• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Former Maine Governor spent $22K of taxpayer money at Trump Hotel

Rogue Valley

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,329
Reaction score
82,720
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The former governor of Maine reportedly spent at least $22,000 in taxpayer money at Trump's DC hotel


images

The Trump International Hotel in Washington D.C.

2/17/19
Former Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) and his staff spent more than $22,000 of taxpayer money on rooms and meals at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC. Spending records obtained by the Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram showed the governor's team spent the money over two years on more than 40 rooms in the hotel, which cost around $362 to $1,100 per night. In addition to the rooms, receipts from the visits showed hundreds of dollars were spent on meals in the hotel's restaurant, which includes expensive cuts of steak and seafood on its menu. Of the $22,000 that was spent over the course of these trips, the paper found the state of Maine was reimbursed for only $124.

The hotel has been a point of controversy for the president and his family, as it is a key asset of concern for attorneys general of the District of Columbia and Maryland who announced in December they were moving forward with subpoenas for records in their case accusing Trump of profiting off the presidency. The Press Herald's report on LePage's spending noted that several of the former governor's stays were cited by those same authorities in the early stages of the lawsuit, which concerns the Constitution's emoluments clause, prohibiting the president from profiting off foreign, federal, or state governments.
Click to expand...

LePage said he would consider running for Senator in 2020.

Just before the 2018 midterm, LePage said he would move to Florida for a majority of the year and become a legal resident there in order to pay no income tax and less in property taxes.

Another fine example of a "fiscally conservative" Republican.
 
Rogue Valley said:
The former governor of Maine reportedly spent at least $22,000 in taxpayer money at Trump's DC hotel


The hotel has been a point of controversy for the president and his family, as it is a key asset of concern for attorneys general of the District of Columbia and Maryland who announced in December they were moving forward with subpoenas for records in their case accusing Trump of profiting off the presidency. The Press Herald's report on LePage's spending noted that several of the former governor's stays were cited by those same authorities in the early stages of the lawsuit, which concerns the Constitution's emoluments clause, prohibiting the president from profiting off foreign, federal, or state governments.
Click to expand...

images

The Trump International Hotel in Washington D.C.
Click to expand...

I am only going to address the bolded section, as the Governor in question's actions as to failing to reimburse the State for his and his staff's hotel expenses is a matter for Massachusetts' law.

However, I have always wondered where the idea that the emoluments clause had anything to do with business transactions in the USA.

I know the question arises about foreign rentals of Trump properties whether hotels or business venues, but it has nothing to do with a State governor's rentals since it is not a "foreign" entity.

Here is the clause:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Click to expand...
Article I | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Nothing in the original text of the Constitution prevented anyone serving the Federal government from continuing to conduct their own business interests. Washington did not give up his plantation, Jefferson didn't either, and so on. They could still do business in the USA..

Now we do have government ethics laws promulgated by examples of official abuses which prohibit accepting bribes (including gifts of items of value), charging "fees," or in any way acting as a "agent" for an interested party in conflict with the interests of government service and impartiality.

Nothing says one has to completely divest of their own pre-existing business unconnected with government service, although it is recommended that such businesses be handled in some way to separate direct control from the government agent so that doing normal business does not give the impression of influence or impropriety, nor can the government agent be a party to any involvement if said business is bidding or negotiating any government contract.

I just wish people would stop quoting the emoluments clause inappropriately, when it specificly refers to gifts, etc. from FOREIGN interests.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom