Soft money follows party loyalty or particular issues, which can indirectly influence a politician’s voting, though there’s no actual pay for play, since the politician can’t legally direct the way the money is spent.
If the monies gained from the gala had gone to the party & not into Hillary’s coffers, it would have been soft money & legal, but then Hillary wouldn’t have been able to direct its use.
“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.