I'm not really sure that an offer to retire Hillary Clinton's campaign debts would have a ton of appeal to Clinton. It seems to me that once she's out of the presidential race, she'll still be a fairly influential U.S. Senator who shouldn't have much trouble raising funds from folks looking to curry favor with her, and she's unlikely to face a serious 2012 challenge so her re-election fundraising can just go to pay off presidential campaign debt.
« New York and D'Antoni | Main | Meter »
Campaign Debts
09 May 2008 11:42 am
Comments (33)
I also don't think that the 1.5 million contributors to Obama's campaign intended their monies to go towards bailing out Clinton's failed and ugly race for the nomination.
Especially since his "base", which are the eggheads and the African Americans (whose votes don't matter, evidentially), have been severely dissed and discounted by her and her surrogates.
I say let her spin in the wind.
She's unlikely to face a serious 2012 challenge so her re-election fundraising can just go to pay off presidential campaign debt.
There's no way that's legal, right? Aren't the Presidential campaign and Senate campaign separate legal entities?
Matt, it doesn't work that way. According to campaign finance rules any outstanding debt has to be taken care of by the convention. From Slate:
Debt retirement gets a little more complicated when candidates lend their own money to their campaign. After an election is over, any campaign contributions that go toward repaying the candidate's own loans serve, in practice, as money directly into a politician's pocket. As a result, campaign law (PDF) now limits to $250,000 the amount a campaign committee can repay the candidate after the election. In the case of the Democratic primary, the election will end when a nominee is selected in Denver. So unless Clinton is able to raise enough money to pay herself back by then, she'll have to write off millions of dollars she lent to her campaign.So I say if Obama wants to give Hillary Clinton a million dollar carrot to concede in early June, it's money well spent versus Clinton dragging it out until Denver.
"So I say if Obama wants to give Hillary Clinton a million dollar carrot to concede in early June, it's money well spent versus Clinton dragging it out until Denver."
Tempting, but the difficulty is that the Clintons can't be trusted to keep to the terms of any deal. I could see here taking money now, then continuing to make trouble for him into the convention by arguing for some new interpretation of the rules. After the way they've run this campaign, they have no credibility left.
The problem is it wouldn't be a $1 million carrot...it would have to be a $10 million + carrot given how much she's in the hole, and how much she owes herself. I'd be cool with 1 or 2 mill, but anything more and he's pissing on his small donor base.
This would be Bear Stearns all over again. Why should honest dollars go to bail out those who can't properly manage money? I would not be opposed to Obama paying some of those small vendors that have been screwed over by the Clintons, but even that is not really his problem - though it would do a lot to strengthen his bond with working-class people (by saying this, I'm not implying that he doesn't have their support already, as some candidates are apt to do).
As much as I'd like to contribute to Obama, I absolutely will not do so unless I know that none of the money will go to HRC's campaign. IF he decides to pay her off, I'm keeping my checkbook closed until her debt is fully retired.
Clinton rules apply in all things.
The Clintons (and their close associates) are subject to more scrutiny and more criticism than other politicians who engage in the same behavior. Thus, it would be a terrible idea, politically speaking, for the Obama campaign to make any sort of financial arrangement with Clinton as part of a deal to get her to stop campaigning. The media would scream about the Clintons demanding a payoff and Obama caving in. It would probably be a deathblow to the Obama campaign because of the media firestorm it would ignite.
Plus, the Clintons are loaded. And it's easy for Bill to make a bunch of money giving speeches. Good for them, by the way. Being our first middle class first family since, what Truman? they deserve what they've got. But they really don't need any handouts from the Obama campaign.
As far as I know this idea is only being floated among the pundit class. I haven't heard that anyone in the Obama or Clinton camps is considering such a deal.
David W. - Thanks for that tidbit. I however would not be surprised if the Clintons did not have a wink-and-a-nod deal with some of their many billionaire buddies who will repay them later through some boondoggle business deals with Bill or more speeches or something.
As for MY's claim that she will not likely face stiff opposition in her 2012 senate run, I suspect he may be exaggerating that case. Obama has polled ahead of her in NY for months now. I sincerely believe that there is an undercurrent within NY to knock her out of politics right now, because her hillbilly routine must look silly to New Yorkers right now.
"I would not be opposed to Obama paying some of those small vendors that have been screwed over by the Clintons..."
