Hillary Camp: Obama Violating FEC Law
The Clinton campaign is now challenging Barack Obama's ethics and overall consistency on campaign finance reform — not to mention whether he's actually following the law — in light of a new Washington Post report that Obama's previously dormant leadership PAC has resumed making donations to Democratic candidates and committees in the early primary states.
"It is our understanding that a candidate's campaign is barred from using the candidate's leadership PAC to benefit his or her campaign which is why we shut down HillPAC when Senator Clinton announced her run for the White House," reads a Clinton campaign press release. "On the campaign trail, Senator Obama is outspoken about his desire to reform the campaign finance system so it was surprising to learn that he has been using his PAC in a manner that appears to be inconsistent with the prevailing election laws."
The full statement is available after the jump.
11/26/2007Clinton Campaign Responds To New Revelations About Obama Campaign Finance Practices
In response to a report this morning in the Washington Post revealing that Senator Obama’s leadership PAC has given the majority of its campaign contributions to officials and committees in the early nominating states, the Clinton campaign released the following statement:
This morning, we learned that Senator Obama has been using his leadership PAC to give political contributions to officials in the early primary states. In fact, 68 percent of contributions from his PAC have gone to those in states that are scheduled to hold nominating contests on February 5th or earlier.
It is our understanding that a candidate's campaign is barred from using the candidate's leadership PAC to benefit his or her campaign which is why we shut down HillPAC when Senator Clinton announced her run for the White House.
On the campaign trail, Senator Obama is outspoken about his desire to reform the campaign finance system so it was surprising to learn that he has been using his PAC in a manner that appears to be inconsistent with the prevailing election laws. Considering how often Senator Obama talks about his efforts to be transparent, we presume he will answer the following questions regarding the behavior of his PAC:
1. Who decided what contributions would be made by Hopefund?
2. Did any presidential campaign staff, consultants or advisors participate in any discussions about Hopefund contributions? Who?
3. Did the decision-makers know who was endorsing the presidential campaign? If so, how did they find this out?
4. Who told Hopefund which Iowa and New Hampshire candidates and committees should get contributions?
5. Are there any overlapping employees, consultants and advisors between Hopefund and the presidential campaign?
6. The Washington Post article suggests that Hopefund was dormant earlier in the year. Who made the decision to start making contributions again and on what basis was that decision made?
Comments (53)
Michael wrote on November 26, 2007 1:11 PM:Uh, where' that zogby poll showing clinton II trailing all republicans nationally, while obama and edwards lead all republicans nationally?
AlwaysTiptheWaitress wrote on November 26, 2007 1:23 PM:Please. Just how stupid do these people who run campaigns thinks we are? The following article in the Washington POST
(How Big Man In McAllen Bundles Big For Clinton) shows how Senator Clinton peddled political juice for campaign cash. It's more the insult to our intelligence that makes me angry. This made me unhappily remember how often the Clintinistas had to change the sheets in the Lincoln bedroom for their paying guests.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/24/AR2007112401359.html
DTM wrote on November 26, 2007 1:25 PM:Clinton is apparently hoping that Iowans are extremely forgetful:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/28/71610.shtml
john mccutchen wrote on November 26, 2007 1:29 PM:Thar She Blows...
New poll shows Clinton trails top 2008 Republicans
Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups, a drop in support from this summer, according to a poll released on Monday.
Clinton's top Democratic rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards, still lead Republicans in hypothetical match-ups ahead of the November 4, 2008, presidential election, the survey by Zogby Interactive showed.
Clinton, a New York senator who has been at the top of the Democratic pack in national polls in the 2008 race, trails Republican candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mike Huckabee by three to five percentage points in the direct matches.
In July, Clinton narrowly led McCain, an Arizona senator, and held a five-point lead over former New York Mayor Giuliani, a six-point lead over former Tennessee Sen. Thompson and a 10-point lead over former Massachusetts Gov. Romney.
