Obama's Unpaid Bill? Springfield Says President Owes $55,000 For 2008 Campaign Event (VIDEO)

Though more than three years have passed since the city hosted then-presidential candidate Barack Obama's announcement of Joe Biden as his running mate, Springfield, Ill. remains irked that the White House has not footed the bill for some $55,000 in police overtime and other costs associated with the event.

Alderman Frank Edwards, former mayor of the Illinois capitol, and other city leadership have allegedly been trying to get Obama to pay up for some time now. While they submitted a bill for $68,139 for the August 23, 2008 event, some $55,457 of that has remained unpaid. In early 2010, the city reported they were getting the run-around in their attempt to collect payment.

(Scroll down to watch a report on Obama's unpaid bill.)

"We've spoken to a lot of people and have found a lot of circles," Ken Crutcher, the city's director of the office of budget and management told the Springfield Journal-Register. "We've been kind of bounced from place to place with respect to that particular event."

One alderman at the time, perhaps jokingly, suggested turning the matter over to a collection agency.

Last spring, Edwards told the Associated Press there appeared to be some confusion about whether the Secret Service or the White House was on the hook for the money -- and while he doesn't want to embarrass anyone, his cash-strapped city is, like many other local governments today, just trying to make ends meet.

"Sometimes only the executive himself can cut through such inter-departmental differences of opinion," Edwards said last year of his appeal to the commander in chief.

Edwards told NBC Chicago the bill came up during a recent review of who still owed money to the city. The presidential tab was found amongst a number of unpaid parking tickets and building permits. While the city is not optimistic the White House will pay up, Edwards said they will press on.

"And we go why isn’t this paid," Edwards told NBC. "I mean, it all comes back to common sense. If you are asking for something to be done and you know it cost money, then you ought to be prepared to pay for it. It's that simple."

An Obama for America spokesperson previously said that presidential campaigns are not responsible for security costs of their events.

View more videos at: http://nbcchicago.com.

Comments

[maxmanbrew]

06:22 PM on 02/06/2012

Hey thats some of the jobs he created,,just forgot to pay them,,,,how did the union let them get away with that

[Chomsky Knows]

05:04 PM on 02/06/2012

oh ya? well obama owes 50 million americans health care and an explanation why single-payer was shelved.

[seashele]

05:01 PM on 02/06/2012

Cities make way more in revenue than it costs for security when a politician hosts an event in their town. I have never heard of any campaign paying to bring in a city revenue. Since that is Springfield's policy, it should have been stated in advance and signed on the dotted line. Now if the Obama campaign did agree and signed a contract for the out of the ordinary request to pay to bring hoards of people into their city, by all means, they should have paid it. There are not enough specifics in this article to make a determination as to who is responsible, but the fact that Frank Edwards is a republican, one can only guess he is being stirred to make a scene about this by the powers that be. Anything to cast doubt on the democratic president in an election year, whether true or not, is fair game.

[Romano54]

03:02 PM on 02/07/2012

Please tell us how the city of Chicago benefits when the president and the FL roll into town to host $17,500 dinners and $10,000 photo ops for their contributor friends. If this is such a money maker for the city then the mayor should begin inviting them on a regular basis helping him with his budget crisis. The truth is, aside for a few PR points in the media for city officials, it is nothing more than throwing money to the wind. If there is doubt to be cast, then they will be done by the candidates themselves. Perhaps money is that tight with the campaign that they cant afford to pay the 55K and save the job of one of the laid off Springfied police officers.

[vikramnet]

02:38 PM on 02/06/2012

Well, maybe they can make up the overtime by going down to the "Occupy Springfield" sit-in and pepper-spraying a few protesters.

[AMlegion]

01:13 PM on 02/06/2012

"A Obama for America spokespers­on previously said that presidenti­al campaigns are not responsibl­e for security costs of their events."

So myself and my fellow Americans are responsible for the security. Well we might as well pay for the whole dang thing then.

If they want to campaign, and they want added security. they should friggin pay for it.

[MrOnePercent2012]

11:19 AM on 02/06/2012

It doesn't surprise me Obama is a deadbeat too.

[seashele]

05:05 PM on 02/06/2012

Spoken like a true Fox-watcher. It kills you that President Obama is turning the country around, digging us out of the huge hole Dubya put us in, isn't it? Obama even extended the top 1% tax breaks that are a large reason the deficit is the size it is and you still hate him. Hopefully next time, he won't be so nice to you.

[Romano54]

08:38 PM on 02/06/2012

Still blaming GW? Lets focus on what we've done instead of what the past administration did and the reason we're still in the crapper.

[MWA1111]

11:07 AM on 02/06/2012

"A Obama for America spokesperson previously said that presidential campaigns are not responsible for security costs of their events."

Fine, if that's how they want it, then when BHO is campaigning this fall, I don't want my tax money going to pay for his security.

[MikeBizzle]

05:00 PM on 02/06/2012

Well that settles it! Anonymous internet poster says so!

[MWA1111]

06:50 PM on 02/06/2012

LOL... okay, and what do you do when you come here? Are all your posts actionable items or your opinion... wait there opinions aren't they.

[seashele]

05:08 PM on 02/06/2012

It's any campaign, not just the "BHO" campaign. By the way, do you use McCain's or Palin's middle initial when you are referring to them? Newt? Mitt? Since democrats don't make a huge deal about their middle names, you probably don't even know them.

[MWA1111]

06:52 PM on 02/06/2012

What's your point? I saw plenty of GWB. What difference does it make to you anyway?