Wesley Clark Will Return Payments From Speeches

AP ^ | October 8, 2003

[Shermy]

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark's campaign said Wednesday night that he will return payments he has received for speeches since declaring his candidacy and will no longer speak for money.

Clark spokesman Mark Fabiani issued a statement that said Clark's advisers reviewed federal guidelines and determined that his paid speeches were appropriate. "Nevertheless, to avoid any distraction from the real issues that matter to Americans, General Clark has decided to return the payments from these speeches," the statement said.

Kym Spell, a Clark spokeswoman, said she did not know how much money was involved.

CSpell said she did not know how much money was involved.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Clark discussed his candidacy during paid speeches on college campuses after he entered the race three weeks ago. Campaign finance laws prohibit candidates from accepting payment from corporations, labor unions, individuals or universities for campaign-related events.

Federal Election Commission spokesman Bob Biersack said it was not clear whether Clark did anything wrong. Unresolved are several questions, including whether the speeches were in connection with a federal election and who paid for them, said Biersack, who added that the commission hasn't been asked to review the matter.

Fabiani said Clark, a retired four-star Army general, has been giving paid speeches on foreign policy and leadership for the past four years. Fabiani said that since he has declared his presidential candidacy, he has fulfilled his existing obligations but accepted no additional commitments.

Before Clark made the decision, Democratic rival Joe Lieberman had said he was troubled about the speeches and said Clark should clear it up quickly.

Lieberman, campaigning in Phoenix on the eve of a Democratic presidential debate, also criticized Clark Wednesday for a changing stance on the U.S.-led war against Iraq.

Initially, Clark told reporters he probably would have voted for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, then backtracked a day later, calling the invasion "a major blunder" that he never would have supported.

Lieberman, a Connecticut senator and strong backer of the war, said, "I think that when you are asking the American people to support you for president you have to be able to take a clear position for what you think is right for the country and stick with it, have the guts to stick with it."

Spell said Clark was answering hypothetical questions when he said he probably would have voted for the resolution, but he is clearly an opponent of the war.

"Anyone who's seen General Clark on television the last year or has read his book knows where he stands on the war," she said. "It's unfortunate that Senator Lieberman is choosing to ignore all that and focusing on one day's news story."

[Fledermaus]

Typical Democrat...oops, I'm caught.

[Chummy]

Sure, but does he still own the cap from Ratko Mladic?

[Support Free Republic]

Hi mom!

[Shermy]

Spell said Clark was answering hypothetical questions when he said he probably would have voted for the resolution, but he is clearly an opponent of the war.

I'm glad that's cleared up.

"Anyone who's seen General Clark on television the last year or has read his book knows where he stands on the war," she said. "It's unfortunate that Senator Lieberman is choosing to ignore all that and focusing on one day's news story."

Oh, now I understand. Message: it only matters what he says in his scripted book and television photo-ops.

[1rudeboy]

Gosh, it's so good to hear that Fabiani said it's appropriate. I'm convinced, just like this AP writer [/sarc].

[JennysCool]

Guess he's sticking to that "Money back if not delighted" pledge.

[Shermy]

SpeechGate!

[Chummy]

"Anyone who's seen General Clark on television the last year or has read his book knows where he stands on the war..."

Would that be the book on his theory of time travel? Or the book on snuggling up to UN-indicted war criminals?

[faithincowboys]

Too late. Ashley Wilkes can't even campaign (for three weeks) within the rules, and he has the audacity to suggest that he should be President. He can't campaign competently or lawfully, but he is the one to fix Iraq? The Rats are in trouble.

[Shermy]

Yo Dudes!

[Chummy]

Yes, that's the cap!

And that's the UN-indicted war criminal standing beside the smiling future Democrat Party Prez candidate........

[Consort]

Dishonoraria

[Shermy]

Aw, he was just "networking."

[weegee]

Typical Democrat...oops, I'm caught.

BUMP

At least he gave this money back BEFORE the election. The Rats gave back the illegal Chinese Communists' contributions AFTER the election (consider it a loan).

[adam_az]

Sure, but does he still own the cap from Ratko Mladic?

I'm sure it's too late by now to return the Plum Brandy.

[GeronL]

He should stand his gound and go to jail, imagine the publicity!

[GOPyouth]

Hopefully this holds true for the speech at my college at the end of this month. Tomorrow's paper quoted the school today saying they were assured the speech was still on. This was before this story hit about him canceling the speeches.

[GeronL]

How could his handlers not know it was illegal to be paid for these speeches?

[Squantos]

Bank robber returns money, all is forgiven........how nice for his kind...........