She was not matched against the fast-rising Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, in the July poll.
Keith wrote on November 26, 2007 1:36 PM:Thanks DTM. I just not sure where her campaign thinks this thing leads. I don't think Obama is engaging in a quid pro quo for endorsements--it would be interesting if HRC has any evidence (the article has zero). That being said, I don't think her campaign would want increased focus on promises made/delivered in exchange for her endorsements.
hadenough wrote on November 26, 2007 1:37 PM:So obama thinks pacs are evil unless it's his pac. And obama doesn't take federal lobbyists money but his non-evil pac does. And I just heard federal lobbyist and obama advisor daschle on the radio telling me how honest obama is.
Obama making donations to pols in early states from PAC warchest. HOPEFUND took federal lobbyist money.
HIGHLAND PARK, ILL.—In the last six months, White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) used his HOPEFUND political action committee—which has accepted contributions from federal lobbyists—to make donations to Democrats in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, states with the first presidential votes in January.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/11/sweet_column_obama_making_dona.html
IOIYAO: It's OK If You Are Obama
DRinOH wrote on November 26, 2007 1:45 PM:I have some reservations about the methodology.
"The poll of 9,355 people had a margin of error of plus or minus one percentage point. The interactive poll surveys individuals who have registered to take part in online polls."
Still, any poll that can make the claim that Clinton trails all 5 while Obama and Edwards lead (or tie) all 5 is a big deal and should have a posting any minute now...
paDem wrote on November 26, 2007 1:45 PM:Hey, Eric....
Common practice is to get a comment from the object of the campaign smea---, er, charge and to run it as a counterpoint.
Where's the Obama campaign's answer to the charge here? In teh WaPo article, they at least has the chops to go out and get some quotes from people with direct knowledge.
kjoe wrote on November 26, 2007 1:51 PM:Generally---it is good for obama that Hillary is raising this issue---she might win a point or two on this skirmish---but, overall, this is a very dangerous subject for hillary to get in to with obama, and even Edwards.
Keith wrote on November 26, 2007 1:54 PM:Apparently this isn't new news. Here's an article from the Guardian that sheds some more light on Obama's PAC.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7081378,00.html
"In fact, 68 percent of contributions from his PAC have gone to those in states that are scheduled to hold nominating contests on February 5th or earlier."
As it happens, 2,493 of the 3,511 total elected delegates to the convention will be elected as of February 5th's "Tsunami Tuesday." Guess what percent 2,493 of 3,511 represents? What, do you know - 68% !
I hope somebody (hopefully an independent media watchdog, and not the Obama campaign itself) slams Hillary for this 'mudslinging' and falsely claiming an opponent is violating the law meets everyone's definition of mudslinging - not like pointing out policy differences or changes in a candidates policy.
hadenough wrote on November 26, 2007 2:01 PM:
"Keith wrote on November 26, 2007 1:54 PM:
Apparently this isn't new news."
Why isn't obama's pac that excepts federal lobbyist cash having possible broken campaign laws news?
Michael wrote on November 26, 2007 2:03 PM:Who was it that was commenting in a debate about "mudslinging" from the "republican machine"? Oh, that's right clinton II, the republican, I mean democrat. Anybody but clinton II in 08. No more politics as usual.
Keith wrote on November 26, 2007 2:12 PM:Hadenough: I said it wasn't NEW news. The Guardin article was dated November 16, 2007.
And Obama CREATED the PAC. I'm not sure where you get the idea that federal lobbyist are contributing to it. Even if that is the case, I don't think he's ever argued that he's never taken federal lobbyist money, only that he hasn't done so in this (presidential) campaign.
The importance of the article is that he's spreading the money around, even to those who have endorsed Clinton. You can read into what you like, but I don't think he's breaking the law or engaging in unethical behavior. Now if Clinton has evidence that he's offering these contributions are bribes, then that's a different story. From the story itself, there is ZERO evidence to support that conclusion.
