Nuff said or maybe not? Her loan to herself may be illegal
Clinton's loans to her campaign raise questions about her husband's incomeMay 08, 2008 (McClatchy Newspapers - McClatchy-Tribune News Service via COMTEX) -- -- Hillary Clinton's decision to lend her presidential campaign $6.4 million from assets she holds jointly with her husband is rekindling questions about millions of dollars that special interests have paid Bill Clinton for speeches and other work since he left the White House.
In tapping some of that cash, "the Clintons have effectively bypassed campaign finance reform in a manner that's ingenious _ using Bill Clinton effectively as a front for the fundraising," said Lawrence Jacobs, a University of Minnesota political science professor.
Beginning days after he left the White House in 2001, the ex-president has been crisscrossing the globe, speaking roughly 250 times on tours that brought him more than $40 million in six years.
The sponsors have included investment banks that later suffered billions of dollars in losses in the sub-prime mortgage debacle and now have a big stake in any regulatory changes; an insurance group with an interest in any overhaul of the nation's health care system; a group that favors the reunification of Taiwan with mainland China; a Colombian business development group that backs a free-trade agreement and more than two dozen Jewish groups, synagogues and museums.
On Wednesday, when Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson disclosed that she'd lent her campaign another $6,425,000 since April 11, he said that the funds came from their shared assets. Wolfson said that Clinton is willing to lend her campaign more money "going forward, in order to make sure our message gets out."
"Legally, she is entitled to use up to 50 percent of their jointly held assets for her campaign, if she chooses," Wolfson said. "Those are the rules . . . . We are scrupulously following the rules, and we will continue to do so."
Jacobs, however, said that by drawing on her husband's earnings, Hillary Clinton is enabling sponsors who paid as much as $450,000 to hear him speak to "funnel their funds through the Bill Clinton front."
"It's an ingenious method for fundraising that bypasses campaign finance (rules), bypasses public disclosure and bypasses the limits placed on those contributions," he said.
While many of Bill Clinton's 250 speeches have been motivational talks or delivered to groups with no obvious agendas, others were to businesses and others with clear political or policy interests:
_Citigroup paid him $550,000 for three appearances in Paris and New York in 2004 and 2006, and Deutsche Bank paid $300,000 for two 2005 speeches. Both firms could be further hurt by proposed changes in federal regulations or laws now being considered amid waves of mortgage defaults that have stalled the economy.
_The Mortgage Bankers Association, facing new regulatory threats amid from the sub-prime mess, paid Clinton $150,000 for a Chicago speech in 2006. >>> snip
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1525236/The Bush Clinton Parallel History sometimes cycles through repeating patterns that aren’t easily noticeable. Political history - obfuscated as it is by partisan squabbling and self-interest - is a particularly difficult place to notice them. Sure, there are plenty of polls, records galore, and election results to ponder, but George and Hillary the Twinsideological differences tend to make us think of politicians in opposing parties as completely different from one another.
As hard as it is to see, and as appalled as both would be to hear it, George Bush and Hillary Clinton are two of those politicians who are so alike they’re almost the same. From their membership in privileged political dynasties to their ability to effortlessly divide constituencies, they become more and more alike as time goes on. Both have squandered political capital like shore-leave sailors spending money on cheap hookers and booze. Both have an affinity for scorched earth policies and little tolerance for those mere mortals who question them. Compromise and easy forthrightness are anathema to them and the day either of them admits a mistake is the day the planet will reverse direction.
But their quixotic pursuit of unattainable goals, regardless of the cost to others, is perhaps their single most noticeable parallel.George chases a phantom peace in Iraq, so convinced that only he can see the one true victory that he’s willing to take his party, the country, and the rest of the world down with him. He’ll brook no compromise regardless of any pesky facts that get in the way and insists that one day historians will see him as a cowboy prophet whose memory is to be revered and genuflected to. He’s a man accustomed to an easy life that’s given him a sense of entitlement that produces a hubris-filled cloud so big it covers the whole of the western hemisphere.
On many issues - except perhaps staying in Iraq - the two of them look like polar opposites. But look closer. See how Hillary chases the nomination even while the country is steadily turning against her? Doesn’t that smack of the Bushonian belief that anything is fair as long as she gets what she wants? What about her willingness to fling poop when the odds stack against her? Or what about her belief that she’s winning even as she loses? Just as George sees his prize right around the next corner, Hillary predicts that each new primary will put her over the top so she’ll be able to attend her own coronation in 2009. If the two of them live in bubbles, they are bubbles that have conjoined.>>>> snip
http://omnipotentpoobah.com/2008/05/08/the-bush-clinton-parallel/
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
