But will Trump pay the bill? (live in, vacations, yard)

[Cruz Azul Guy]

This article explains the process pretty well:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bus...or-them-2016-3

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Cruz Azul Guy

This article explains the process pretty well:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bus...or-them-2016-3

Not sure if you read this but it is a vague description of the current system. At least it does make clear that political campaigns are under no obligation to pay these bills sent to them by local governments.

Q. Can localities recover any costs of providing protection for political rallies?

A. They can try, but it's not easy...

Henrico Police Chief Douglas Middleton told the Richmond Times-Dispatch, "I can't make them pay it, but I want them to be aware that it's not free for you to come here. Somebody pays for it. It's either you or the taxpayers."

But who benefits from this added police protection, the candidate or the general public? Again, from your article.

Q: Why are the police there?

A. To ensure public safety, both inside and outside the event.

The public benefits, so it is logical that the public pays.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

My auto accident question is entirely on point.

I am trying to determine whether your requirement that non-local, non-taxpayers pay out of pocket for public safety applies in every instance and, if not, when it applies.

If you are only applying it to political events, or requiring individuals to pay a fee to government in order to exercise their right to free speech, that seems to me to be a First Amendment issue.

If you are applying your out of pocket rules more broadly, I am trying to understand how broadly and what your rules are.

You are trying to complicate details that has nothing to do with free speech in order to prove a point. It's simply about the LARGE $$$. Policies will never be completely "fair". Therefore, people logically pay attention to big $$ expenses. Reciprocity (we take care of people who visit us and other people take us when we visit them) applies. Yea, officially it is inconsistent. But as I said, common sense comes into play. Or else, we would be walking around debiting and crediting every transaction in life.

When it becomes "expensive" and to who is relative. So my small town bills out for every security dispatch. Hell, we pay an annual fee in the county. Why? Because it has become expensive for the sheriff to dispatch. Therefore, the Sheriff will not charge someone to dispatch who got in an accident from another city but they will will charge for a massive budget leak (in their relative terms) for a security system call. It's their call. Just as if they made a policy saying they want a payment up front for multiple stops in their city simply to manipulate the sheep who get emotional over a decision. The horse has been beaten.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

I think we can all agree that it would be good if the campaign at least foot a portion of the bill in these cases no? This goes for all sides. I’m sure Obama dealt with the same thing when he came to the Target Center in 2009 to discuss his healthcare reform bill.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Cruz Azul Guy

I think we can all agree that it would be good if the campaign at least foot a portion of the bill in these cases no? This goes for all sides. I’m sure Obama dealt with the same thing when he came to the Target Center in 2009 to discuss his healthcare reform bill.

No. We cannot have local governments determining who does and who does not get to exercise their right to free speech. Maintaining order is a responsibility of government. The extra security benefits the public so the public should continue to pay.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

No. We cannot have local governments determining who does and who does not get to exercise their right to free speech. Maintaining order is a responsibility of government. The extra security benefits the public so the public should continue to pay.

Use television, radio, streaming, etc for free speech. As the cities have learned, free speech isn't free.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised

Use television, radio, streaming, etc for free speech. As the cities have learned, free speech isn't free.

No, thanks. I prefer my speech unfettered.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

No, thanks. I prefer my speech unfettered.

In that case I hope you enjoy yourself at the Target Center on October 10th on my dime

[faranbrygo]

This isn't even a campaign event; it's an ego-stroking rally. There is no legitimate political use for this. We should not have to pay that bill.

Why should I pay for a hideous creature like him to come to town and fire up the people who are most likely to bomb my house of worship or perpetrate violence against myself or my neighbors? This makes even less sense than paying for his golfing vacations.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Cruz Azul Guy

In that case I hope you enjoy yourself at the Target Center on October 10th on my dime

I’m not going to that. Not everything is personal to me.