DTM wrote on November 26, 2007 2:30 PM:By the way, obviously to the extent this information is new to us, it isn't new to the FEC, because the Post got all the information in question from the FEC.
So if the FEC has a problem with what this PAC is doing to dispose of its remaining funds, one would hope the FEC would tell them so.
hadenough wrote on November 26, 2007 2:34 PM:Oh, OK. obama's non-evil pac that takes federal lobbyists money and gives it to pols in early primary states is 'old news.' How does that old news fit in with obama's no pac money because anybody that takes evil pac money is evil? Just asking.
"And Obama CREATED the PAC. I'm not sure where you get the idea that federal lobbyist are contributing to it."
From link posted above:
The Obama ban on taking money from these sources is a central theme in his campaign and is featured in his stump speech and political advertising. He is critical of chief rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) for accepting money from federal lobbyists in her campaign.
However, Obama did take money from these sources for his state senate, U.S. House and 2004 U.S. Senate race, his own HOPEFUND political action committee and his 2010 U.S. Senate re-election war chest. The latest report shows he is using money gained from sources he now will not touch to donate to players who could help his presidential bid.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/11/sweet_column_obama_making_dona.html
Here is some really old not new news:
PAC money put to work by Obama
By Alexander Bolton
August 08, 2007
In June, Obama gave $5,000 contributions from his PAC, Hopefund, to every Democratic member of Congress from Iowa and New Hampshire.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pac-money-put-to-work-by-obama-2007-08-08.html
This is so confusing. obama says pac money is evil. Sure he took tons of pac cash himself and federal lobbyist and obama advisor daschle told me today obama is the the new honest abe. And don’t forget at least three federal registered lobbyists bundle cash for obama even though the federal registered lobbyists claim they aren’t lobbyists. So confusing. Somehow, to me, a guy that has his own pac that takes federal lobbyists money then doles it out to candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire all the while accusing others of being in the pocket of pacs and their money sounds like a faking fraud. I don't care what federal lobbyist and obama advisor daschle is telling me.
patchwork wrote on November 26, 2007 2:34 PM:Whoever is running her campaign is beginning to remind me of Karl Rove.
NamelessFaceless wrote on November 26, 2007 2:39 PM:Let's not forget the WaPo article was written by John Soloman, who specializes in suggestive articles against Dems without any actual evidence of wrongdoing.
kjoe wrote on November 26, 2007 2:40 PM:Rove would be competent enough to avoid using an issue where hillary is so much worse than O-----wait a minute----you are correct. That is exactly what Rove would do.
Michael wrote on November 26, 2007 2:42 PM:I heard rove actually was a consultant for clinton II. The king told him to work for her to make sure she got elected so that we will be in Iraq in full force for the next four years.
NamelessFaceless wrote on November 26, 2007 2:43 PM:BTW, HRC so naive and inexperienced to fall for Soloman's trap . . .
brewmn wrote on November 26, 2007 2:45 PM:hadenough, unless you can point out some illegal activity here, you got nuthin'. Except, of course, the tired old song that, because Obama plays the election game by its present rules, rather than unilaterally disarming, he's "abandoning the politics of hope."
By doing everything he can within the law to beat a warmongering, corporatist, triangulating moderate Republican like Hillary Clinton, he is keeping the politics of hope alive for all true progressives.
Steve C wrote on November 26, 2007 2:48 PM:Ugh. This is not good news for Obama, but I'm not sure why the Clinton campaign thought they had to get into it too. Ideally, they'd refrain from piling on a fellow Democrat, and pragmatically, this is the kind of story that will likely get more attention whether they issue a press release or not.
I was beginning to enjoy the developing Giuliani-Romney smackdown--let's try to keep it down over on our side.
Michael wrote on November 26, 2007 2:56 PM:Question, when do people think that the clinton II campaign will give permission to TPM to post the zogby poll that is getting blasted around the internet? It's on the front page of yahoo and is the most popular story on the net. Gee, I wonder when permission will be given.
hadenough wrote on November 26, 2007 3:11 PM:"hadenough, unless you can point out some illegal activity here, you got nuthin'."
