Palin’s Wardrobe Total Tops $150,000. Republicans Pissed.
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Bad Decisions, McCain, Money
First, what it bought her…
According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September.
The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.
The cash expenditures immediately raised questions among campaign finance experts about their legality under the Federal Election Commission’s long-standing advisory opinions on using campaign cash to purchase items for personal use.
And let’s put this in perspective…since Palin has really only been on the campaign trail for 7 weeks, this comes out to more than $21K per week on wardrobe and makeup.
Does that sound reasonable to ANYBODY for a VP candidate?
And then, from Ambinder, apparently Republican insiders are EXTREMELY upset with how much money was spent…
There is already an attempt to blame the media — as in, the liberal media would have looked askance at Palin if she wasn’t clad in Neiman Marcus, but this won’t wash. Republicans, RNC donors and at least one RNC staff member have e-mailed me tonight to share their utter (and not-for-attribution) disgust at the expenditures.This sort of spending is without precedent — the closest approximation for any campaign I’ve ever covered is make-up expenses for television interviews and commercial shoots — , and Schmitt’s weakly defensive response tonight indicates that the campaign is deeply embarrassed by it and has nothing to say in their defense. Spokespeople have clammed up, a sure sign that they’re trying to figure out who authorized the expenses and who knew about them. Did Palin wear all of the clothing? Where is it kept?
I don’t blame them for being angry. Especially considering what it bought them, which was a whole bunch of barely there.
I can already hear the Caribou Barbie jokes beginning anew…
UPDATE:
Many thanks to the Mr. U in the comments section who pointed me towards Palin wearing a decidedly Democratically themed scarf.
See, she really is bi-partisan!
So…perhaps a McCain campaign attempt at a joke?
This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Bad Decisions, McCain, Money. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:46 am
Well, it’s pretty easy to spend money at Sachs and Neiman’s. What do you expect her to do? Shop at Wal-Mart or Target or even a mall store? Like all her beloved Joe and Jane Sixpacks have to do? Just because they’re losing their jobs and homes that’s no reason La Palin shouldn’t look fabulous.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:48 am
Thats right..because if she wore three outfits we wouldn’t have heard word one about it, right?
Its a hell o a lot easier being a guy in that regard. You can have a dozen identical suits, and as long as you change the tie you are good as new. Women are held to a different standard…you know it…I know it….everybody knows it. Quick, how much did Hillary spend on all of her pant suits? Yeah, I dont know either…but she’s multi-millionaire who can buy her own expensive wardrobe. So for all you know there is nothing unusual about the amounts spent on Palin. The only difference would be she isn’t a multi-millionaire.
Pretending that the sexist expectations dont exist doesnt mean they dont exist.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:56 am
Rich Horton,
That’s like saying it would have been ok for Huckabee to buy tailored italian suits to have suits comparable to those worn by Romney. It’s ridiculous to expect that the only way you can win the presidency is if you have equal quality of wardrobe. This being that she is campaigning on an Everyday Person campaign format. She’s relatively poor? She can shop at the Outlet stores or discounts like Marshall’s.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:01 am
[...] Designer clothes for your botched Vice Presidential roll out: $150,000 [...]
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:55 am
Rich, it is totally possible for a woman to dress impeccably, stylishly and professionally, shopping at mid-range stores like Macy’s, Lord & Taylor, etc. As Tim Gunn or Stacy & Clinton from What Not to Wear will tell you, it’s all about fit.
This is pretty rich coming from the party of “oooh, look at that arugula-eating elitist Obama.”
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:02 am
150k and she STILL has shitty taste in clothes. And sheesh, that crappy looking hairpiece! I would sue her fashion advisers.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:06 am
Rich-
Your attempt to explain away $21,000/week wardrobe expenses as “sexism” is both hilarious and, ironically, pretty sexist. Vanity and largess is inexcusable no matter what type of chromosome pair you have.
I repeat.
$21,000.
A week.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:16 am
dj beat me to it. It doesn’t take Saks or the like to dress well. St. Louis also has some nice Nordstrom’s stores for that kind of shopping. It’s a little expensive for lots of people but nothing like Palin’s choice of stores.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:28 am
That comes to $3,000 a day… I wouldn’t even begin to know how to spend $3,000 a day on clothes and fashion.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:43 am
I think it also should be noted that this wasn’t a stay at home mom that lounged in sweat pants all day. She should have had business appropriate outfits from your GUBERNATORIAL campaign and position. This is ridiculous.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:09 am
You know how you spend that money SethS?
