C-Span Anchor just read Clark gave paid speeches after he declared...

I didn't catch the newspaper he read from (probably WT's Rag) but says that it's against Federal Election rules to give a speech for pay after you've declared yourself a candidate.

Now, I'm sure Clark had these two speeches already scheduled and maybe didn't know, but it doesn't speak well of his campaign managers (and I thought he had top notch folks running his campaign) that he would set himself up for bad publicity.

They aso reported than "Don or Danny Fowler" had quit his campaign, saying that Clark wasn't paying enough attention to the "grassroots organizers" who had organized his candidacy, but was spending too much time courting Washington Insider crowd.

I'm sorry I don't have the exact quotes and as I said it's probably from that Wash. Times Rag.......but still, this doesn't look good to have this bad news out there. What's up with all this?

and no, it's not from the rag, it's from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58717-2003Oct7.html

Clark is getting paid as much as $30,000 for speeches, according to people familiar with his arrangement. He has two more scheduled for next week.

"If somebody is going to get involved in a presidential campaign, they need to know the rules," Noble said.

But Don Simon of Common Cause, a campaign finance watchdog group, said, "It's potentially a real problem if he used these speeches in any way to even refer to his campaign." Simon said the FEC should investigate whether Clark crossed the line by talking too much about his campaign, even if that wasn't the candidate's intent. Simon said the FEC would look at the "totality" of Clark's appearances to determine if he violated any laws.

Clark's appearance on Sept. 23 at DePauw appears most problematic for the candidate.

Throughout his speech to the DePauw audience, some of whom waved "Draft Clark" signs they were handed on the way in, Clark blasted Bush's Iraq policy and outlined how he would handle foreign affairs differently. During the Q&A that followed, Clark talked in detail about his qualifications and ideas for the presidency.

Ken Gross, the former head of enforcement at the FEC, said most candidates "shut down speaking" because "it just creates too many problems for them." In 1999, Republican Elizabeth Dole, who was exploring a run for the presidency but was not officially a candidate, came under fire for allowing corporations to pay for her speeches. At the time, her spokesman said Dole would quit delivering paid speeches once she was officially running. Clark is officially running.

ooops.... wrong general....

dejuvu all over again!

catch the paper, and just assumed it was Wash. Times.

I'm not a Clark supporter, but I hope he can get pass this somehow. He needs some help. He's not the political kind of guy and is in fact one of the nicest Democratic presidential candidates there is.

What he needs to do is write a letter to his online fans telling them how much respect he still holds for them.

Then he needs to take control of his campaign. He can't trust the people around them. They're all groupies.

Clark seems like the kind of guy who just follows his intuition. He needs responsible people around him that are loyal and willing to work for him. And who's more loyal and willing then his devout admirerers? Nobody.

is to give the $$ from the speeches back, and that'll be the end of that. As far as Fowler, there are conflicting reports on what actually transpired.

That being said, there are already 2-3 threads on DU about both of these issues.

I understand the people allegedly running Clark's campaign are spending more time sniping at each other than helping their candidate. One of 'em quit in disgust yesterday. So as much as I'm rootin' for the general, if he doesn't get a handle on this stuff RIGHT NOW he's not going to be the nominee.

He needs to learn how to put his own house in order. This will be interesting.

If he survives, it's a feather in his cap, and will bring more positive attention to his campaign. If he fails, he's not good enough to be president anyway, since you have to worry about details like that.

Of course, if he were governor and had an Attorney General like John Cornyn he could break the law constantly and wouldn't even be investigated, but that's where it pays to be a soulless criminal Republican, I guess.

see this thread
http://democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=155534

It is illegal to give campaign speeches for pay. He can still receive money for speaking, he just can't mention the fact that he is running for office.

It is a minor infraction which can probably be cleared up by returning the money he received for those speeches. With campaign finance reform in place now, the regulations are much more complicated and we will probably hear numerous stories about infractions of them for some time.

As far as his campaign manager is concerned, according to this thread, he quit, but apparently over something else

http://democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=154923

That bodes a serious lack of communication, at least.

snip>
"Brad Litchfield, who helped draft the 1992 FEC advisory opinion as head of that department, is now working for the Clark campaign."

but as a Dean supporter, I agree with the earlier post. If he gives the money back, all is forgiven. No need to see this pop up in the general ("election" that is). It would have been rude to cancell the engagements because he declared but he should not have been paid.