For Clinton, Millions in Campaign Debt and Limited Options

[KittyWampus]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/us/politics/10clinton.html
By MICHAEL LUO
Published: June 10, 2008

With her campaign now officially suspended, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is confronting still another challenge: whittling down what is believed to be the largest presidential campaign debt in history.

Besides the $11.4 million of her own money that Mrs. Clinton lent her campaign, she had about $9.5 million in unpaid bills to vendors at the end of April, according to her most recent filing with the Federal Election Commission.

It is unclear how much debt she will ultimately report, because the campaign is still adding up the figures for May, which it must file to the commission by June 20. But Mo Elleithee, a campaign spokesman, said, “We don’t expect the debt number to look significantly different than it did on our last report.”

-snip-
What makes Mrs. Clinton’s situation unusual is the combination of unpaid bills and her own personal loan. Records show that other unsuccessful candidates owed less than half to their vendors than what she owes to businesses. “It’s unprecedented,” said Jan Baran, a campaign finance lawyer with Wiley Rein.

-snip-
Even as Mrs. Clinton must raise money to pay her bills, her campaign must liquidate more than $23 million in contributions set aside for the general election. They can do it by either returning it to donors or designating it for her Senate re-election campaign in 2012, provided she obtains permission from her donors to do so.

[hokies4ever]

1. I think this will hurt her V.P. chances significantly

She probably won't make up her entire debt, so they'll have to depend on Bill's lucrative speeches. That'll bring up potential conflicts of interests if she's the V.P..

[MonkeyFunk]

2. ah, it's like nothing's changed here.

[KAZ]

9. Certainly not you. The NYT article was posted WO comment.

[TexasObserver]

3. I'm going to say this isn't what we had in mind.

We can't bury the hatchet and use it on the corpse.

Defiling the deceased (campaign) won't get us anywhere.

[JVS]

4. your link is working now, thanks

[niceypoo]

5. It's time to let go

[KAZ]

7. No, it's time to help her with some of her debt. I think we'll see that in July.

[ninja8590]

8. agree. nt

[JVS]

6. The Clintons can afford to pay it all of out of their $109 Million.

Really she only needs to pay the vendors the 9.5 because her other debt is owed to herself.

[TahitiNut]

10. That's seven years of aggregate gross income, NOT their current net worth.

:shrug: No matter how many times it's posted on DU as though that's what they have in the bank, it's not.

On the flip side, it's only that which can be regarded as Hillary's share ... and doesn't include Bill's individual income.

[KittyWampus]

13. At this point though, the good will of Obama and the DNC helping her fund-raise outweights

NOT helping.

[malik flavors]

11. What does this have to do with the general election?

[JVS]

12. Because paying it off could require fundraising resources that are badly needed for both the...

Obama campaign and to fill the coffers of the DNC. There is a lot of talk about Obama and Clinton doing joint fundraising, but the DNC is going to want him to raise money for them and he still needs to run for president too.

[musicblind]

14. Taking a two days off. One to do a fundraiser for Clinton and one to do a fundraiser for the DNC

wont take up too much time away from campaigning. PLUS in a way, his fundraiser for Clinton WOULD be a little like campaigning as it would be an olive branch to the few supporters of Clinton who are holding out on a decision regarding their votes.

[JVS]

17. one fundraiser isn't going to bring in 20million bucks

[JI7]

18. how many do you think it will take ?

[JVS]

19. I think it's an almost impossible task.

Remember Ron Paul and his money bomb of getting $1 million in one day. That was a huge deal for them, and getting money for a defunct campaign isn't going to be much easier than that.

[JI7]

20. the Clintons are a bigger name

Ron Paul was never a serious candidate although he has developed a very strong following and that's why he was able to do what he did.

i'm not sure if it will take that much. say if Obama attends a couple fundraisers. at least one after he is President. that itself could bring in a lot of money. Bill and Hillary attend a few. they can even get some musician friends to hold a concert to raise the money.

but is it that big a problem ? Bill gets a lot for his speeches, can't they just use that to pay it off ? it's not like they will be poor if they paid it off themselves.

[JVS]

21. The big name advantage gets offset by the fact that the fundraising is for a dead campaign

Clinton was not able to raise double digit millions in the fundraisers following big wins like PA without lending money to herself to break over the 10 million mark, and that was when her campaign was still claiming to be viable. I don't see this getting resolved without the Clintons losing millions of dollars.

[SoCalDem]

22. yep.. people have to choose..donate to a failed campaign

that ended March 4, yet continued for 3 more months? or to donate to candidates who are running NOW and need money to compete?

It's the same decision ordinary people face..

A $1k paint job and $3k in repairs on a car you hate..one that has 275K miles on it..and is worth $500...or use that $4k to put down on a new Prius?

[SwampG8r]

15. cant 18,000,000

people send her 2 bucks each?

[JI7]

16. is this really a problem ?

i think a few fundraisers should help deal with it.

is there a deadline for this ? if not they could even do some of it after the elections.

[4themind]

23. I don't think the O.P. should be necessarily seen as

an attack. If the rumors are correct, Obama will be aiding Sen. Clinton in paying of that debt by appealing to his own donor base (yes that means appealing to obama supporters). THreads like this can help people realize the magnitude of the problem, and then they can decide for themselves whether or not to donate. We don't always have to assume the best from each other, but part of finding common ground ,I think, is that we don't assume the worst either.
EDIT: I can also see the rationale for not having the post in this particular section of DU, but that's for the mods to decide.


P.S. I take it you don't see obama as a "milquetoast" candidate anymore heh (sorry for the ribbing but I haven't been on DU for a while since you posted aobut that)