Posted on 10/08/2003 10:26:50 PM PDT by 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."
The Clintons set the precedent while they had Janet Reno and other law enforcement under their fascist control. Now these clowns think they can continue this behavior.
Are these FEC members Clinton holdovers?
Are we going to hear these laws should be ignored because "everybody does it'?
Remember how much trouble Newt Ginginch got into for his making a book deal?
Total arrogance.
He should instead keep the money and be required to put out a truthful retraction of his political self-promotion.
"As required by law, I must admit that I am a retired perfumed prince, a political hack general, owned by the Clintons, whose idea of honorable warfare is to bomb civilian targets from 15,000 feet in order to demoralize the populace. Thank you very much, that will be $30,000."
He's a pebble that didn't skip and is now taking a one way trip to the bottom of the pool.
...because Clark is not a Republican.
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.