After grossing $100-plus mill, shouldn't Hillary Clinton finance her own campaign instead of you?

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

Note: does not apply to Clinton supporters who have made more than $109 million this past decade.

[leftofcool]

1. Why?

[MethuenProgressive]

2. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!

I apologize to all the Obama Followers that nothing but success and charity was found in the Clinton tax records. I understand how crushed you all must feel.
Too bad, so sad.

[leftofcool]

7. LOL

[hfojvt]

20. so you accept the Republican frame that

success == making lots of money

[MethuenProgressive]

21. Tax returns show finances. You knew that not just for Republicans, right?

Like the Edwards family, the Clintons have had both personal and professional success.
But when you're talking tax returns, success means financialy.

[Recursion]

22. Well, there's also the tens of millions "disappeared" into the Foundation (nt)

[Orsino]

26. I have trouble with the equation of "success" with "money."

I suspected that nothing more than an embarrassment of riches would be found in the Clinton returns (still early days, I suppose). At least she had the good sense to be embarrassed about it--that just might be a tiny glimmer of hope if she somehow gets nominated.

[high density]

3. I think this could be said of virtually any presidential candidate

The great majority of them are very well off yet they email their supporters constantly for contributions.

[Vinca]

4. I thought she might have some difficulty raising money after that.

Kind of hard to ask someone struggling to pay a heating oil bill for ten bucks. Another question, re the income thing that I've never heard addressed, is how they managed to buy the Chappequa estate if they left the White House $12 million in debt.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

6. well, they do have a Rezko link, too

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/09/clinton-got-money-from-re_n_90605.html

[Fredda Weinberg]

5. But then it wouldn't be my cause, my campaign. I started contributing

before the Clintons' earned any of those big $$$.

What's wrong w/wanting to share success? Do we all have to play victim to be popular here?

[onenote]

8. another math impaired poster DUer spouts off.

First, as you say, the Clintons "grossed" $100 million over 8 years. They paid $33 million in taxes and donated $10 million. We'll pretend (because that's the world you apparently are most comfortable in) that they didn't have any other expenses and had around $60 million in cash to play with.

The Clinton and Obama campaigns have been spending money at the rate of around $1 million/day. In February, with 29 days, each campaign spent over $30 million.

So, do you really think that the HRC could "self finance" or are you just being an ass.

FWIW: I'm an Obama supporter who is tired of the stupidity being demonstrated by some DUers about the Clinton's money.

[leftofcool]

9. Good Post

And I feel the same about Obama's money. Who gives a shit where they get their money to finance campaigns. As long as they are taking care of biz, who cares where the money comes from

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

11. point: she's rich; her supporters aren't. She's running. They aren't. They donate. She "lends."

She's using them. They're being used by her. The fact that she has truckloads of cash isn't a problem. More power to her. The fact that her campaign rests on the back of the demographic that can least afford it is the issue. The fact that the campaign is mathematically lost at this point, too, and that she's still milking them, is far worse.

I'm glad she's rich. I just wish she'd use her own money.

[onenote]

12. Point: you are backfilling as fast as you can type

You suggested that Clinton should've self-financed her campaign because she and bill grossed over $100 million over the last 8 years. When it was pointed out that self-financing would be economically impossible, you now want to change the subject to the idea that she is "using" her supporters.

I suppose. But then again, the same thing can be said for every candidate. Obama may not have as much personal money as Clinton but so what -- neither of them can afford to campaign without raising money from supporters.

John Kerry had boatloads of money available to him -- funny thing is, I didn't feel at all used when I wrote him a check.

Same goes for every political candidate I've ever supported. I'm fairly confident that the vast majority of them have far more assets than I do -- but I give them money. Silly silly me.

As for the point that the campaign is lost, but she's still "milking" them. If, therefore, Obama has mathematically "won" == why is he still "milking" his supporters?

