Plea to Obama campaign: Please don't use our contributions to pay off Hillary's debt.

I keep reading stories that one incentive for Hillary to drop out of the race 'gracefully' would be for Barack Obama's campaign to pay off her campaign debts. This would include reimbursing her for the $11.4 million that she has 'lent' her own campaign, as well as up to $15 million in debt that her campaign owes to vendors and Mark Penn.

As one of the donors who dug deep to come up with small amounts of money from our family budget because I believe so strongly that Hillary Clinton is the wrong nominee for our party, I would be devastated to learn that my contributions had gone to finance her dirty campaign against Obama. Paying off Clinton's debt with our money would mean less money for Obama to use in the GE, lowering his chance of success against McCain.

The Clintons have made financial decisions for their campaign all by themselves. They have more money than most people on this forum combined. If her campaign is deeply in debt, she has no one to blame for herself. If she's as tough as she claims, and if she has any integrity at all, she'll pay off her debts to small vendors out of her own money, or fundraise from willing donors.

I'm not a willing Clinton donor.

No way no how.

I have no kind feelings for Hillary whatsoever, but if paying off her debt will help mend relations, and result in her working hard to bring her supporters into the fold, then I won't mind if that is the decision they make.

.

She is 20 million in debt. Plus, a good chunk of it is owed to Mark Penn. I don't want Obama paying that scumbag.

money by not getting out of this race when it became apparent that she could not win. And she still is wasting money now that she is insisting on staying in the race. It is typical Republican monetary irresponsibility at this point.

I do not think it is right for me and the other hundreds of thousands of others who have donated to Obama to have to pay for what only looks like a complete disregard for the American people at this point.

I feel like donating 1 cent, (or whatever is the smallest donation I could make as long as it is less than $1.00) to her campaign by credit care over and over tonight. But I won't.

Politicians and various political/party organizations may help losers out of their debt by sponsoring fundraisers, or attending fundraisers, but there is NO history of the winning party in a primary campaign paying off the debts of the losing party or parties. I challenge you to provide evidence of this happening even ONE time. This is the Clintonistas' spin put on their latest ploy to weaken Obama's chances against McCain.

And small business people - That I would go for. Penn, her ad companies, her own debt - fuck it.

mark penn's bill? Fageddaboudit.

but no money for Penn and the rest who ran her campaign. And take the loss Hillary and Bill on your own money. You still got 90 million or so left.

and if not, Bill can do a speaking engagement before India outsourcing companies and make another $50million in one evening.

Why should Obama or any other Democratic candidate in the upcoming general election give one red cent to the Clintons. The only thing other Democrats and party leaders should do is pressure Clinton to pay off her debts ASAP. The people/small businesses/organizations to whom Clinton owes money can sue her in small claims court - or get a class action going - and haul her sorry ass before a judge.

It's okay... You can take a gas tax vacation and everything will be okay. (In magic pony land)

This keeps getting spit out by Clinton supporters, as a passive agressive way to significantly ($25 million) deplete the funds Obama needs to beat McCain and the entire GOP slate next November.

Nobody who claims this ever provides a cite to federal election law.

My donations go to Obama for President - there's no specification as to spending it only in the primary. It's for the 2008 election, period.

You can give a max of $2300 each cycle. The GE cycle starts after the convention.

What will likely happen is that if Obama pays off Clinton's debt, she will likely push her donors that have already maxed out donating to her to give him more than enough money to make up whatever he pays her.

By the way, can you cite a link to federal election law, or is this just the Word According to Hippo_Tron?

On the Huffington post today, Thomas Edsall wrote (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/07/big-rewards-await-clinton_n_100694.html) that if Hillary drops out now, Barack Obama's campaign would be advised to help her pay off her campaign debt. He writes, "One of the most inviting (rewards for her dropping out now) is the near certainty that the Obama campaign would agree to pay back the $11.4 million she has loaned her own bid, along with an estimated $10 million to $15 million in unpaid campaign expenses."

