Obama's campaign cannot contribute more than $2300 to Hillary...

He can help her out by emailing us to ask for help for Hillary.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/10/154245/021/244/513343

What "Helping Clinton Retire Her Debt" Means
by DHinMI
Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:55:32 PM PDT

A month ago I raised the issue of Hillary Clinton's campaign debt as a complicating factor is ending her futile quest for the Democratic nomination. Time had published speculation from a Clinton aide that mounting campaign debt could create problems for Clinton, because she would have to get additional donations before she could start raising for her next Senate campaign.

The issue of Clinton's campaign debt and what Obama might be able to do about it is causing confusion. The inherent difficulty for most people in making sense of the nuances of campaign finance issues has been exacerbated by some reportage and commentary on the matter. For instance, a few days ago Josh Marshall ruminated on how Obama donors would feel if their contributions went from Obama's campaign fund in to Clinton's campaign fund.

It's not a subject worth ruminating on, because it would be illegal for Obama's campaign fund to donate more than $2,300 to Clinton's campaign.

Unfortunately Steve Benen has quoted Marshall's piece without noting that it's not legally permissible for Obama to donate money to clear Clinton's debt. Others, including the NYT, are confusing the matter by not making it clear that Obama can not give more than $2,300 from his campaign fund to Clinton's campaign.

Let's make this absolutely clear:

Money given to Obama's campaign, either in the past or in the future, WILL NOT end up in Clinton's campaign fund.

What Obama can do is go to his donors and ask them to contribute to Clinton's campaign. He could have his campaign send out email appeals to small donors to help Clinton pay off her debt.

:thumbsup:

So, Obama could launch a fundraiser asking us (his supporters) to kick in about $10 million (probably more) to help her retire her debt. Is that likely to work? I, for one, would have difficulty donating to her campaign at this point, without a firm promise that

a)she'll stop campaigning negatively against Obama
b)the money raised goes to pay her unpaid vendors first, and immediately
c)not a dime goes to the Penn and Wolfson firms.

I'm just not sure about this. I'd rather give my hard-earned pittance to Obama, to the DCCC, or to MoveOn, personally. I'm not crazy about being in a codependent relationship with the "let's spend like drunken sailors" Clinton campaign.

I don't think so.

I am leaving this to the others. I will not participate in paying back her loans to herself. Not after reading about $500,000 parking (more than most people will make in a DECADE) and the Bellagio bills.

Her next filing is due on May 15th.

I will be interested to see whats still outstanding on that list.

It's the spending, stupid. The hotels, the catering, the parking, the overpaid staffers. When they thought they were inevitable, they ran through the money like Lindsay Lohan on a bender. It's not the kind of behavior I'm interested in personally endorsing, and besides, I'm broker than they are.

Also, who among us thinks you could trust a Clinton promise at this point? If people are interested in helping her retire her campaign debt, they should insist her unpaid vendors are first in line. The grocery stores in Iowa, the donut shops in New Hampshire. They come FIRST.

As an aside, is she allowed to begin raising funds for her next Senate raise before her Presidential campaign debt is paid off?

or make that WJC can. For the love of Pete, the man OWES her that much. Go out, make a few speeches to your UAE friends and pocket a few bazillion dollars. How hard is that? Certainly not as hard as it is for most of us to eek out a few extra bucks that we can donate to a political campaign. Not to mention the number of Democrats who are either unemployed, on fixed incomes, or disability. The party of the working man shouldn't be asked to pick up the tab for foolish overspending by some fancy-pants politicos who can't handle money responsibly.

Lord knows I could've gotten a lot more out of $150,000,000.00 than HRC & Co. did ....

:evilgrin:

It DID sound like dirty trick to get Obama donors mad at him and STOP donating. Hillary at the convention: "He not only lost WV, his donations have dropped--that's PROOF that lazy dumb white people won't vote for him!"

The New York Times put this story on their blog, but had to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5911552">"update" it by pointing out that "the money would not be taken from Mr. Obama’s campaign account." Shouldn't that be COULD not? And why wasn't that particular piece of news fit to print the first time around?

:eyes:
rocknation

But I think there will be lots who will be willing to help Clinton out of loyalty.

Retiring her debt means everything, including Penn's salary and her wasteful spending on parking, the Bellagio, her three (and maybe more...) personal loans -- I don't think so.

No can do.

Or $5000 if it's a multicandidate PAC.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml

There are a bunch of other ways Obama can help Clinton pay off her debts, without breaking the rules.

Not saying I'm for it, just saying that this is all well-known, as are the legal ways to achieve the same objective.

His campaign committee cannot legally give her more than $2000 for this election from donations he has already received.