The Hill is reporting that Arizona’s Congressman Gabrielle Giffords has requested that she be granted a waiver by the Federal Elections Commission to use donor money to upgrade her home security in Texas.
Excuse me but doesn’t Gabrielle Giffords represent the citizens of Arizona’s eight congressional district?
And why would an elected official who is already being compensated by the taxpayers not use their salary to pay for such an expense rather than tapping into donor campaign funds?
According to the report the estimated cost of the security upgrade is $2,209.
Giffords’ request is not exclusive. Apparently, Republican Lee Terry of Nebraska also requested and received permission to upgrade his home security but he lives and serves in the State of Nebraska.
Southern Arizona constituents should be asking two questions:
- Why not use regular congressional salary funds for the upgrade?
- Does the use of donor campaign money on a Texas property evade the issue of taxpayer dollars being used on a non-Arizona property?
FUCJK OFF FRANK ANTENORI! STOP PLANTING THIS DUMB CRAP BALDY. YOU VOTED AGAINST RUSSEL PEARCE’S IMMIGRATION BILL YOU CAN RUN FOR OFFICE IN MEH’HEECO
Dana , you obviously have never read the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. I suggest you refrain from your insulting language and educate yourself.
Russell Pearce was lobbied by private prisons to pass legislation which would ultimately strip u.s. citizens of their 4th amendment. Do you understand how a warrant is obtained based on probable cause? Do you also understand that a warrant must have a specific person,reason,and item to be seized in a specific search?Refrain from being a fascist. Thank you.
4th amendment of the United States Constitution:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
BILL STATUS VOTES FOR SB1309 ARIZONA CITIZENSHIP – Third Reading
Y = Yes
N = No
NV = Not Voting
EXC = Excused
V = Vacant Member Name Vote Member Name Vote Member Name Vote
Paula Aboud N Sylvia Allen Y Frank Antenori N
Nancy Barto N Andy Biggs Y Scott Bundgaard N
Olivia Cajero Bedford N Rich Crandall N Adam Driggs N
Steve Gallardo N Ron Gould Y Linda Gray Y
Gail Griffin Y Jack Jackson Jr. N Lori Klein Y
Leah Landrum Taylor N Linda Lopez N John McComish N
Al Melvin Y Robert Meza N Rick Murphy Y
John Nelson N Steve Pierce N Michele Reagan N
David Schapira N Don Shooter Y Kyrsten Sinema N
Steve Smith Y Steve Yarbrough N Russell Pearce Y
AYES: 11 NAYS: 19 NOT VOTING: 0 EXCUSED: 0 VACANT: 0
BILL STATUS VOTES FOR SB1308 BIRTH CERTIFICATES; INTERSTATE COMPACT – Third Reading
Y = Yes
N = No
NV = Not Voting
EXC = Excused
V = Vacant Member Name Vote Member Name Vote Member Name Vote
Paula Aboud N Sylvia Allen Y Frank Antenori N
Nancy Barto N Andy Biggs Y Scott Bundgaard Y
Olivia Cajero Bedford N Rich Crandall N Adam Driggs N
Steve Gallardo N Ron Gould Y Linda Gray Y
Gail Griffin Y Jack Jackson Jr. N Lori Klein Y
Leah Landrum Taylor N Linda Lopez N John McComish N
Al Melvin Y Robert Meza N Rick Murphy Y
John Nelson N Steve Pierce N Michele Reagan N
David Schapira N Don Shooter Y Kyrsten Sinema N
Steve Smith Y Steve Yarbrough N Russell Pearce Y
AYES: 12 NAYS: 18 NOT VOTING: 0 EXCUSED: 0 VACANT: 0
Does the moron writing this realise how vulnerable Gabby is to copycat attacks? She is an outpatient in Houston, not Arizona.
Lay off her.
This article relieves your true character. You are awful people, and should be ashamed.
Liberals response to this post is extremely telling and visceral. Are they issuing the same barrage of bashing and blind devotion toward the Hill’s reporting?
I thought the post was mild and not an attack on Gabrielle at all. I know lots of Tucsonans who are asking these very questions.
Lucas: “Liberals response to this post is extremely telling and visceral.”
Hey, Conservatives response is just as extremely telling and visceral.” Do Conservatives have a heart? Do Conservatives believe in Christ the Forgiving? Evidently not. They are heartless Godless miserable all-around complainers about anyone else’s misfortunes.
In the grand scheme of things, $2000 isn’t that big a deal. In fact, that sounds rather cheap for enhanced security. The cost of living in Texas must be lower than it is here.
If the donor doesn’t mind, why should anyone else have a problem so long as the name of the donor is disclosed? Both of them are employed by the government, so they’d be using taxpayer money if it weren’t coming from a donor.
What?