Right on. The deli owners, coffee people, event venue owners and the like are a different story than the Mark Penn's and the media types. That would be good PR.
Because of the $250K limit, the campaign will stay open until Denver. If she's smart she'll "suspend" the campaign and simply run fund raisers. She should pay off her staff and vendors first and then start on her $11M. loan. If she acts like the prick she is and takes first dibs there will be serious opposition to her in 2012. Shit. I'll run against the witch.
Bubba, the question is how many of those unhappy New Yorkers are going to be fanatical enough to hold on to the grudge for four years, which is an eternity in politics. She'll have remade herself once or twice more by then.
There's also no one of her stature in NY politics to knock her off her perch. She's one of the queens of pork in the senate, and the federal money buys a lot of local votes.
I think we'll have a turn of the cycle in 2012. I think Vito Fossella will be rested and ready to go after Hillary. And his kid will be in school by then.
eh, if Obama trades a concession speech from Hillary for the cash, I think it would be worthwhile. Unless Obama thinks he would rather spend that money attacking McCain. But you could easily imagine him spending 10M between now and the convention just making sure he's still fending off Clinton. And I really doubt it would be a big media deal. But a deal takes both sides agreeing, and it's not a slam-dunk for either side, so I doubt it will happen.
What's interesting is that one of Hillary's wealthy supporters , Harvey Weinstein of Miramax , has been threatening Nancy Pelosi:
---------
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Hillary Clinton supporter Harvey Weinstein threatened to cut off contributions to congressional Democrats unless House Speaker Nancy Pelosi embraced his plan to finance revotes in Florida and Michigan, three officials familiar with their conversation said.
Sources say Harvey Weinstein threatened to cut contributions to congressional Democrats.
Weinstein and Pelosi talked on the phone late last month, the sources said.
The three officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about the conversation.
They said Weinstein, a top supporter of Clinton's presidential campaign, appeared determined to buy Clinton more time in her battle against Sen. Barack Obama by pushing for the revote. He was also pressing Pelosi to back off her previous comments that superdelegates should support the candidate who's leading in pledged delegates in early June, the sources said."
---------
http://premium.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/08/weinstein.pelosi/index.html
Ha ha ha.
Read 'em and weep, Rubes.
The fight for VOTERS in the Democratic Party is always a sideshow to the fight for MONEY.
Hillary's still in because her wealthy backers think they can BUY enough superdelegates for her. After all, most of those superdelegates need money for their own Congressional campaigns.
Harvey chipped in about $38,000 to the DSCC and DNC in past few months. Which is admittedly, week old chopped liver with rancid onions in this league. But Harvey ain't had a hit in the movie biz in ,oh, 10 years so everyone understands. Except Nancy, maybe.
However, it does illustrate why 280? superdelegates are still holding back.
This idea of "waiting to see the will of the voters " is bullshit. They're
Waiting to see if Obama or Hillary's wealthy supporters want to make them an offer.
Going once, Going twice ...
I think that Intrade --as a public service -- should post a spot price for the market value of a superdelegate vote. Take the money spent by the campaigns to date and divide it by the number of pledged delegates gained so far to get number dollars spent per vote.
As you get down to the wire, of course, that paradigm no longer holds. The spot price then becomes the amount of money spent to date (and hence, subject to loss if one loses the nomination) divided by the number of delegates needed to win.
When you get to the point where Obama or Hillary only need FIVE more votes, then each of those votes become very valuable indeed.
There's also no one of her stature in NY politics to knock her off her perch. She's one of the queens of pork in the senate, and the federal money buys a lot of local votes. Posted by Rid | May 9, 2008 1:20 PMThat may be the only reason why she would be able to hold on to her seat. Dem politics in NY right now is a shambles. That may just bode well however for a Rep challenger in 2012 because there is nothing to indicate that things will get better politically for Dems over the next 4 years. With Paterson the standard bearer of the party, I suspect that Dems may just be vulnerable in NY in the next couple cycles. Particularly if a competent Rep is able to mount a challenge. But a competent Rep in NY may just be as oxymoronic as a competent Dem.
Don't be naive. If Obama pays off their debts, then that's money they don't have to raise. Don't forget that Bill had to make a bunch of appearances just to pay off his lawyers from the impeachment freak show.