I don't know where he pulled this from, possibly his backside, but I would be sorely upset if the Obama campaign would use my contributions to pay Hillary back for her devisve and destructive campaign tactics. I exhort the Obama campaign to eschew this call for monetary reconciliation. We will need every dime to defeat John McCain. Hillary and Bill have plenty of money to retire their own campaign debt. They have earned nearly $110M in the last seven years. She could have dropped out weeks, or even a month or two ago. Instead, she chose to continue to divide our party, hurt our presumptive nominee, made the Obama campaign use monies to defend themselves against her slander rather than to defeat John McCain. She gave the right-wing noise machine enough slanderous talking points to last until November.

Not one dime to Hillary! We need to defeat John McCain not replenish her coffers.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/sanderbellman/gGCND9
http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/sanderb

in a fucking scandal. It will piss off a lot of the people who stood by him and most people do not know this is customary, (I for now, never knew of this) What is the average Obama supporting going to think when they realize he is now giving her millions of dollars.

  She's going to have to start stroking big business (like she doesn't already have a huge head start) to offer her speaking fees and hope Bill gets more, to boot.

  But who wants to hear the nastiest Democratic Primary contender in recent memory speak about how bad she fucked up her campaign, how deluded she is, or hear her husband attempt to speak authoritatively about anything from this point onward?

  She's done, Jim!

PB

This may be the start of the healing process, and I have no problem with my $50 going toward her massive amount of debt if it means starting to come together.

she can pay her own debt.

who deserve campaign contributions far more than that multimillionairess extorter/blackmailer, i.e, give me $20-25 million and I'll graciously drop out.

And of the hundreds and hundreds of posts I've seen on this issue here and in other blogs, you are in a very small minority, largely comprised of HRC supporters, whom I think see this as one last passive-agressive blow to the Obama campaign.

...it might be a wise investment. I'm not terribly happy with the idea either but if that's what it takes to end this, then let's end it.

more lies emanating from some toxic waste pile.

Obama needs that money to beat mccain..and I ain't contributing my money to pay off the liar's bills.

She has her own damn million$$$$ gotten from somewhere.

I hope my Obama campaign contributions don't go to paying off her debts.

to attack him even more.

What this party needs is unity

It would be obscene to throw $20-25 million dollars into the Clintons' bank account. There are courts, for god's sake - and the Clinton campaign is in breach of contract for not paying its
legal debts.

than to keep fighting it out.

freeloaders, the bilarys.

for my money to go to Clinton.

I don't think the Obama campaign should reimburse Clinton for her loan to herself or Penn's salary. But think it's a good idea to at least pay off all the debts to small businesses, local vendors, and non-profit entities (school districts, park districts, universities, etc.).

It's not so much about Clinton as it is about helping the little guys out for the time and service they performed. Obama has raised a lot of money, thanks to his generous supporters. We can afford to share.

Obama can't use the money designated for the primary in the general, anyway.

the primary can't carry over to the general election? Are you just repeating what you've read from another poster?

...but I'm all for paying off the rest of it. And not because it helps Clinton, she racked that debt up running an irresponsible and destructive campaign and if all we had to think about was the consequences to her then she could just eat the debt and learn from it.

But we have to think about how to repair the damage she caused. She's spent months whipping up her base against Obama. Wiping out her campaign debt, especially when it's that big, is a good peace gesture.

Fuck that noise!

She is acting like an elitist entitled WITCH if this allegation is true. Hush money to make her go away, Obama needs to stay away from this land mine. :mad:

First, you don't get a dime until after Obama takes office as president.

Second, THEN and only then, do you get the new president helping you raise money to retire your debt. You'll only get enough help to retire about 15-20% of your total debt of your debt each year, because we want to see that you are kept on a leash the next five years, so you don't run off the leash and start the kind of sabotaging you've done the past three months.

Third, between now and then, you have to serve the party tirelessly, you have to make amends to everyone you've pissed off or shit on, and if you don't do that, not only will you not get help on your debt, you'll be ostracized in the new Democratic reign come 2009.

