Hillary Clinton: Pay For Childcare with Campaign Funds

[DonViejo]

Source: Newsweek Magazine




HILLARY CLINTON BACKS FIRST-TIME FEMALE CANDIDATE'S REQUEST TO USE CAMPAIGN FUNDS FOR CHILD CARE

BY MARIE SOLIS ON 4/28/18 AT 11:42 AM

A first-time female candidate who wants to use campaign funds to pay for child care just got a boost from Hillary Clinton, who is calling on the Federal Election Commission to give her permission to do so.

On Thursday, Clinton wrote a letter to the FEC asking the commission to approve a request Liuba Grechen Shirley—the candidate challenging long-time incumbent Peter King in New York's 2nd District—filed earlier this month, arguing a case for paying her babysitter just as she would any other member of her campaign staff.

In her letter, Clinton points out that Shirley's case is "especially striking": Before she launched her bid for office in October 2017, Shirley was the primary caregiver of her two children, Mila, her three-year-old, and Nicolas, who will be two next week. It's only now that she's running a full-time campaign that Shirley requires some extra help, in the form of a babysitter who watches the children for a few hours every morning while she works from her home office.

"Denying Ms. Shirley's request would undermine the Commission's previous advisory opinions, discourage young mothers from seeking elective office, and deprive parents of ordinary means of the opportunity to serve," Clinton wrote in her letter to the commission. "Young women like Ms. Shirley are now running for office in record-breaking numbers ... Under a plain reading of the law, as applied to Ms. Shirley's facts, the answer to her question can only be 'yes.'"

Read more: http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-backs-firs-time-female-candidates-request-use-campaign-funds-905005

[ehrnst]

1. She has always been a champion of women and children.

Always will be.

[Volaris]

12. If there's no reality where shes gonna be president,

She'd make a kickass supreme court justice, wouldn't she?

[ehrnst]

15. Yes, but her lack of experience arguing before SCOTUS would be in the way

of a nomination.

Speaker of the House, however....

[Volaris]

18. I'll take that.

And then let's impeach this criminal ticket of a
mis-admistration

[PatrickforO]

2. I absolutely support that.

Childcare is a big deal and we need to be subsidizing it, not only for candidates, but for all young parents. It is ridiculously expensive and if we reversed those Trump tax cuts and at the same time quit spending so much damned money on guns and airplanes and aircraft carriers, then we would have the money to 1) subsidize childcare and early childhood education, b) beef up K-12 to something that we could all be proud of, and 3) make postsecondary education at state universities and colleges free.

Oh, and did I mention healthcare?

[fleabiscuit]

5. Good post.

[PoliticAverse]

3. Irrespective test...

From: https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/candgui.pdf#page=61

Commission regulations provide a test, called the “irrespective test,” to differentiate legitimate campaign and officeholder expenses from personal expenses. Under the “irrespective test,” personal use is any use of funds in a campaign account of a candidate (or former candidate) to fulfill a commitment, obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or responsibilities as a federal officeholder. 113.1(g). More simply, if the expense would exist even in the absence of the candidacy or even if the officeholder were not in office, then the personal use ban applies.

[fleabiscuit]

4. Looks like that provides a good argument for the request. nt

[ehrnst]

6. Looks like it. HRC is very smart, and a lawyer, and would have researched this.(nt)

[Jedi Guy]

8. Huh?

The way I read that, the test would indicate she can't use campaign funds for childcare. It says that if the expense would exist if the person wasn't running for office, it's considered to be personal use. It'd be like using campaign funds to buy food for your pets.

Unless I'm reading the explanation of that "irrespective test" incorrectly, I don't think she'd be able to do this.

[fleabiscuit]

9. You're not reading it correctly. nt

[Jedi Guy]

10. Could you elaborate please?

In what way am I reading it incorrectly?

[fleabiscuit]

11. I think it's probably a guy thing.

So lets say you are home taking care of your daughter on your own. But you decide to run for a US representative slot. But now you have an unexpected extra expense of needing to hire a helper while you are out glad handing the local constituents, and while traveling, and in DC voting etc. You are now incurring expenses that wouldn't exist if you were not running or serving.

BTW, that argument is made in the letter linked in the story.

[Jedi Guy]

13. I dunno...

I think the argument could just as easily be made that there was a need for childcare whether or not the run for office was happening. If you have young children and you work, you most likely have childcare costs.

For what it's worth, I ran it past my wife, and she came to the same conclusion I did. We don't have (and don't want) children, though, so perhaps that colors our thinking on this.

I think an exception should be made for her, in any case. Having children shouldn't be a barrier to running for office, particularly because it'd favor the wealthy.

[moriah]

19. What about childcare costs exceeding "normal working families"?

If, say, you pay for an 8-5 daycare, but campaigning means you'll need a caregiver who can travel, do night duty, etc.

One should be able to allow campaign funds to pay the difference.

[Jedi Guy]

20. You might notice I said I think they should make an exception.

However, the way I read the rules, childcare expenses like these would fall under personal use. So either they make an exception on a case by case basis or they add a clause excepting childcare on a general basis.

[moriah]

22. I know you're saying you think there should be an exception because of need.

But you are also essentially arguing that if a person has children, they are ultimately the one responsible for their care, so using funds to pay for childcare is "personal use" as they would always have the ultimate responsibility "irrespective" of running for office or not.

However, since running for office might increase those costs, if nothing else the mixed personal/nonpersonal use rule could be applied, as it is to travel costs that combine pleasure with business.

[Jedi Guy]

23. That's the way the rules are written.

I think changing them would be a good idea, as that would make running for office feasible for those who aren't already wealthy enough to absorb those increased costs.

An impish part of me wonders how people here would have reacted if the lady in this case had been running as a Republican, though. I suspect the reaction would've been a bit different.

[ehrnst]

16. If this person isn't traveling for work in their current job

Or was not using childcare prior to their campaign, that would mean that it didn't exist prior to their campaign.

The Obamas brought Michelle's mom when they moved into the White House to help with childcare because both parents would be way more busy with the job.

[SunSeeker]

7. K & R

[fleabiscuit]

14. HRC tonight...

Link to tweet

[Chemisse]

17. If a babysitter is needed for her to work on the campaign, it's very legit.

Just as she needs transportation, hotel rooms, etc., to function as a candidate.

[MichMan]

21. Does that mean that candidates can use campaign funds to buy a new Porsche or Mercedes?

Jill Stein wants to know