The GOP approach to "Party discipline"?

From Tucker Carlson's The Daily Caller, a fascinating story about the RNC's expenses:

Once on the ground, FEC filings suggest, Steele travels in style. A February RNC trip to California, for example, included a $9,099 stop at the Beverly Hills Hotel, $6,596 dropped at the nearby Four Seasons, and $1,620.71 spent [update: the amount is actually $1,946.25] at Voyeur West Hollywood, a bondage-themed nightclub featuring topless women dancers imitating lesbian sex.

RNC trips to other cities produced bills from a long list of chic and costly hotels such as the Venetian and the M Resort in Las Vegas, and the W (for a total of $19,443) in Washington. A midwinter trip to Hawaii cost the RNC $43,828, not including airfare.

It turns out the individual who submitted the charges was a political consultant:

Washington (CNN) – A California-based political consultant who charged the Republican National Committee nearly $2,000 for a night out at Voyeur - a risque West Hollywood nightclub now at center of the latest controversy surrounding RNC chairman Michael Steele - will return the money to the party, a committee spokesman told CNN Monday.

Erik Brown, president of the Orange County-based Dynamic Marketing, Inc., was re-imbursed in February for $1,946.25 worth of charges at the nightclub, according to the RNC's latest filing with the Federal Election Commission.

It's not clear why the RNC re-imbursed Brown for the charges or who else was with him at the club. A spokesman for the RNC said Steele was not at the club when the charges were made.

The RNC said Brown is returning the money in question to the RNC. "The committee has received a commitment that the money will be returned," the spokesman told CNN.

That is a puzzle. But actually, the other expenses should be more of a concern to the GOP. I might be politically naive, but lavish expenses just before 2010 elections in a year when donations might be kind of down doesn't make sense. I've heard that spending money attracts money, but it doesn't seem to fit with "fiscally responsible" messaging.

Although I could just be concern-trolling. Or snarking, or something.

(I'm a little surprised that I'm using the Daily Caller as a source already.)