Fourth, not another smart ass word from your mouth in any way helping the GOP or hurting us or our party.

Fifth, if you can't do these things, pack your stuff and get the f**k out of our party!

But they'd never agree to that, and why should they, cause they can easily pay off these debts themselves.

I am !!! :evilgrin: :mad: :grr: :nuke: its worth it!

She said that people who refuse to buy insurance even though they can afford it are passing the cost along to others by visiting emergency rooms and they aren't living up to their PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY. Well she incurred the debt and she can well afford to pay it.

The Clintons have got over 100 million dollars. Why can't they just eat the loss? They'll STILL be ungodly rich. And some people are actually floating this proposal to save the fortune of the same woman who proposes to garnish our wages rather than create a real universal health plan!


I certainly DON'T want MY money ending up in Hillary's pocket (and paying off her debts is the same thing as putting money in her pocket). She chose to drag this out, and she really can afford to cover her bills herself -- though perhaps she doesn't want to.


I don't have that much. What I've donated is for Barack, not her.

hilary Hypocricy for nothing.

Republicans, DemoClinton & Demobama parties.

It would leave a bad taste in the mouth of Obama supporters who struggled to make contributions to know that they're reimbursing millionaires for their reckless campaign spending.

The Clintons have plenty of money and should repay their campaign's debt themselves. And then get off the stage. I'm sick of the both of them.

Paying off a multi-millionaire's loan to HERSELF when she will earn more fucking INTEREST on the loan during the Jan-June primary season than I earn in a year?

Fuck her and her debt. Let her suck it up.

The other thing that really bothers me about this is that she ran up most of this debt when it was already mathematically impossible for her to win. The $$$ should have never been spent in the first place.

What is better for the Obama campaign? Continue spending money on these upcoming states (which btw helps the 50 state strategy) or begin focusing on the general election? Lets say the Obama campaign pledged to pay 10 million of Hillary's campaign date for an agreement for her to drop out after Oregon (May 25). He saves approximately 40 million for the next 30 days of spending.

Also, and this can't be underscored. Hillary Clinton is the former first Lady of the United States for 8 years, former First Lady of Arkansas (decade) and two term United States Senator (2000-present). Regardless of the vile hatred that has been tossed back and forth, it does the party a disservice to not have both Hillary and Bill campaigning on Obama's behalf (still a possibility she gets VP). Many would argue that an Obama-Clinton ticket actually bridges the gap between two very different but very large constituencies in the Democratic Party. For example, the white & typically older female population who desperately want their first female President.

Anyways, if I was in the Obama campaign I'd be begging to buy her out right now.

I appreciate the clear and logical thinking in your post & also agree that this would be for the best.

But we are talking about her VANITY LOAN. She wanted to play, she is a multi millionaire -- let her pay her own fucking loan off.

That novel had a bad ending. Look to the future, it's better.

and certainly if he feels it's okay to pay off Hill's debts of which a MAJOR portion would go to the non-profits, and elementary schools and lodge halls and caterers and other small businesses that for whatever reason rented her space to hold events and meetings - then I'm okay with that. Whatever gets her to fade away.

Those non-profits and businesses are going to HAVE to be paid somehow, and I feel a lot of compassion for them - you know, like a compassionate progressive would.

His campaign could write the checks DIRECTLY to the vendors, you know. Let's be creative here.

But instead, it's all dog eat dog and selfishness.

Obama said he would go ALL OUT to do new voter drives so he could add voters to the election roles?

What would he be giving up in the remaining states or in the states he won if he uses his donations to spend paying off Hillary's debt?

Plus aren't there other primary campaigns like other Democratic ticket candidates he could help if he spends his money on getting those people elected?

What is the opportunity cost of not supporting other Democratic candidates?

If Senator Obama uses my hard earned donations to pay off the Bellagio bill, 500,000 snow shovels, Mark Penn and Mrs. Clinton's loan (which she is earning $10,000 a month in interest on), he can rest assured that I will not give the campaign another dime.

He can compete with my blessing and mental support against the RNC and McCain, but he won't be getting another donation out of me to assist with the effort.