Fabulously! That’s how!
But srsly…
To those who argue that women are held to a higher standard when it comes to fashion, well, that’s true. But if you put that money in perspective, that means that Palin is literally wearing a different $3,000 suit every single day. That’s crazy.
There are plenty of places much better than Wal-Mart or Target where you could pick up something for at least 1/3rd of that price. I know some female lawyers who have to do the pant suit thing everyday and they cost around $300-$500 apiece. So you’re really starting to s**t in high cotton when you get up to $1,000 range.
It’s simply not a reasonable figure.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:53 am
Does this crazed spending surprise anybody? Look at the way republicans have spent during the Bush years – we now have record deficit to show for it. It’s time to get some fiscal responsibility in the presidential office by electing a democrat.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:54 am
There is NO WAY you can justify 150K for 7 weeks of wardrobe. YOu don’t need a new outfit every day. As a woman, I understand that women are held to a different sartorial standard. BUT, you can mix and match. You can -re-wear outfits. If you bought 20 suits for 1000 each, that’s 20K. Add 5 pairs of shoes at 200 per pair and that’s 1,000. Add 20 shirts etc for average of 150 per shirt and that’s 3000. All together you’d have spent less than 25k but with mixing and matching, you’d still look smart and put together.
But what is really troubling is what this woman (yes, as opposed to that one) thinks she is entitled to. She has already been found guilty of abuse of power. Now she is guilty of abusing donations. See a pattern of entitlement and abuse here.
I know its not PC to say this but what the he ll. I’m going to say this anyway. Palin and her husband are an immensely ambitious couple who are prepared to sacrifice their pregnant daughter’s privacy and the time they need to spend with Trig, to pursue their own ambitions. Yes, I say palin and hubby. I assume its a joint decision. and I do criticise the both of them for this decision.
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:00 am
Name me a canidate for national office that has dressed from Wal-Mart.
Name me a candidate where you even KNOW where they buy theiur clothes from.
Do you have any idea how pathetic and petty you all sound?
And from the same crowd that defended $500 hair cuts.
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:01 am
I work as a costumer in Los Angeles, and I’m sorry to tell you this, but it is very expensive to look normal and nice on camera. There is a big difference between the $675 men’s dress shirt from Barney’s and the $100 one from Macy’s. Fit and tailoring. It would be very easy to spend $3000 a day on outfits for Palin. Suit, shirt, good underwear (no VPL for the camera), accessories, shoes, hair and makeup, for three different appearances a day? I’m surprised it’s not more.
And she could NOT have worn her governor clothes. I saw them. They were butt ugly. She needs to look perfect and understated in every photo, all the time, from every angle. It’s show business. What Not To Wear proves it week after week. People look better in better quality clothes.
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:19 am
Rich rich, you must be rich. I never realised that a $1,000 suit can be considered cheap. Or shirts averaging $150 dollars each or $200 pairs of shoes. Even if you double the amounts, its still only $50K and not $150K of spending
I dunno about you Rich, but for sure, Palin doesn’t spend like one of us.
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:22 am
Pointless argument, but it was a $400 haircut for Edwards and according to HuffPo’s math, that would be 7.2 years of haircuts.
And no, I don’t imagine many of us ARE defending $400 haircuts. But Edwards paid that back. Does Palin have that much dough just sitting around? If so, why?
The argument you are trying to avoid is that how does a “woman of the people” justify this. If definitely seems like she did not buy any of these clothes in her so-called “Real America”. Why is she not supporting small business?
None of us are saying she should be in a sackcloth but by dolling up the VP candidate and her family, isn’t the RNC negating their entire argument that they are on the side of regular Joes?
And actually many candidates DO wear designer labels. They DO proudly flaunt their wealth I suppose. That said, it is THEIR wealth, not that of their party. But shouldn’t, as already suggested, the chief executive of an oil rich state HAVE the wardrobe required to be VP?
And if would be pathetic and petty if it wasn’t contrary to the entire BS Republican slime job that unless you vote GOP and are small town and rural you are a traitor. The irony and shadenfreude is baked into the story.
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:37 am
Is anybody curious about the fact that the money came out of campaign coffers? She can spend her own money ANY way she see fit. But, she dressing this way on donated money.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:02 am
I also have to add…I teach feminism at the college level, do any of you? I’ve written more about feminist issues on my blog than a blog like Donklephant ever has (granted…it simply isnt the focus of this blog and thats ok.) But the implication that if you are right of center you have no business being concerned or even knowledgable about such issues is, A) False, B) intellectually dishonest, and C) intellectually lazy.
