public paid protection

F

FridayNiteLites

500+ Posts
Should taxpayers foot the bill for Secret Service protection of presidential candidates? Should candidates pay for their own protection? When Perry is out campaigning and not on official Texas business should he have to reimburse the state for trooper protection?
 
I think it should be a taxpayer expense. The government is tasked with running the election, and that includes ensuring that it is run in the most fair, equitable and safe manner possible. If the government is reponsible for making sure its voters can safely and freely participate, should it not also be responsible for making sure that a candidate can feel free to speak, debate and appear in public without safety being a concern?

It's sad that we need it, but I think it's a necessary component of a free election.
 
Fair points Prod, but these people are choosing on their own to be a part of the election process. Shouldn't they have some financial responsibility for their own campaign protection?
 
I get where you are going with this and it is a reasonable question. Perry (just as an example) may choose to go to a football game and he will get protection.

I wouldn't have a problem with letting candidates refund protection money from campain funds but if you make them pay for it out of pocket it could water down the pool willing to run. And it is already watered down down so badly we can't afford any more.
 
These people are raking in millions of dollars in campaign funds. They are campaigning on "company time" so to speak. Ron Paul, Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, all on the government clock, but yet they are on the trail and using taxpayer dollars for protection. I'm just not okay with that.
 
If I'm not mistaken (and I may be), if the officials are on campaign only related events or travel, then they do reimburse at least some amount for the security...
 
FNL
I understand your frustration at the money we taxpayers are spending on protection for candidates but i don't think any are getting it yet.
Do you have a link showing any of the GOP candidates getting SS protection?

Perry might have his 2 security guards with him and at least part of that should be paid by his campaign.
The early candidates usually aren't getting any SS protection.

compare that to when Obama goes out. everything is paid by us because obama will call every campaign trip an official POTUS trip. ( all Pres do this but Obama is pres now so he gets listed)
 
I think the protection is necessary not just to protect the candidates but to protect democracy. Our leaders should never be decided by an assassin's bullet and providing public funds to ensure this is a small price to pay.

Case in point:

rfk-death.jpg



This says no GOP candidates are receiving SS protection yet, www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/15/secret-service-seeks-funding-for-2012-candidate-protection-as-budget-process/. Though I imagine at least two will before the candidate is nominated.
 
These candidates may not be receiving any money for security from the taxpayer purse, but I bet Minnesota is footing the bill for Bachman, even though I don't have a link, Perry, by DPS, no link either, for time they are not doing business for their states. They are on their own time, and as such, they should be footing the bill for their own security. I'm not a big conspiracy guy, but RFK was going to go down no matter how much security he had. Too many bullet holes of the wrong caliber for the gun that Sirhan used, but that's a different issue. I think our politicians need to be secure, Gabby Giffords is a case in point, but when you choose to run for office, you, not John Q. Public, should foot the cost, the whole cost till you are elected. When elected, then we'll protect you.
 
I agree with JohnnyM.

My take is that it should be a split of some sort. Some candidates need more protection than others but I do not believe the governmen should foot the whole bill.

Every run who runs puts up a $1M stipend, and the SS bills certain activities agains that amount unitl exhausted or the candidate drops out. Just an example, basically some kind of not at all taxpayer expense situation.
 
Part of what 6721 said. The candidates aren't getting Secret Service protection. Perry would cause he's a sitting governor. When they become the nominee, secret service kicks in, but obviously on a much smaller scope. Obama got it earlier than anyone cause secret service deemed it necessary.

For the record, I don't give a **** the cost to keep the CIC safe. I'm glad on 9/11 that the president had a giant ******* plane, planes with the ability to refuel AF1 in the air, and an F16 escort. I'm glad anywhere the president goes, he goes with the arsenal of a small army.
flag.gif
 
Actually the ' serious" candidates have to ask for SS protection.
John Mccain didn't ask for it in 2000.
There are so many whackos out there it makes sense to provide it for the serious contenders.
Interesting info from a slate article
"Only viable, moneyed contenders need apply, so Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton will likely have to watch their own backs during this election cycle. A candidate must first request protection from the Secret Service, a move that some politicians hesitate to make because it cramps their style. John McCain, for example, never asked for a security detail during his 2000 presidential run, fearing that black-suited goons would discourage him from pressing palms with plain folks and making impromptu campaign stops. And in 1992, Ross Perot delighted in pointing out that he hadn't enlisted the Secret Service's aid, half-jokingly telling supporters that he didn't need any bodyguards because "everybody loves me."

Once a request is filed, the Secret Service then reviews the candidate's financial and electoral status to see whether he or she qualifies. The guidelines stipulate that, in order to receive protection, a candidate must enjoy "national prominence," receive 10 percent or more of the vote in two consecutive primaries or caucuses, and qualify for federal matching funds in excess of $100,000. In lieu of the matching funds criteria, a candidate can also qualify by having raised more than $2 million in contributions. Lastly, the candidate must be running for a party that received at least 10 percent of the popular vote in the previous election, which disqualifies the likes of Libertarian front-runners Michael Barnarik and Gary Nolan. (As a result, it's not clear that Perot would even have been eligible for protection in '92.) The rules change a bit after April 1, when candidates can qualify for protection by virtue of having received 10 percent of his or her party's committed delegates."The Link
 
We aren't paying a penny to pay for their protection. We're borrowing the money for it.

We're running massive budget deficits, folks.

Paying for something is when you have money and decide to buy it. Borrowing is when you're in a debt situation and decide to go ahead and purchase something else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top