What are you talking about? You are ridiculous. Obama’s pac funded by federal lobbyists tosses cash to pols in Iowa and New Hampshire possible violating campaign laws and you say I have to “point out some illegal activity here.” How about this: obama’s pac funded by federal lobbyists tossing out campaign cash to pols in Iowa and New Hampshire possible breaking campaign laws. See the sentence right before this one? That’s what ‘I’ got. Or more to the point that is what obama did. Possible breaking campaign laws.
Wipe the dew outa yer eyes. OK. Did ya do it? Cause if ya didn’t yer not gonna see your buddies hypocrisy in full bloom. It’s really a thing of beauty. While you run around believing in and evangelizing for your one and only true savior he makes a bloody fool out of you. A thing a beauty really. I hope you wiped because if the dew is still in yer eyes you won't know why your candidate railing against pac cash while he... wait for it... doles out his own pac cash is more than nuthin'.
More of your buddy’s hypocrisy in full bloom:
Barack Obama (D)
Total Raised: $78,915,507
Bundlers: 354
Lobbyist Bundlers: 9
http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/candidate.cfm?CandidateID=C0009
Here is a couple I picked out just for you:
Michael B. G. Froman citigroup executive officer
Status for 2008:
Bundler for Barack Obama, raised at least $50,000.00
Mark J. Johnson is a Principal in the U.S. buyout fund at The Carlyle Group focused on opportunities in the telecommunications and media sectors
Status for 2008:
Bundler for Barack Obama, raised at least $50,000.00
Michael,
Can you provide us a link?
DTM wrote on November 26, 2007 3:18 PM:Michael,
I also note that as of writing this, Eric did not see fit to post something about the recently released SurveyUSA Kansas poll, which looked relatively favorable for Obama. Similarly, to my knowledge he never posted on the recent SurveyUSA Oregon poll (also relatively favorable for Obama). And yet he has posted on other SurveyUSA polls in that time.
I know some people don't believe this is the result of bias, but it is certainly an interesting pattern.
kjoe wrote on November 26, 2007 3:23 PM:Sometimes, when the inevitability issue becomes foggy----it can be followed by a brutal failure to match overly hyped expectations.
colonpowwow wrote on November 26, 2007 3:24 PM:Nice dodge by Saint Barry on the substance of the charge. Another candidate might be P-Hillary-ed by the progressiver-than-thous for such tactics.
Keep hope alive.
Obama in 2016!
gujarbhai wrote on November 26, 2007 3:26 PM:Michael or John Mccutchen,
Link??
I don't see any such poll here
on realclearpolitics.com
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
or
pollster.com
http://www.pollster.com/08presidentialprimary.php
Don't know how to do links. If you go to the front page on yahoo, it's there or under the most popular. Also, its on the front page of the zogby international website. Also, if you take 2 and explain to me how to do links, then I can give you the link.
DTM wrote on November 26, 2007 3:32 PM:gujarbhai,
This is the news story at Yahoo!:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071126/pl_nm/usa_politics_poll_dc;_ylt=Ah0a5RyefQ7g5DvCXiG3iAus0NUE
This is the poll itself:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1393
Michael wrote on November 26, 2007 3:34 PM:Thanks DTM. Also, if I recall it took them forever to put up that latest Iowa poll showing obama in the lead. It was all over the news sites for hours before it hit election central. Kind of makes you wonder.
annefrank wrote on November 26, 2007 3:38 PM:>>>In June, Obama gave $5,000 contributions from his PAC, Hopefund, to every Democratic member of Congress from Iowa and New Hampshire. On June 15, he gave to Reps. Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter of New Hampshire, and Reps. Bruce Braley, David Loebsack and Leonard Boswell of Iowa. At the end of the month, he wrote a $5,000 check to Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).
