Trump campaign forced to pay North Carolina city $82K in advance for rally
www.newsweek.com
Trump has a history of failing to pay cities for rally fees if they are not paid in advance.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/18634498

While the campaign paid in advance due to Asheville’s policy for short-notice bookings, Trump has a long history of failing to pay cities for billed rally fees, leaving the White House in January 2021 with at least $850,000 in unpaid rally debt. Most of the bills are still unpaid, including more than $500,000 owed to The city of El Paso, Texas.

  • anon6789@lemmy.world
    24·
    3 months ago

    the campaign paid in advance due to Asheville’s policy for short-notice bookings

    This makes it sound more like coincidence than the city actually doing anything about Trump being a deadbeat.

    Not complaining, since that is a fair policy to have, but it doesn’t sound like anyone is “sticking it to him” like the article makes it sound.

    While it would be improper to prohibit Trump to speak just because he is crap, if he is a known deadbeat, I don’t know why some of these places don’t pass an amendment to prohibit anyone renting space while they currently have past due fees. If Trump or whoever it may be stiffs the city, it’s the residents picking up that loss, which is unfair to everyone.

    • ccunning@lemmy.worldOP
      9·
      3 months ago

      I actually put this paragraph in the description of the original post:

      While the campaign paid in advance due to Asheville’s policy for short-notice bookings, Trump has a long history of failing to paycities for billed rally fees, leaving the White House in January 2021 with at least $850,000 in unpaid rally debt. Most of the bills are still unpaid, including more than $500,000 owed to the city of El Paso, Texas.

      …but I guess the description doesn’t get included in crossposts (at least for some clients).

      Not complaining, since that is a fair policy to have, but it doesn’t sound like anyone is “sticking it to him” like the article makes it sound.

      I think the article is fair, but the headline is misleading.

      • anon6789@lemmy.world
        8·
        3 months ago

        Lol my bad, I went right to reading the article without reading the summary and pointed it out because it was tucked into the middle of the full article.

        Now that I see it, great job on your part, I’m not used to seeing the important details in the blurb!