She is making more off her own loan to herself during the Jan-June primary season than I make in a year.

They made $109 MILLION fucking dollars in the last 7 years.

Let them pony up and Romney it. She is in it for her ego just like he was. If they want to play, let THEM pay.

I didn't earmark my donation. If the campaign and the Senator decide that using my donation to pay off the Clinton Campaign's debt is the wisest way to use my donations in service to that end, then it's fine with me!!

I have given Obama about $130. It isn't a lot in the scheme of things. I am very angry at the way Hillary conducted her campaign, but I think that those who have written that if helping to pay her debts is a step toward healing the party and bringing democrats back together then maybe it isn't such a bad thing. Sometimes we need to put emotions aside for the greater good.

:thumbsup:

My hard-earned money wasn't meant to help out an unsuccessful elitist who made fun of Obama supporters. Remember the "and the sky will open up" BS from her. She can dip into her savings to lend herself the millions, let her make the loan a donation. She can afford it. I don't feel sorry for her rich ass.

Ultimately their decision, but it would seriously disappoint me.

Debts to vendors, maybe. Debts to herself, no. I think it's corrupt to loan your campaign huge sums of money like that in order to get around campaign finance requirements. Maybe a few $100,000 or even a million, but 11 million? Come one. We laughed at Mittens for that.

And anyone who does make such a loan should be required to declare it immediately, not hide it away until the next reporting period. does anyone think she would have won PA or even done as well on Super Tuesday if they had known she was writing multi-million dollar checks to herself, to keep her campaign alive? No wonder her victory speech in Pa had a plea for cash. She spoke of her loan after Super Tuesday as an 'investment' that she got a good 'return' on. That's all this is to her, a business deal.

I'm not anti-business like a lot of people on the left, but this stinks.

It's another Rovian move.

If anything, Hillary needs to pay Obama for the lost time he spent addressing her veiled racist mud-slinging.

J

the one who gets the nomination does tend to help his opponent retire some of the debt

Kind of a tradition and a sign for the party to unify.

Another part is usually helped by the DNC

paying the debts of a primary loser. The only "tradition" I've seen is when friends of the loser or various party organizations throw fundraisers to help retire debt. Good, all the friends of HRC (lobbyists for Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big War Profiteers) can party till they drop, and pay off her ill-conceived debts.

campaign has been bad for Obama--and I don't agree with all those who kept calling for it to end months ago. The result of it all is this: We have a FULLY VETTED candidate, who has come through one of the most difficult intra-party fights I've ever seen, with his poise in tact, and his spirit and his supporters' spirits not just unbowed but soaring. We have a candidate whose flaws and weak points are well known, and who has weathered the storm--for how many months now? Six months at least. And what do the Pukes have? A deadly dull, awful-looking, disturbed-looking, "crowned" candidate, whose has undergone no struggle and no electoral tests and almost no vetting--a candidate with all sorts of spooky Bush things under the hood, who is representing the worst U.S. administration in the history of the country, and one of the worst in the world.

Have we forgotten what democracy looks like? We, in the Democratic Party, have experienced it again, with this rip-roaring primary campaign. Hillary's campaign served a democratic purpose--whatever its intentions were. It VETTED Obama, it steeled him, it prepared him for the worst the Pukes can do. Politics has OFTEN been a rough game in the U.S. (and elsewhere as well--we are not unique). Go back in history and read what Thomas Jefferson had to endure during his campaigns, and Abraham Lincoln--and FDR, for heavens' sake! And JFK! I personally remember the foul anti-Catholic pamphlets that were circulating about JFK during his 1960 campaign. A candidate for president needs to be tough--and agile, and articulate, and a leader. This primary campaign has improved, or has brought out, those qualities in Barack Obama. He now knows what he's up against. He is better prepared. And frankly I think he will wipe the sidewalk with John McCain--in his very polite, gentlemanly way--and win by such a landslide that the highly riggable voting machines won't matter.