Obama’s wooing paid off last month. On July 26, Hodes became the first lawmaker from Iowa or New Hampshire to make an endorsement in the Democratic primary, throwing his support to Obama.
Hodes said last week that Obama’s rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), and the other Democratic presidential contenders had called him often to seek his endorsement. But Obama had spent the most time on the phone with him.
“I was able to spend a lot of good quality time with a number of candidates during the last election cycle as well as during the primary process,” said Hodes.
But Hodes said Obama’s “approach was more personal … He and I talked on the phone a number of times and kept in touch. He called me more often than the other candidates.”
Hodes said he appreciated Obama’s money contribution to his reelection account, but added, “I’m not for sale. This is not about money for me. This about what I ultimately think is the best thing to do for the country.”
Helloooo! if Hodes isn't for sale, why did he accept Obama's bribe money?
Weren't the sweet phone calls enough?
Good god, even the URLs here are sold out.
The headline of this entry: "Hillary Camp: Obama Violating FEC Law."
The URL? "/hillary_camp_obama_buying_off_supporters"
F***ing pathetic.
DTM wrote on November 26, 2007 3:43 PM:annefrank,
Wouldn't the next logical question be whether all those Democrats endorsed Obama, and whether any of them endorsed anyone else? Because if his PAC gave money to all of them but only some of them supported him, that implies there was no quid pro quo.
Anonymous wrote on November 26, 2007 3:43 PM:DTM,
Thanks for the links. I have not committed to any candidate yet but seriously doubt this poll. Especially Huckbee beating Clinton by that much margin. I have followed polls for some time in 04/06 and now and the trends just don't change that quick unless there is a major misstep made by the campaign. I would wait for few more polls to confirm it.
Finally some years back Zogby used to poll for republicans so I take it with grain of salt.
Jeremy wrote on November 26, 2007 3:44 PM:Wait. Didn't Hillary pay off Vilsack for his endorsement?
http://wonkette.com/politics/tom-vilsack/vilsack-takes-dive-makes-bank-247797.php
She has a lot of nerve lashing out at Obama over this when she's been as blatant as she has been. She should not be accusing our possible nominee of breaking the law when there's no such accusation coming from the FEC.
hadenough wrote on November 26, 2007 3:58 PM:Jeremy,
I’m embarrassed for ya. No really I am. wonkette is a cartoon site. Their heyday was when cox filled her moronic posts with anal innuendos. So its probably not a good place to get your news from.
DTM wrote on November 26, 2007 3:58 PM:Anonymous,
I would be the first to suggest that we should look at aggregations of polls, not individual polls. Moreover, these hypothetical head-to-head polls are simply not predictive of what will ultimately happen once the nominees are settled, they go through the actual general election campaigns (with ads, and debates, and all the rest), and the people vote.
But I know people want to see these polls, and I don't blame TPMEC for linking them. I do wish TPMEC was more responsible in its commentary, and I think Michael was pointing out that TPMEC (and Eric in particular) does not seem to be treating all these polls in the same way.
"Obama’s pac funded by federal lobbyists tosses cash to pols in Iowa and New Hampshire possible violating campaign laws and you say I have to “point out some illegal activity here.”"
I, for one, am waiting for someone other than Hillary and her shills on a blog to conclude illegal activity. You sound like a Republican during the Whitewater "scandal," or Chris Matthews talking about Gore's "fundraising" at a Buddhist temple.
"you won't know why your candidate railing against pac cash while he... wait for it... doles out his own pac cash is more than nuthin'."
You are a joke. What part of playing the game by the rules as they exist don't you understand, nitwit? Apparently you are so gobsmacked by the awesomeness that is Hillary Clinton, I guess you've missed the fact that Obama and Edwards have both raised the issue of public financing of campaigns, while your candidate talks about how lobbyists are regular folks like the rest of us.
brewmn wrote on November 26, 2007 4:22 PM:"I’m embarrassed for ya. No really I am. wonkette is a cartoon site. Their heyday was when cox filled her moronic posts with anal innuendos. So its probably not a good place to get your news from."
why don't you show us where her (Wonkette's) reporting has been debunked on this story? Or, like a good Republican, do you think it's sufficient to smear the source, and avoid the subtance?