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

14. well. here's a newsflash: I wrote kerry a couple of nice chunky checks. too, & he kept 'em

and left 04 with $30-plus mill in surplus campaign donations after those last weekend emails that said he just needed one more $$$ push to get over the top. Well, he sat on the cash and lost. I admit it, I felt used. Why? Because I was.

You're obviously free to write checks to pay for the ambitions of the fantastically wealthy. I'd rather those candidates put up their own dough first. Naive, idealistic? Sure.

And by the way, I allow some leeway nowadays when I consider gross (GROSS) income and who gets my money. I give to Obama, for instance, who ain't doing bad. I still fund political candidates, and often they make more money than me. But 60-million, or 100 million, is way above my threshhold. But, of course, you're free to send that sort of candidate all the cash you can.



ed for typo

[Bake]

13. Counterpoint: Obama's a lot better off than I am.

His wife made far more as a lawyer for Sidley & Austin than I ever did, or probably ever will. I think their tax returns showed a few million in there, didn't they? So why does he need a million people to give $10 or $20?

In this system, politicians don't run on their own money (well, most don't).

Bake

[durrrty libby]

10. Yea..Who wants a president succesfful at making money

and generous to charity. We hate brains and heart

Please give us the one who loves "No..No..No...Not God Bless America...God Damn America"

[LanternWaste]

15. What is the precise amount of money you feel to be "too much"

What is the precise amount of money you feel to be "too much" to deny her supporters their right to send her money?

What is that figure based on? Are there any qualifications? Does it apply only to her, or to any politician?

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

16. nobody wants to deny anybody anything. send as much as you want.

see my earlier posts about how I felt after Kerry--who has his own family fortune--kept my cash in 04. This isn't only about Clinton.

In my opinion, I'd like to see a politician plunk down some of their assets first, if possible. Failing that, I (me now, not you) ain't contributing to anybody who sits on a vast fortune. My OP was to ask the question for the sake of a demographic that in my opinion is being used for cash for a mathematically unwinnable campaign. You obviously can send that campaign as much money as you want, though.

[LanternWaste]

18. Ahhh. My mistake. When I read "finance her own campaign"...

Ahhh. My mistake. When I read "finance her own campaign", I thought that meant finance her own campaign...

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

24. no, I actually can grasp that in this day and age unless you've got $170-mill to plunk down

you can't finance your whole campaign. Which isn't the point.

Is your take on this that we should fund the campaign of multimillionaires who don't dig into their own assets first?

[LanternWaste]

27. I don't necessarily have a take on this...

I don't necessarily have a take on this other than finding it silly one may believe that if a person makes $x/year or over, they should be the sole provider of their campaign funds.

Anyways, aren't most politicians mult-millionaires?

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

29. yes, most at the national level probably are...but isn't there ANY point at which we'd expect a pol-

itician to pony up a little to bankroll their own expansion of power? Don't worry--I'm decidedly in the minority on this obviously--but it still seems crazy that Kerry can walk away from 04 with a massive campaign surplus after netting donors like me who don't have the family fortune he has.

[LanternWaste]

31. Didn't one or two of the Democrats contribute money...

Didn't one or two of the Democrats contribute money to their own campaigns earlier this year? e.g, Sen. Clinton loaned her campaign five millions dollars earlier in the primary cycle?

[knixphan]

17. Isn't Obama the least wealthy of all of 'em?

I think I heard he was only worth 1.3 or something

[Adelante]

19. No

It's better that supporters support her financially, if they want to do that. We shouldn't have rich people able to buy public office just because they can afford it.

[Orsino]

23. And even better...

...if all candidates were publicly funded.

[Adelante]

28. That's the ticket right there

Second best is financing by the public through overwhelming numbers of small donors. Big donors have a part to play, but they do not get to own the game. My first preference is public financing for all candidates.

[Orsino]

30. Imagine the transparency.

We really could judge a candidate by how well s/he manages an equal share of the pool.

[JuniperLea]

25. Nice shot...