In fact, because they are closer in philosophy to people like John Stuart Mill and Mary Wollstonecraft, it is the right in this country that is best able to give a principled defense of feminism, in its traditional meaning at least. That they often do not is largely because of the leftist silliness that has sadly become synonymous with “feminism” these days.
The idea that cultural aspects of feminism or racism only apply when the person involved is politically left of center is too stupid to need be debated. (Or at least it should be.)
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Michelle Obama wore a $150 dress on The View and viewers loved it — retailers reported that dress flew off the racks after her appearance. Considering that people have been seeking out Palin’s eyeglass frames, you’d think she might have found some affordable clothes that were accessible to her female supporters. It’s another subtle way of bonding with your audience. Affordable does not have to look cheap!
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Well, at least some of the RNC campaign money went to a lovely scarf.
http://blog.newsweek.com/photos/gagglepix/images/735358/original.aspx
Hmmm. Vote for the donkey theme party! Good idea!
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:40 pm
” Let them eat cake! “
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:43 pm
According to FEC filings, Obama spends about 75% of his budget on HIS image, advertising and media. That comes to $350 million overall! Palin spent $150,000 on her image, which means that Obama spent over 2,300 times more than Palin on his public image. Wow! What amazes me is that food banks are struggling all over the U.S., but Obama received $150 million last month…and he will probably spend another $100 million at least on advertising to improve his image even more. And we are complaining about Palin’s paltry $150,000? Get real people.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Rich! Who said anything about sexism or feminism? Even in your obviously blind dedication to the republican party, how could you possible justify this? Right after you said a $400 haircut is out of line. I’ve had $200 haircuts and I’m not nearly as rich as Edwards or his campaign was. If I recall, republicans had a hissy fit, until he paid it back to his campaign. Where’s that crowd now? This is 375 of Edward’s hair cuts, projected over time, one hair cut per month, with that kind of cash Edwards could have gotten his hair cut for 30 years!
Don’t be blinded by your dedication to the party, be outraged she used campaign money for that, and now they are cutting back campaigning in some states advertising in others. When that 150,000 only really shored up votes in the states they would have won already.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Rich,
First off, don’t call my readers petty and pathetic because they don’t think spending $3,000 a day on wardrobe is appropriate.
Second, as the story notes, even REPUBLICANS were angered by this news.
Third, it’s fantastic that you teach feminism at the college level. But you can do that and still be out of touch with why something like this matters.
Fourth, dj makes a great point. Good fashion doesn’t have to be extravagant, but it should always be smart. Palin’s wardrobe certainly fails that last test because of the message she’s trying to portray. Much the same way Cindy McCain’s ridiculously expensive dress sent the wrong message to voters.
October 23rd, 2008 at 7:11 am
I’m sorry, but since we’re talking about what’s affordable for all of the average Joes and how awful it was for someone who is in the spot light all day every day, being torn apart by The View for having big hair, a funny accent and every other trivial thing imaginable, to actually purchase a wardrobe that stands up to the car rides/plane rides every day all day as Robyn the costumer so kindly explained to all of you who’ve never experienced that….who says that ‘average Jane’ actually spends $150 on a dress??? If we’re really going to talk about how wonderful Michelle Obama is for Dressing down for all of us down-home-folk when she appreared on The Vomit/View, do you think that all those people in who watched and were losing their homes as you stated should have been buying a dress for $150 following MO’s lead? NO…they shouldn’t have.
You’ve suggested that Gov Palin should have shopped at Walmart or Target…why doesn’t MO have to shop there…they don’t sell $150 dresses at walmart folks….and truthfully, she looked rumpled…sorry, but she did. Maybe she was busy stuffing $500 caviar in her mouth in a rush to get on stage and didn’t show up for her steaming to smooth out her dress first…I dunno. And MO and Obama paying for their own expenses??? Who paid for his Harvard education? At least donations from terrorist sponsers didn’t pay for Palin’s campaign wardrobe…which is being auctioned off at campaign end.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Obama supporters who trashed Palin from day one are ranting about her wardrobe and other petty matters, while an anti-American Socialist / Marxist racist is about to highjack our government, with the help of voter fraud, and a corrupt biased media. You’d better wake up America … or, this country is about to experience an ugly 4 year long nightmare under Obama/Biden !!!