RalphB wrote on November 26, 2007 4:30 PM:Man, the OBarry people really do suck the big green one. Bow down to the Obama.
Um, before criticizing the Wonkette link, could you at least read it? It links through to a story on the website of an Iowa TV station. http://www.kcci.com/politics/11407584/detail.html?rss=des&psp=news
Of course, according to the article "The [Clinton] campaign said there is no connection between Vilsack's endorsement and their commitment to help pay off his [$700,000] campaign debt."
And as I noted above, the 'evidence' presented by the Clinton campaign in this current charge is that Obama has spread 68% of his PAC money to "early primary states" but as it turns out, due to the messed up primary schedule this season, 68% of states are early primary states.
Hillary is obviously pannicking at the WaPo/ABC poll from last week showing her trailing in Iowa.
"brewmn wrote on November 26, 2007 4:22 PM:
why don't you show us where her (Wonkette's) reporting has been debunked on this story? Or, like a good Republican, do you think it's sufficient to smear the source, and avoid the subtance?"
That's right, you don't know where her (Wonkette's) [actually his] reporting has been debunked on this story and you won't even though I'm gonna show you:
Before ending his presidential bid on Feb. 23, Mr. Vilsack had accumulated a debt of about $430,000. The Clinton campaign has agreed to help erase at least some of that debt. A fund-raising appeal on his behalf could be landing in mailboxes of her donors soon.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/26/the-vilsack-clinton-connection/
wonkette:
"Sen. Clinton To Pay Off Vilsack's Campaign Debt"
Is sending out a fundraising letter for someone paying off their debt? You will say yes, humans not so much. Vilsack is a big time dem. Other dems will help him out. Happens all the time. Just this time you think you can trash a potential dem candidate for prez with it.
votenic wrote on November 26, 2007 7:15 PM:2008 Presidential Candidate Weekly Poll
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening.
hadenough,
But that is no different than Obama's PAC giving out its remaining funds to all these Democrats: before he was a candidate, Obama asked people to donate that money for the express purpose of helping his fellow Democrats win elections. So the money in question--which was apparently collected back then--is just going to that purpose.
Moreover, in the case of Obama's PAC it appears the money often is being given to Democrats who do not support him, including some who actually support Clinton. Whether or not there is a quid pro quo in the Vilsack case, it is certainly the case that Clinton is fundraising on Vilsack's behalf while knowing he supports her candidacy.
In the end, I personally would not make too much of the Vilsack situation precisely because it is very normal for politicians to fundraise for each other, and I am aware of no reason to believe Vilsack made Clinton fundraising for him a condition of supporting her. But in light of that background, I do think it is extremely odd for Clinton to be criticizing Obama's PAC for giving out its remaining money to Democrats (including some of her own supporters).
brewmn wrote on November 26, 2007 8:50 PM:"Vilsack is a big time dem. Other dems will help him out. Happens all the time. Just this time you think you can trash a potential dem candidate for prez with it."
Then you should have no problem with Obama "helping out" other Dems through his PAC. And you should likewise be offended that Hillary is trashing Obama for it. But, I guess in bizarro world, it's only objectionable if someone other than Hillary does it.
"brewmn wrote on November 26, 2007 8:50 PM: Then you should have no problem with Obama "helping out" other Dems through his PAC."
obama 'helping out':
In June, Obama gave $5,000 contributions from his PAC, Hopefund, to every Democratic member of Congress from Iowa and New Hampshire.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pac-money-put-to-work-by-obama-2007-08-08.html
Humans will see a difference between a dem in debt from running a campaign and a slickster greasing palms to try to win a campaign. You not so much.
