Media thinks it's a scandal that Trump campaign tends to contract with Trump businesses

First of all, when I say the media think something is a scandal - even though no one is using the word "scandal" - here's why I say it. You will see headlines and stories about things that seem quite unremarkable. Candidate contracts with vendor for services. Person uses certain word. Public official makes comment about this or that. The reporting may appear very matter-of-fact, but what you have to look at is the news judgment that led the media to mention it at all. For instance, we told you earlier in the week about a New York Times story that mentions a Republican congressman quoting from Scripture on the House floor, then informs you that "he has not apologized." Factual, sure, but why mention that he has not apologized unless you think there's some reason he should? This is how they do bias these days, by carefully picking their facts to support their preconceived notions.

---

So when the media treats something as a major news story that, on the merits, appears to be a fairly mundane matter of campaign management, you can bet that they either see it as a scandal or hope you will. And so it is with their shocking revelation that the Trump campaign is spending about 17 percent of its campaign expenses on Trump-owned businesses. Shocking! At least if you're a media person who has no idea how or why successful people do the things they do. CNN "reports":

And it shows in his latest campaign finance report, filed Monday: Trump-linked businesses account for 17% of all campaign expenses to date. He's paid almost $11 million to Trump organizations since launching his campaign a year ago. The setup shows how unusual Trump's campaign is -- presidential candidates generally don't own buildings or resorts in multiple states or companies that could be used as contractors. He's paid $420,000 to Mar-a-Lago, the private Florida club where Trump has led many an Election Night celebration, and $4.6 million to TAG Air, so he can use his private jets. Even about $5,000 to Eric Trump Winery Manufacturing LLC, the Virginia producer owned by his son. That spending has created fodder for Hillary Clinton. What Trump is doing is legal: He is required to pay fair market value for the goods and services enjoyed by his campaign -- otherwise, they would have to be considered in-kind contributions. For those items, Trump would be, essentially, donating them to himself. Yet every time Trump uses one of his planes to drop in on hangars in swing states, his official campaign will be funneling dollars back to a Trump-backed entity.

---

---

Sneaky little application of bias

Here again is a sneaky little application of bias. Why mention that it's legal if not for your intended implication that it's fishy or untoward? But back to the fact itself: Trump campaign contracts for services with Trump businesses? This is the media's new Trump scandal? This? One of the things successful businesses do all the time is develop relationship with trusted providers of services, and rely on those providers to take care of them when it's most important. Only governments and highly bureaucratic organizations constantly go out for sealed bids on projects and always choose the lowest bidder. Smart businesses know that's a waste of time. Of course you vet potential providers of a service when you don't already have one. But once you've got one, you trust that vendor and don't waste your time working with all kinds of other ones just to save a dollar here or there. It makes perfect sense that Trump's campaign would be comfortable working with Trump-owned businesses. There would be no question of loyalty. There would be a familiarity both with the candidate and with the team's perfered way of doing things. And as the story points out, it's not even legal for the campaign to hire out the work for less than fair market value. So Trump might want his companies to contribute the work for free, but they're not actually allowed to do that. Might Trump profit from the campaign? I don't know. Who cares if he does? Where do these slugs get the idea that the only virtuous people worthy of service the public are those who take a bath on the effort to do so. If Trump's campaign wants to work with Trump businesses, and the result is that Donald Trump makes money - someone is going to make money. Why should it be someone else that Trump trusts less than his own people. You can argue that the problem here is the "optics" and that it just "looks bad." If a perfectly logical business strategy "looks bad" to people because the person making the decisions might benefit, then the people who think that are idiots and they are the problem. As are the media people feeding their nonsense ideas.

---