Sarah Palin makes various statements as she walks the campaign trail. Her words and acts are however a little confusing. She professes to be an average workingwoman with limited means and small town values. She is merely the wife of a very ordinary union member who shops at Wal mart. The news that she has splurged $150,000 on clothes for herself and her family is a surprising bit of news. In contrast to this her attitude appears hypocritical and many eyebrows and questions are being raised about who paid for them and why. This appears to be a boon to McCain who is trying to understand the economic pains of the common man.
It seems to be bad strategy and the revelation to the media even worse “What is shocking is that in the middle of a credit crunch, when all the candidates are trying to demonstrate they understand Joe Six-Pack and Main Street, that Sarah Palin would go shopping at the high end of 7th Avenue,” said Susan Scafidi, a professor at Fordham University School of Law who specializes in fashion law. “I am surprised that the RNC was careless enough to let its bill show up in the press.”
When Palin was interviewed in Vogue in February, she was a different woman. She is quoted to have said that her favorite designers were “Patagonia and north face’ today she dresses in style. For her nomination, she wore a narrow black skirt with a Valentino silk jacket worth $2500.
She is believed to wear Gianfranco Ferre, St. John and Anne Klein and no longer moves without a hairstylist and a make up artist. People are critical. Floyd Allyn, 45, who was shopping at Target in West Hollywood said “It’s hypocritical for her to say she’s a hockey mom on one side and then spend $70,000 at Neiman’s,It’s just like McCain not knowing how many houses he owns.”
As to the law the opinion is divided “It’s clearly contrary to what Congress said in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which was authored by John McCain — that candidates can’t directly pay for clothing with campaign funds,” said Lance Olson, general counsel for the California Democratic Party. “If a candidate can’t pay for clothing, why should the RNC be able to do that? It doesn’t make sense.”
James V. Lacy, a Reagan administration lawyer who is equally an authorityas she is an expert on nonprofit and election law, disagreed.
“There is absolutely nothing wrong with the expenditure, as long as it is 100% focused on the campaign,” Lacy said. “If they need to spend that money in order to keep her clean, clothed and focused because she is on the road 24/7, then that’s an appropriate expenditure.”
