Posted on 02/07/2008 7:25:15 AM PST by jdm
In the beginning, everyone assumed that the Clinton machine would dominate fundraising in the Democratic primary. Although it raised prodigious sums of money, Barack Obama managed to keep pace all through 2007. Now, as Obama has also kept pace with Hillary in delegate counts, the Clinton machine appears to have begun running dry:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton announced yesterday that she had lent her campaign $5 million, a remarkable twist for a candidate who raised more than $100 million last year that came as she and Sen. Barack Obama continued to spar over which of them was the Democratic winner in coast-to-coast Super Tuesday balloting. ...
At her campaign headquarters in Arlington, Clinton defended her maneuver, executed last month but kept under wraps until yesterday, to add money to her campaign coffers. News of the $5 million transfer came as a surprise to Clinton donors who had assumed her campaign, which raised $100 million last year, would keep pace with Obama's. Earlier this month, Obama announced that he had raised $32 million in January alone, and aides said he took in an additional $3.5 million yesterday. ...
It was unclear whether news of Clinton's financial stresses would affect her fundraising. Top fundraisers said they did not learn of her move until after Super Tuesday's contests, suggesting that the campaign was aware it could be a public relations blow.
Hillary raised $13 million in January, much less than half of Obama's total. She now faces the prospect of a tour through Obama's territory with no lead in delegates and a huge gap in financing. The money gap could tamp down her advertising and event staging, leaving a clear field for Obama in Maryland, Virginia, Louisiana, and Nebraska. Even Washington DC and Washington state look grim.
The massive loan may not seem unusual given Mitt Romney's self-funding, but Mitt has plenty of his own money. Where did Hillary get $5 million to loan a presidential campaign? Bill and Hillary have done well on the speaking circuit, and Bill recently got $20 million or so for backing out of his partnership from Ron Burkle. At the time, speculation had Bill wanting to eliminate any potential conflicts between Burkle's business and Hillary's election.
Now, however, one has to wonder whether Burkle may have attempted to float money into Hillary's campaign while bypassing campaign-finance regulations. Did the $20 million, which came just two weeks ago, actually represent a fair-market settlement for Clinton's services and ownership stake in Yucaipa? Or did Burkle inflate it in order to allow Hillary to "loan" herself $5 million to keep pace with a surging Obama campaign?
The Clintons always seem to live at the nexus of questions regarding cash and politics. Whether we talk about Norman Hsu or Ron Burkle, their opacity in financial operations suggests a very, er, flexible attitude towards ethics in government -- and serves as a reminder why so many people oppose a Clinton Restoration.
There are a dozen ways to feed a kickback or bribe to a crook. Ron Burkle is just one of them.
Hooray Ed Morrissey! BUMP-TO-THE-TRUTH!
“In America, anybody can be president. That’s one of the risks you take.” - Adlai Stevenson
This is an example of a sane reason why campaigns should not start a year ahead of tradition. There is only so much money to go around for any campaign. If they blow their stash too early in the process, the remaining money available from contributors is going to be MUCH harder to obtain. Especially in a close race.
A Billion dollar campaign is absolutely absurd for the value the people can expect from the election outcome.
I would hope this lesson will be learned by the political parties, but I doubt it will be learned by the current crop of politicians. More money is not always available to fix things. I hope Hillary has to live within her means as a lesson. Times are hard. Money is tight. Fiscal management is of utmost importance. A free spending campaign is a bad example of how to manage a government responsibly.
A billion dollars ain’t what it used to be.
“A billion dollars ain’t what it used to be.”
I am still looking to make my first million and running out of time.
A wise old man once told me “if you want to make a lot of money, buy a printing press”.
A billion dollars is still an astronomical amount of money to spend on a political campaign. That amount of money could really help places and people that legitimately would appreciate it.
It’s not very much anymore. 1515 average California homes ($660,000 each) equal one billion dollars. A medium sized subdivision.
Used to be a lot, not so much anymore.
Just a little more clarification....."Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady... is a congenital liar. *"William Safire, Blizzard of Lies"
Or......'prevaricator,' which means 'liar,' and 'dissembler,' which also means 'liar.'" Both Clinton's are thoroughly mendacious.....the MSM is pushing both Clintons and John McCain, something doesn't smell just right here................
IT'S COST THE TAXPAYERS $2.3 BILLION TO KEEP HILLARY IN THE SENATE
LA TIMES - To fuel her rise, Clinton has relied on the controversial funding device known as "earmarking." The earmarks enabled her to win favor with important constituents, many of whom provided financial support for her campaigns. . . Since taking office in 2001, Clinton has delivered $500 million worth of earmarks that have specifically benefited 59 corporations. About 64% of those corporations provided funds to her campaigns through donations made by employees, executives, board members or lobbyists, a review by the Los Angeles Times shows.
All told, Clinton has earmarked more than $2.3 billion in federal appropriations for projects in her state since her election to the Senate, much of it for public works projects funded in conjunction with fellow Democratic Sen. Charles E. Schumer and others in the New York congressional delegation.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Anyone notice that the more money spent electing a president, the worse the presidents seem to be?
I think we should demand a refund!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.