Hillary's $5 million loan + INTEREST

[GoldieAZ49]

Not Better than a bank!!!

She hasn't paid herself back so she can rack up a nice interest payoff, a profitable run for POTUS.



Hillary Clinton's $5 million loan to her campaign won't be a total loss for the candidate.

Campaign finance documents filed today show that she's charging her campaign an interest rate of 1.26 percent.

It's a modest rate which means that — if she pays herself back with donor contributions — she still would have been better off putting her money in a savings account at a commercial bank.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Hillarys_loan_with_interest.html

[K Gardner]

1. She's charging herself.. oops no.. The People.. interest because she mismanaged her

finances and campaign. Even at 1%, that's rich !

[GoldieAZ49]

4. A real Donation Motivator isn't it?

so those supporters her campaign say is her base, over 50 yrs of age or under $50,000 annual income can pay her interest rate on her own money???


yeah she is a real champion of the elderly and working class.

[Marrah_G]

2. You are clueless if you think anyone with 5mil is getting less then 1.26 interest on it.

But I am pretty sure you realize how misleading your post is.

She is losing a great deal of money on that loan.

[slick8790]

7. Not the issue.

If she really believed in her campaign, she would have either given them the money straight out, or loaned it with no interest.

[ORDem]

20. Maybe. Probably some accounting trick in there that we can't

fathom. I wonder where that exact rate came from? Maybe tied to some index minus 4 points or something.

:dem:

[northzax]

25. loaning with no interest

is illegal under federal law.

let me say that again, really slowly, since I post this on every thread about this: loaning a federal campaign money without charging interest is a violation of federal campaign laws.

should I say it again?

loaning a federal campaign money without charging interest is a violation of federal campaign laws.

not charging interest makes it a contribution, not a loan. and that cannot be paid back out of campaign funds. Go read Buckely v. Valeo again.

[GoldieAZ49]

3. It is a better interest rate than my credit union has

[dmallind]

9. Change banks - ING or HSBC far higher for savings, Wells Fargo for interest-bearing checking NT

njk

[Yael]

5. She "invested in the campaign" because she "believes in the campaign"

and can make a little cash along the way.

Too much!! :rofl:

[napi21]

6. People do that ALL THE TIME with their own 401K's!

You borrow $$ from your OWN 401K acct. and charge yourself interest! It's also NOT charging the taxpayers! The loan will be paid back from contributions from HER supporters!

[mkultra]

8. big difference between a 401K and a campaign

[Yael]

11. Who said anything about tax payers?

She is charging her donors interest on her own money.

[napi21]

15. See response #1 in this thread.

She's charging herself.. oops no.. The People.. interest because she mismanaged her

I read that as the taxpayers (people).

[MonkeyFunk]

10. A lawyer

explained here the other day that one HAS to charge some interest, or else the IRS will impute an interest rate.

It's a much lower rate than if she'd borrowed the money from any other source, and it's much lower than the rate she could've earned on the money.

So, she's saving the campaign money, and losing potential gains on her own money. Sounds like a win-win.

[Yael]

12. AH! This is a much different story

Thanks for explaining that.

[slick8790]

13. If she REALLY believed she was gonna win, then she should have given some money to the campaign

straight out as a contribution. No interest, no loans, just money in the campaign. Then again she can't get it back if she loses....

[MonkeyFunk]

14. Of course she could get it back

Losing candidates almost always carry the debt and pay back campaign debt over time.
AS I recall, John Edwards is still paying off his 2004 run.

[slick8790]

16. No, I'm saying

If hillary really believed she was gonna win this, she should have given a flat out $5 million contribution to her campaign. No loans. That shows confidence. This is hedging her bets.

[MonkeyFunk]

17. Why?

Win or lose makes no difference as to whether she could be paid back.

How does a gift show more confidence? Loans are pretty standard - kerry did it, Romney did it, etc. etc.

[slick8790]

18. A gift shows

"Hey, i'm willing to put my money in to this with no chance of getting it back, because i truly believe i'll get a worthwile return on my investment" while a loan says "i might win here, but i don't want to lose my money and end up with nothing if i lose".

And i'm fairly sure romney just gave, not loaned.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. Well you're wrong on both counts

[onenote]

23. next time you're "fairly certain" of something, you should do some research

You won't look so foolish.

Romney's "contributions" to his campaign were loans.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/05/romney_writes_himself_another_check/

[Alexander]

24. Romney didn't charge interest. That's the difference.

[MediaBabe]

21. US Tax Law

People are making a big thing about the interest charged on this loan. What most folks do not understand is IRS tax laws require loans to charge interest. If she doesn't charge interest the IRS will step in and assess her for the normal rate anyway.

Of course now that I think of it, Hillary haters will fall off their chairs in their haste getting to the computer to bleat that SHE SHOULD PAY OUT OF HER OWN POCKET anyway because that's what she should do because she should that's why.

Never mind. Think I'll go back to the lounge.

[GoldieAZ49]

22. Wrong

Mitt Romney made interest free loans to his campaign:


In the third quarter, Mr. Romney made an interest-free loan of $8.5 million to his campaign. This was the second big interest-free loan Mr. Romney had made, bringing his personal campaign-related debt to $17.4 million.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/us/politics/22spending.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin