements either.

You really got to stop putting a picture of your Mama on your posts. But I bet you look like her. Bwahahahahah.

What???????????????

They camp out in their fucking cars eating spam.













Originally Posted by WTF

This is the correct answer.... Originally Posted by WTF

Yes, it's what Gary Johnson would do.

all they have to do is require a signed agreement or no rally. and the true costs seems to be a point of contention. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Agreed. Getting the cost down and having an agreement to pay before the rally would solve the problem.