Is It Ethical For Clinton to Continue to Fundraise?

Rocky didn't want to win; he said he was happy just making it to the end of the fight. But is it fair of the Clinton campaign to ask supporters to donate more of their money? And I don't mean fat cats who would benefit from helping out a powerful Senator. I mean salt of the Earth folk who don't have that much to give.

I realize that Clinton is entirely in her right to continue and her supporters are entirely in their right to spend their money on the person they most believe in, but something strikes me as off when I hear about Clinton's Mother's Day fundraising with Chelsea, which is supposed to bring in something like half a million.

I also understand that someone has to pay the staffers, including the ridiculously bloated salaries at the top end. But should Clinton be using people's hopes to pay for her gambling her own money?

politicians frequently raise funds to pay off debts, even long after the campaign is over.

I'll never understand how you guys came to have so much hate. It's just disgusting to see this on DU.

I asked a polite question and made it clear that Clinton and her supporters have a right to do what they want. I was asking what people felt about paying for campaign debt. Since I'm not a rabid zealot, I see that people feel it is entirely appropriate and I actually LEARN something from raising the question.

Calm down, MonkeyFunk. Its only teenage wasteland.:dunce:

whatever she pulls in now to pay down her debt. It's patently unfair to expect Obama to pay it down after the point it was clear she was not going to be the nominee (after WI in my opinion). She's simply on an ego trip at this point.

:dem:

If she can find suckers people who are willing to do so, more power to them.

stole the primary opportunity for Dem voters to know their candidates better by releasing her book and and having a book tour and fanning speculation in her joining the race, and just like Bill released his book at the very time Dems needed to get to know their nominee better, but instead were forced to spend valuable months refughting Clinton battles while Bill spent his book tour repeatedly defending Bush on the very terrorism and Iraq strategies that our nominee was criticizing at the time.

Unless someone has a better idea.

Not so much if she fund raises to keep her campaign on life support.

it ain't cheap

For candidates who run for office again, campaign debts can roll over to the next campaign cycle—depending, of course, on the terms of their loans. In perhaps the most famous case of outstanding campaign debt, former Ohio Sen. John Glenn remained nearly $3 million in the hole for more than 20 years after a failed bid for the presidency in 1984. (The Federal Election Commission granted him a reprieve two years ago.)

http://www.slate.com/id/2190880/

Candidates continue to fund raise even after they drop out in order to retire their debt. Its common and there is nothing wrong with it.

I don't see anything wrong with it.

aware of the circumstances. If she can still get donations, there is nothing unethical about it.

It would be unwise to continue to contribute, but as long as she's campainging she has a right to fund-raise.

and commonplace

You can let it sink. I'd say that the consensus is that it is ethical on Clinton's part, historically backed, and voters are free to help her out knowing the state of the campaign.

There's nothing remotely unethical about it. If it's unethical than virtually all fundraising for all political campaigns is unethical.

she should use her support to pay down her debt...and maybe after that use the pay as you go rule. Otherwise she might have to ask Congress for a bail-out.