Superdelegate Steve Ybarra thinks the current market price for his vote is $20 Million:
--------------
"LOS ANGELES - What will it take for a Democratic presidential candidate to win the support of California superdelegate Steven Ybarra?
Say, $20 million.
The Democratic National Committee member doesn't parse his words when it comes to what he wants from Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton — an ironclad promise to spend that heady amount to register Mexican-American voters and get them to the polls in November.
In a telephone interview Wednesday, he said he plans to remain undecided in the tight contest until "someone shows me the money."
When will he settle on a candidate?
"Nobody showed me any money yet," he said."
-----------
Hey, eltoro, this one's for you to handle.
If it was up to me, I'd deport his ass to the worst shithole in Mexico I could find.
Matt, I can assure you that Hillary will have a serious challenge to her Senate seat in 2012. She has so alienated us New Yorkers (and really hasn't done that much for us), I am already set to write a check to a serious challenger to her then. I am a life-long Democrat, and I am through making apologies for the Clintons (our version of the Bushes), and want to get rid of her as my Senator, ASAP.
By contrast, Obama's campaign expenditures to date have been around $189 Million for roughly 1800 delegates. Which works out to roughly
$100,000 per vote.
That's CHEAP. That's devilishly cheap.
On to Kentucky. Going rate there, as I recall, is a pint of Old Crow bourbon. But that's just at the grassroots level. A lifetime sinecure as a judge is coin of the realm in Louisville, i believe.
On to Kentucky. Going rate there, as I recall, is a pint of Old Crow bourbon. But that's just at the grassroots level. A lifetime sinecure as a judge is coin of the realm in Louisville, i believe.
Never been to Kentucky, eh?
Re Jeffrey Davis's comment "Never been to Kentucky, eh?"
---------------
Family's only lived there for 200 years. William Williams moved to Floyd County --later Pike County --circa 1812. He and his wife, Polly, are listed in the "Pioneer Families of Eastern Kentucky" -- the redneck's version of the Domesday Book.
My father moved a few miles east across the state line into Virginia, because he had a perverse taste for foreign travel.
What the hell is everyon e talking about Obama campaign paying off Hillary's debt? Let's get this straight. Her campaign is not really in any debt, or if so, it's next to nothing.
"[A]t the end of February, Mrs. Clinton owed $8.7 million to campaign vendors. The month earlier, she had lent her campaign $5 million. While she has $33.2 million in cash on hand, only $11.7 million can be used for her primary effort, with the rest set aside, by federal regulations, for the general election. ..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/us/politics/22funds.html
The Clintons never went into the red nor 'loaned' themselves anything that they didn't already have in their general fund.
Obama paying off Hillary's debt seems like a bad idea. It really would look weak. I can't imagine Obama's donors imagined such a thing either.
"No one gets re-elected Democratic senator from New York by pissing off Charlie Rangel.
Posted by Will Divide | May 9, 2008 7:57 PM"
Hmmmmm...
Does anyone know Upstate politics enough to know if he could probably get enough votes there to combine with a huge lead he would get in the city to knock her off in a primary?
Family's only lived there for 200 years.
Oh. Parvenus.
Real Kentuckians go back to the 18th century. Say, like mine. (Nelson Co., 1780s)
First of all, the presumption that Clinton will do the right thing and drop out is considerably presumptuous. As I've said, I think she will fight all the way to the convention and beyond with lawsuits. In that scenario, paying her off is hardly a good move.
Second, even if she does drop out, paying her at all is just incorrect. It was her own damn fault that she fought on past the point of no return. Nobody asked her to loan five million, then another six million to her campaign. If she can't take the monetary heat, don't enter the kitchen.
Third, just let Bill suck up to some more billionaires, and I'm sure she can replace the money easily. Why take money from the Democratic campaign to pay this jerk off?
The whole thing sounds like an extortion attempt: "Pay my bills or I'll sink Obama's candidacy."
Fuck her.
She better start worrying about whether she will retain her Senate seat given the bullshit she exposed in this campaign.
Comments closed May 23, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
The Clintons are well known for being tight-fisted. Bill is a crap tipper, for example. I'm sure they'd like their money back.
However, even if Obama could end the race with a payoff, I'd like him not to do it. The Clintons will make sure the move is seen as a sign of fear by him, and besides, I didn't send him money to spend on the old bag.
Posted by Helter | May 9, 2008 11:52 AM