DTM wrote on November 26, 2007 9:51 PM:hadenough,
Think that through. If every Democratic member of Congress from Iowa and New Hampshire got the same amount, then obviously the PAC did not require the recipients to be Obama supporters.
Southpaw wrote on November 26, 2007 10:52 PM:I will hopefully respond more fully to this ridiculous HRC attack later. However, as a threshold matter, it is important to point out that the statement that "68 percent" of Obama's leadership PAC money has been donated to candidates in states with February 5th primaries or earlier is misleading, at best, and downright willfully dishonest at worst. It's the worst kind of lie, the kind grounded in truth, but leaving out other bits of information that the speaker counts on the majority of the public not being informed about. Specifically, February 5th is SUPER TUESDAY. Including the primaries on this date, 2483 of the party's 4340 some-odd delegates -- that is, 57 PERCENT of them -- are up for grabs by that date. Of course, the statement that he's spending 68 percent of his leadership PAC money on states which make up 57 percent of the delegates... that doesn't sound too remarkable, does it?
Wait, it gets better. Of the post-February 5th primaries, included are the 37 delegates of American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, among others, none of whom have voting congressman to make donations to! Then there's the 58 delegates from Puerto Rico, who has but a single, well-entrenched Republican congressman. Then factor in that Texas and Massachusetts are among these late primary states, neither of which has a bevy of competitive districts in need of campaign cash (particularly Texas, after the state legislature's gerrymandering). All in all, the 68 percent number looks quite proportional.
As for the supposedly questionable legality of continuing to operate one's leadership PAC while running for president, I will have to save this for a future post, but suffice it to say, there is nothing ANYWHERE saying that this is illegal, or in violation of existing campaign finance laws. Of course these laws are abysmal, of course the FEC's enforcement of them (let alone propensity to give authoritative guidance on the contours of them) is feckless, at best, and of course a new system is needed (preferably one involving complete public financing of all federal elections, coupled with FCC powers being used to obtain highly affordable, if not free, airtime from TV networks). But until then, candidates who continue to operate under the current regulatory framework AND DO SO CLEARLY WITHIN THE LINES (as Obama has done here) do not deserve our criticism. And they most certainly do not deserve criticism from the likes of Hillary and her camp. Not when Obama has *himself* refused to accept money from federal PACs of any kind (including corporate ones), while Hillary has accepted federal corporate PAC money in RECORD AMOUNTS.
Let's just call this what it is. "They're attacking me because I'm winning." Isn't that what you said a few weeks ago, Hill? Right on.
"DTM wrote on November 26, 2007 9:51 PM:
hadenough,
Think that through."
Right back at ya. Why is the candidate that says pacs are evil and he won't take federal lobbyists money using his pac to spread around money he got from federal lobbyists? There is a thought for ya huh.
hadenough,
First, as an aside I haven't seen any evidence the PAC was taking money from federal lobbyists.
Second, I actually don't think it matters. Obama pledged not to take federal lobbyist contributions for his own presidential campaign, and of course these contributions did not go to his own campaign.
He did not, however, call on all other Democrats across the country running for election or reelection to do the same, and in fact it would be darn foolish for the Democrats to make such a blanket pledge in light of the current campaign finance situation. So if the PAC was in fact distributing some federal lobbyist funds to other Democrats, I don't see that as inconsistent with Obama's pledge.
Indeed, again I would suggest you think this through a little. Suppose rather than giving money directly to particular candidates, a federal lobbyist gives those funds in a lump sum to a leadership PAC. The leadership PAC then distributes those lumped funds to particular candidates as it sees fit. That is obviously a preferable system, because it minimizes the chance that the federal lobbyist in question could be requiring any sort of quid pro quo for these contributions.
Which, by the way, is why I suspect if there was any federal lobbyist money contributed to the PAC, it wasn't a large part of the pool: it just wouldn't make sense for lobbyists to give up control of their contributions in that way.
