Skip to main content

View Diary: Romney spent $8.9M of government money on transition (218 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not to be contrarian to your contrarian... (8+ / 0-)

    ... but before something like this is implemented it may behoove us taxpayers if the person receiving these "transition dollars" is actually formally vetted to receive these monies in the first place.  The presumptive nominee shouldn't receive the funds until a national security check on he and his staff has been completed and published publicly - if this involves the release and reviews of tax documents and other financial disclosures, so be it.  If the nominee wants our money to transition to be President, then he had better provide us with proof that he is authorized to receive the information he is requesting.

    I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

    by Hey338Too on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:11:08 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  He's a major party's nominee. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, ColoTim

      That's all the vetting he needs.

      •  Maybe to he and his party... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Amber6541

        ... but he's spending our money setting the framework which could in some way be considered a shadow government.  It is only logical these people should be fully vetted (including the incumbent) prior to assuming any role in an endeavor of this kind.

        Think about it, right now there is a group of 500 people that have had access to whatever information the transition team deemed important without a single one of them being elected or vetted.  They had computers (presumably laptops) with who knows what information in their possession.  This information may relate to national security, or it may relate to information which allows them inside information related to government contracts upon which personal fortune may be gained.

        I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

        by Hey338Too on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 11:37:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Part of what the bill does ... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Amber6541, VClib

          ... is allow for early vetting of security clearances precisely to allay your concerns. Seriously: read the bill.

          •  I read the bill and don't see the section... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blue aardvark, joynow

            ... you are referencing.  I see a section called "Security Clearances" which appears to be defining the phrase "eligible candidate".  But nothing that indicates that the 500 people the candidate selects are vetted by anything other than the fact that the candidate himself is eligible:

            (as defined in section
            9002(10) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)—
            ‘‘(i) a candidate of a major party (as defined in section
            9002(6) of such Code) for President or Vice-President of the
            United States; and
            ‘‘(ii) any other candidate who has been determined by the
            Administrator to be among the principal contenders for the
            general election to such offices.
            If that hurdle is passed, the administrator then:
            ‘(i) ensure that any candidate determined to be an eligible
            candidate under such subparagraph—
            ‘‘(I) meets the requirements described in Article II,
            Section 1, of the United States Constitution for eligibility
            to the office of President;
            ‘‘(II) has qualified to have his or her name appear
            on the ballots of a sufficient number of States such that
            the total number of electors appointed in those States
            is greater than 50 percent of the total number of electors
            appointed in all of the States; and
            ‘‘(III) has demonstrated a significant level of public
            support in national public opinion polls, so as to be realisti-
            cally considered among the principal contenders for Presi-
            dent or Vice-President of the United States; and
            ‘‘(ii) consider whether other national organizations have
            recognized the candidate as being among the principal con-
            tenders for the general election to such offices, including
            whether the Commission on Presidential Debates has deter-
            mined that the candidate is eligible to participate in the can-
            didate debates for the general election to such offices.’’.

            I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

            by Hey338Too on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 12:22:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

              •  I actually looked for a prior bill... (0+ / 0-)

                ... I tried to find the original bill passed in 1963 which appears to have been amended in the mid 2000's to take into account the Patriot Act and didn't find a reference to anything which says that if a person is nominated, and that person meets the criteria outlined above, that person and her/his designees can have access like this without full vetting (background checks, conflicts of interest, suitability, etc.).

                I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

                by Hey338Too on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 01:25:10 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site