Clark May Have Broken Law in Paid Speeches. (Barracks Emporer Alert!!)

Washington Post ^ | Wednesday, October 8, 2003; | By Jim VandeHei

[.cnI redruM]

Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark may have violated federal election laws by discussing his presidential campaign during recent paid appearances, according to campaign finance experts. Clark, a newcomer to presidential politics, touted his candidacy during paid appearances at DePauw University in Indiana and other campuses after he entered the presidential race on Sept. 17.

[.cnI redruM]

The Barracks Emporer treats our election laws like they were a Chinese embassy or something. He has now met the Gray Davis standard for Democratic Party morals and ethics.

[Support Free Republic]

These Guys Don't Want You To Donate!
	Tick them off! Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[JohnGalt]

It does sound like a stupid law.

[tbpiper]

It does sound like a stupid law.

So he broke a 'stupid' law. How stupid does that make Clark?

[finnman69]

May have broken the law? It seems pretty obvious he did.

[Galtoid]

Could this be why his campaign manager just quit?

[GOPyouth]

I've been very curious as to whether these speeches were breaking the law. Clark is supposed to do a paid speech at my school here within the week in Texas. It's a state school, and I've not been too happy with state money going to pay for a presidential candidate to speak.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Laws are different for Democrats. They campaign in black churches without danger to the tax exempt status of the church. They break campaign finance laws and when caught demand that the law be made stronger, as if the law were at fault rather than them.

We have to just get over it. They get a free ride and we are held not only to the letter of the law but must avoid even the appearance of wrong doing.

[.cnI redruM]

They just 'interpret' laws differently.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

They just 'interpret' laws differently.

Yes, they do. In fact, to them, English is a living language, capable of meaning whatever they want it to mean.

[.cnI redruM]

They take Seminars in it at The George Orwell Academy of Litigeous Prevarication. Where lies are truth, good is evil and ignorance is strength.

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

There is a valid REASON for this law. Otherwise, candidates would be able to go out on paid speeches and use the funds as campaign contributions.

[.cnI redruM]

Keep in mind what Socrates said in The Crito about obeying seemingly meaningless laws.

[JohnGalt]

So?

[JohnGalt]

That's a fair point, however, fewer campaign finance laws is a general goal for conservatives, and we all know that nothing is going to happen to Clark for (seemingly) breaking this particular law.

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

There is a LOT of latitude for misuse when it comes to candidates accepting paid speech money. It's somewhere between "hard" and "soft" contributions. The area is VERY gray and fraught with potential scams, abuse, etc.

[.cnI redruM]

True. The enforcement of most of these laws is touchy. Think of a whole sink full of dirty pans looking for a pot to call black.

[JohnGalt]

All the more reason to eliminate these tedious campaign finance laws that clearly are not doing any good.

[JohnGalt]

I'd settle for one campaign finance law and its vigorous enforcement, "no foreign contributions", but nobody seems to enforce that one either.

[grania]

Laws are different for Democrats.

Is he a Democrat? Remember the debate a few weeks ago, where the first question was to ask Clark if he was a Democrat? Well, it turns out (someone did some digging, Business Week I think), and he hadn't bothered to register in the Democratic Party at that point. How the heck did he even get in the debate? How could Clark possibly be that stupid and/or arrogant?