Oklahoma House Candidate Lists Online Porn in Campaign Expense Report

[GMDino]

https://www.thelostogle.com/2017/09/28/oklahoma-house-candidate-lists-online-porn-in-campaign-expense-report/

Quote:

The guy pictured above is Jason Reese. He’s a Republican running for State House District 83.


From what I can tell, Jason has all the qualifications you’d look for in an Oklahoma conservative political candidate. He’s a former lawyer for the Oklahoma GOP. He has the support of the local ruling class. He writes blog postings for the OCPA. And most importantly, he’s a fan of good old-fashioned BDSM internet pornography!


Well, at least he is according to a general expenditures form he filed with the Oklahoma Ethics Commission. We acquired it via the Ogle Mole Network. Check it out:


That’s crazy! Had I known online porn viewing was a legitimate campaign expense, I would have run for public office long time ago!


For research purposes, I opened the Incognito browser and googled “Hotwife Chloe Needs To Be Punished.” Here’s the safest image I could find:


https://www.thelostogle.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/chloe-575x283.jpg


Since I’m not in the mood to be blacklisted by Google, I’m going to hold off on linking to the video. It’s not hard to find. If you have any troubles, just ask your local Oklahoma lawmaker. I’m sure they’ll gladly help you.


I stopped by Jason’s house last night to get a comment and ask him why a “New Sensations” online porn title appeared on his expense report. When I knocked on the door, he yelled a very rushed “Just a minute! Don’t come in. One sec!”


Actually, I’m joking. We did not contact Jason or go to his house. Why waste everyone’s time when you know he’s going to pull a Ted Cruz and blame it all on a staffer?


Anyway, you can view the entire report on the Ethics Commission website. The title appears in both the initial and revised second-quarter filing. If you know of any other lawmakers who are trying to expense porn for their campaign, send us an email.
===
Update: I was right!

Quote:Jason Reese
on Thursday
Earlier today a blog site posted a story claiming my most recent campaign ethics report listed a questionable transaction that appeared to be associated with a transaction concerning illicit material.
To be abundantly clear, no campaign funds were spent on any such material whatsoever, and I knew nothing about this matter until I read the blog.
After thoroughly investigating the issue with our campaign team, we have determined that the listing was human error on the part of ...
See More

[url=https://www.facebook.com/ReeseStateHouse/posts/1928414284037561][/url]

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

I'd refuse to vote for him on the simple principle of: "Who the hell pays for porn anymore?" Lol

[GMDino]

(09-30-2017, 10:24 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I'd refuse to vote for him on the simple principle of: "Who the hell pays for porn anymore?" Lol

[*michaelsean*]

What Leonard said, and I really hope claiming was a mistake. Nobody would really do that on purpose. Right?

[Benton]

Looks like some kind of mistake. All the other similar charges list another company.

[Benton]

http://www.kswo.com/story/36476315/porn-video-title-listed-on-oklahoma-candidates-report

[GMDino]

(10-01-2017, 11:55 AM)Benton Wrote: Looks like some kind of mistake. All the other similar charges list another company.

https://anedot.com/

They are a company for processing credit card fees.  

Quote:Anedot provides the technical expertise so you can focus on relationships

Whether you are a political campaign, non-profit, university, religious organization or other cause, we've hand-crafted Anedot to be simple to setup and easy to use in minutes.

Maybe someone made a donation and listed that?  All the others just say transaction fee though.

[Benton]

(10-01-2017, 11:58 AM)GMDino Wrote: https://anedot.com/

They are a company for processing credit card fees.  



Maybe someone made a donation and listed that?  All the others just say transaction fee though.

Supposedly it was an error by his accountant who copied and pasted incorrectly. Still a funny story, but I think he's the victim of a typo.

[*Nately120*]

(09-30-2017, 10:24 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I'd refuse to vote for him on the simple principle of: "Who the hell pays for porn anymore?" Lol

The taxpayers, I guess.