Comments on: Money for Nothing …

By: Jangali Jaanwar

Jangali Jaanwar — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:12:13 +0000

err Sufyan, if you are going to quote something that I or anyone else said earlier upthread, you should probably attribute it to that person. Not that I care about credit or even think that I have anything all that special to say, I simply don't want people to think that you and I are the same entity.

From one relative newbie to another, welcome.

By: Ennis

Ennis — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:09:49 +0000

In order for there to be an campaign finance impropriety, BC would have to transfer the money to her political committee, which hasn't and won't happen since he's subject to the same $2,300 limit. Any expenditures made have to be out of her political committee and can't be made anyone else. So...a lot of unsubstantiated insinuations in your piece.

Oh, this is more curiousity and suspicion on my part. I tried to be very careful in the main body of the post not to point fingers.

That said, is what you've said legally correct? I mean, she has use of household money for campaign purposes - she recently loaned her campaign $5 million. The money that BC earns is realistically speaking, being used for the campaign. It's not sitting in a separate account somewhere else.

By: JVD

JVD — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:02:38 +0000

In order for there to be an campaign finance impropriety, BC would have to transfer the money to her political committee, which hasn't and won't happen since he's subject to the same $2,300 limit. Any expenditures made have to be out of her political committee and can't be made anyone else.

So...a lot of unsubstantiated insinuations in your piece.

By: Ennis

Ennis — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:18:18 +0000

it's a shame that nearly 1/3 went to just the speaker, not to mention other overhead costs.

Perhaps that was the intention all along? Non-citizens can't make donations, but they can hire the candidate's spouse and pay him at any level they choose.

By: atool

atool — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:16:25 +0000

Clintons = sleazy bums. Rather vote for McCain than Hillary

By: sufyan

sufyan — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:34:27 +0000

this is rather nauseating - although they raised quite a bit of money, it's a shame that nearly 1/3 went to just the speaker, not to mention other overhead costs.

By: Dr. Wright

Dr. Wright — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:23:32 +0000

I think he has the to charge the going rate. If they’ll pay that much, he has a right to charge that much.

By: Rahul

Rahul — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 04:10:30 +0000

7 Â· Jangali Jaanwar said

if you were running for president, would you allow yourself to fight a campaign with both hands tied behind your back while the opposing candidates are making use of all the resources available.

Well, if your USP is being a straight talker, it kinda puts a dent in what you claim is your most important characteristic that people should value. He falls far short of the standard he asks to be judged by (and not just on campaign financing).

it's why I have a huge problem with HRC (her lack of support on the turban issue with TSA despite her seemingly overt support of all things punjabi and the tenor of her campaign).

As for HRC, I don't know about her specific stance on the TSA turban issue, but her campaign has not really distinguished itself on its behavior on the issue of minorities in general, especially with a couple of incidents in February and March. They seem to have become much better about this stuff since, but the Jesse Jackson statement and the 60 minutes performance do not sit well with me.

By: sy

sy — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 01:43:32 +0000

This “strong advocate of public financing” and “advocate of campaign finance reform” kinda sorta undermines himself when he breaks public financing laws that carry a five year sentence and is neck-deep in lobbyists, but why quibble?

By: Jangali Jaanwar

Jangali Jaanwar — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 01:05:54 +0000

6 Â· Rahul said

but he is now arguing about technicalities to keep his options open. After all, a person's loyalty to his positions are best illustrated by actually stick to them when it is inconvenient.

That's a very fair criticism and it's why I have a huge problem with HRC (her lack of support on the turban issue with TSA despite her seemingly overt support of all things punjabi and the tenor of her campaign). However, (and this maybe a pass for HRC)if you were running for president, would you allow yourself to fight a campaign with both hands tied behind your back while the opposing candidates are making use of all the resources available. In essence doing a disservice to all the people who vote and support you. Don't also the degrees to which people are dipping into the private funding matter: Mccain's a choir boy compared to Bill in terms of working the campaign slush funds.