As a former John Edwards supporter, I remember the outrage over a $400 haircut. Let's see if Sarah Palin is criticized for spending $150,000 at Saks and Neiman Marcus on clothing.
Ambinder provides the relevant legal text:
(b) Prohibited useThat seems clear enough. She broke the law, and so did the RNC for buying the clothes. What surprises me is that it is so excessive and unjustifiable, even if it weren't also illegal.
(1) In general
A contribution or donation described in subsection (a) of this section shall not be converted by any person to personal use.
For the purposes of paragraph (1), a contribution or donation shall be considered to be converted to personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or individual's duties as a holder of Federal office, including--
(A) a home mortgage, rent, or utility payment;
(B) a clothing purchase;
Did the Governor of Alaska have nothing to wear except moose hides and mukluks? As a woman who reads everything, you know, a very large part of her personal spending goes for books, newspapers, and magazines, of course. So naturally she needed to buy some clothes.
But can you imagine spending $150,000 on clothing? Evidently, the difference between a pitbull and a hockey mom has been jacked up.
When Sarah Palin complains about Obama's plan to spread the wealth, you just know she means to spend it all on herself instead. Spread it around, and she'll have to dress like the Governor of Alaska, doggone it.