Both of them are employed by the government so they’d be using taxpayer money if it wasn’t coming from a donor?
That makes no sense!
IF this report is correct, then the situation appears to be this:
They are running two residences, one in AZ, one in Texas. Giffords is supposed to be HERE in AZ representing her district, but she’s in Texas staying with her husband.
Yes, she needs on-going therapy, but seriously it is not plausible to claim she can’t get top-notch care in Arizona, and must be in Texas for it.
They have made a family decision based on what is easy for THEM, the couple. They are both employed so they can well afford to upgrade home security, especially at that low price out of their own pockets. If she is in AZ and wants a security upgrade at her residence here, then it’s discussable for a request for reimbursement given she would be situated with her consituents.
Getting weepy about a common sense situation is a dodge. Neither of the two – husband and wife – want to give up their jobs, as simple as that. It’s hardly unique, it happens all the time. But they are asking the taxpayers to subsidise their very very personal marriage decisions to maintain two official residences – one for the husband, one for the wife – when other people would have faced reality, took responsibility, picked ONE and discarded the other.
It’ s not fair to everyone else who can’t even afford their own homes now, much less two.
Speaking as a donor to Gabby’s campaign, I’m A-OK with my donation being used for her security, here in Arizona, Texas, Washington, wherever she needs it.
Who wrote this opinion? Jesse “Low-Tax” Kelly?
I guess this is the “who gives a rip” story of the week. But, honestly, she is a sitting congresswoman who makes $174,000 per year in salary, is probably more wealthy than the average citizen due to her family business and rental property income, her husband is an O5 (Captain) in the Navy and makes pretty close to 6 figures. Are we to understand they cannot afford to pay $2000 to upgrade a home alarm system? Is that really something people who donate to a “campaign” pay for, especially if that person does not run again or loses an election? Really? Come on. We all wish her well and a full recovery but does this really make any kind of sense? I forgot, when it comes to the left, common sense isn’t in their lexicon…
Why don’t we shoot you in the head and then we’ll see if you make sense penis breath.
Wow, Dana. More of the famous civility from the left. You should probably get some help or something.
I don’t blame Giffords at all for wanting better security after what happened to her. And even though I’ve never voted for Giffords & probably never would with her voting record, I hope that she fully recovers. She did nothing to deserve what happened that day & was doing what all politicians should do by holding an open meeting with her constituents.
Now, regarding the $2000 of her campaign money for home security, I have no problem with it whatsoever. Zero. Zilch. Nada. In fact, I think that every Democrat should be encouraged to spend all of his or her campaign money on things other than campaigning or buying off their perspective voters, which is where normal Democrat campaign cash goes. That way, we can make sure to beat them each November at the ballot box & not just in the realm of ideas.
Are you kidding me? Carping about G Giffords being in TX for treatment as if she is somehow slacking off? Do you remember that a lumatic shot her in the head and she is in teh midst of a miraculous recovery?
Really, you guys are sick. How do you think this gains you support from anyone with a brain or a heart. You should crawl back under that rock slimeballs.
Other people get shot or otherwise badly wounded by robbers or in car accidents or other unexpected events that are life-threatening and life-altering. They are forced, by no fault of their own, to make unwanted and hard personal decisions to cope with their new, unwanted, unfair circumstances. Most do not have three residences, one in AZ, one in Texas, one in Washington DC. or have insurance or have two salaries or have lots of people willing to contribue ANYTHING to them in their hardship.
This goes on EVERY DAY.
Why should the extended Gifford household get subsidised when they can afford it themselves – and the subsidy will come from OTHER people who have LESS than they have?
Since when is it valid to call people nasty names for pointing out the TRUTH of this as this highly connected, dual income couple ask for money for things they can well afford?
“Meanie” “Cold-hearted” Sounds like something a 5 year old would say, someone with an immature brain and selfish heart.
A reminder to people who may be unfamiliar with government adminstration – IF an administrator agrees to allow exception to ONE request for funding that would by the written rules be unauthorized, THEN it opens the door to demands from EVERYONE. The rules, meant to provide structure and coherence to the budgets and organization goals become worthless, and funding decisions become capricious and prone to favortism – no justice, no peace. How does an organization function when it gives out to SOME people and not to others, totally ignoring prior consensus-developed limits for off the cuff, emotionally-driven decisions?
The Left wants everyone to react with raw emotion, not reason. But when it comes to organizational outflows, there MUST be consistency that is FAIR to ALL, not just focused on one case. Operations officers are pummeled daily with demands and pleas to pay for things that aren’t allowed, with all sorts of heart-rending reasons, and all sorts of bunk as well. These decisions are not made in vacuums – people alter their behavior when they discover they can get stuff they thought previously they couldn’t get, and they becomet pissed, sullen and resentful when others get what they were denied.