“Hard money is under direct control of a candidate, while soft money is not & can not be.”
Thanks for the explanation. I’m not trying to be dense here but this story won’t grow legs unless someone can explain to the average voter how and why this was a crime.
I think the thing that may be causing the confusion is this: what makes the money from that particular gala event “soft” money?
Politicians have these kinds of events all the time, they have $2,000 a plate luncheons and all sorts of events to raise money. To people who don’t understand any of this fund-raising stuff it looks like this event included the same sort of legal fund-raising with Hollyweird types that goes on all the time.
The seed money in this case wasn't soft money, because Hillary's campaign coordinated with those who spent over a million on her behalf & the proceeds went into a fund under her direct control.
Politicians have these kinds of events all the time, they have $2,000 a plate luncheons and all sorts of events to raise money.
Right, they do & the proceeds are hard money if they go into a fund under control of the candidate. The $2000 a pop aren't the problem, the seed monies are. If the funding of the event, the money spent up front comes out of the candidate's fund or if the one who spent the seed money is reimbursed, there's no problem.
The money spent to put Hillary's gala together was a hard money contribution, well over the $2000 limit. Not only was it a hard money expenditure, but Hillary & her campaign were caught working with those doing it on her behalf (proof is in the video).
To people who don’t understand any of this fund-raising stuff it looks like this event included the same sort of legal fund-raising with Hollyweird types that goes on all the time.
The stuff that goes on behind the scenes is what makes the difference between a legal versus illegal contribution.