The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Giuliani Pays Own Firm for Security; Spending Outstrips Fundraising

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has paid his own private consulting firm more than $130,000 for providing him security as he runs for president, according to campaign finance documents he filed with the Federal Election Commission this morning.

The payments, to Giuliani Security & Safety LLC, should help satisfy concerns raised over the summer that Giuliani's private consulting firm was picking up the tab for protecting the candidate -- a cost that by law should have been billed to his campaign.

Campaign finance experts said over the summer that the campaign may have run afoul of federal campaign laws that prohibit candidates from accepting money or in-kind contributions from corporations. "It certainly appears to challenge the law, with respect to a corporate contribution," Ellen Miller, a longtime campaign finance watchdog in Washington, said at the time. "A corporation cannot make an in-kind contribution by paying for a service or a party or even food at a party."

Giuliani's campaign made two large payments to the security consulting firm -- $100,000 on Sept. 5 and $31,212 on Sept. 28.

Over the past three months, Giuliani's campaign actually spent more money than it raised. Totals released today show the campaign brought in $11.3 million and spent $13 million between July 1 and Sept. 30. The campaign continues to be the money leader on the Republican side, though, with more than $16 million still available to spend as the primary season approaches.

Other large late-summer expenses for Giuliani included more than $3.5 million on campaign staff, more than $3 million spent on printing and sending campaign literature and fundraising letters, and more than $1.4 million on travel, including $200,000 that Giuliani spent with TAG Aviation, a charter-air service owned by a Luxembourg-based firm that was founded by Saudi arms dealer Akram Ojjeh.

--Matthew Mosk

Posted at 12:21 PM ET on Oct 15, 2007
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Edwards Would Ban Lobbyists' Donations | Next: Iowa SEIU Backs Edwards's Candidacy


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



This is just the upteenth example that Rudy doesn't know LAW and doesn't care about LAW, except when he's forced to. He was the most LAWLESS mayor in U.S. history---oh no? You probably think it's a fluke that much of his top cabinet are convicted criminals, right? Or that two of his 3 POLICE commissioners were busted for lawbreaking! GIULIANI is so crooked (and yes, this security funding doesn't count) that he cannot LOSE the "election". Watch. He's promises 8 more years of Bush and Rudy has promised to create the largest DEBT in human history like his idols Reagan and Dubya did. Republicans DESERVE Rudy for prez.

Posted by: christopher1 | October 16, 2007 3:00 PM

The problem appears to be that Giuliani DIDN'T pay for the security as he should have, but came back later and "reimbursed" them for the job. Hence the two large payments noted above.

Slipped in with the rest of the story is Rudy flying the Saudi arms dealer's airline. I wonder what that money will purchase. Of course, these days $200K doesn't buy what it used to.

Posted by: jade7243 | October 15, 2007 4:32 PM

Mosk- I think you're including General Election funds, per Marc Ambinder Rudy only has $11 million on hand.

Posted by: sfmandrew | October 15, 2007 4:10 PM

If he paid the security company, which it appears he did, then it shouldn't matter. Wouldn't you trust your own company with your security rather than using someone else.

The same would go for any other item. If the candidate owned an airline business I wouldn't expect them to fly on a different airline. As long as they are paying like eveyone else as the law requires.

Posted by: HokiePaul | October 15, 2007 3:19 PM

How is paying his own firm for services rendered any less concerting than him getting such services for free? It seems as though he should be paying a neutral party - if such services are necessary - rather than diverting campaign donations into his own pocket.

Posted by: bsimon | October 15, 2007 2:04 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company