Also, I don't know what the protocol has been, about a high campaign debt like this, with a candidate hanging in there, well past the harbingers of her defeat. I really don't know--and this apparent tradition, which I've just heard of in this thread--of handling such debts internally in the party has to be considered, if it's true. It does make sense. It will leave great ill feelings toward the Democratic Party (whoever the presidential candidate is, and for other candidates) if a trail of small vendors is left behind with unpaid debts. And I simply don't know about Edwards' debts, or Kucinich's, or others. Should the party help them? I tend to think it should--not so much because it is the party's or its donors' responsibility, but more on principle: NO ONE should have to raise these amounts of money alone--personally--to run for office. All candidates should have free air time, extracted from the corporate news monopolies, by us, because these are our PUBLIC airwaves, and there is no better purpose for them than public debate on issues vital to us all. Political ads on commercial TV should be banned. They are VERY corrupting--as well as contributing NOTHING to the political debate.

It is perhaps not right that donors to Obama would end up helping pay a Clinton debt. I can understand hard feelings. But I think there are good reasons to do it--on general principle, and as to the specific situation right now. It will more than likely end up SAVING the Obama campaign money--both by shortening the remaining primary campaign, and by freeing up more donors to Obama, and it may also help to bring some of the Clinton supporters into the Obama campaign, and maybe the Clinton's themselves to some degree, for unifying the party.

What I don't like about is this:

--that Clinton is getting huge interest payments on her loans to her campaign.

--that Mark Penn--the paid agent of a foreign government, Colombia, with one of the worst human rights records on earth, and someone who has continually meddled, with anti-democratic, Bushite purposes, in South America--should receive one more dime from anybody's coffers, but especially Obama's leftist and progressive donors.

--that the Clintons are multi-millionaires, and can handle some of the debt themselves, without it hurting them much, and without it being a punishment or penalty for running for office. They certainly have some responsibility for MAKING the rules. He was President for 8 years, and she a Senator. But I don't like the precedent of all the burden falling on a candidate. It's a communal thing we do--elections--and the cost of it should be spread among us all. I would prefer to do with free air time, and public financing, but that is not the current possibility.

I would say that Obama and his staff, and Howard Dean and the DNC, should decide what to do. They have to think of the Obama campaign, other peoples' campaigns and the good of the party. Each of us, with our individual contributions, and where we would like them to go, can't see the whole picture. And I say that having ceased myself giving to general Democratic Party coffers. I give to individual candidates, because I am so opposed to the "Blue Dog" Democrats (pro-war, pro-corporate DLC-ers). But if Obama decides that some of HIS DONATIONS need to go to this--paying off the small vendors, for instance--that is a policy decision that I cannot make, and really cannot criticize. I am uncomfortable with it, but I can understand it. And I don't want to see Mark Penn get a penny of it--nor for it to be used for loan interest, and an overly-cushy deal for the Clintons.

Look, Obama people did not pay through their nose and run up debts (they could actually pay off) across the country because they wanted to be FULLY VETTED on the issues.

You are doing a disservice to each Obama contributor by saying that those contributors have to pay her off to get her out of there. Those people contributed because of the SMEAR he was receiving from the Clinton campaign.

If Obama chooses to pay off:
The vendors, fine . Why should the vendors suffer because they believed the Clinton machine could afford the service they were providing? They should not. The next Democratic primary campaign may find it more difficult to accept an untested non-machine in the future if the Democratic party---meaning the DNC not Obama---does not cover the debt.


The party itself, fine. Contributors have dumped money into Obama and Clinton for the primary. The DNC, the Congressional fundraising groups and state Democratic gubernatorial candidates have been left out to dry while Obama and Clinton have fought against each other. The wealth of each individual contributor is NOT LIMITLESS. The smart thing to do is keep every contributor who has been willing to give money happy.


How does Obama solidify the vote by paying Clinton off?

If feels like, this is a zero sum game.

What are the campaign rules in primary money spending?

Hillary has trashed me, bashed me, made me look like a fool for voting for Obama.

My dollars do NOT support that!

Never will I give another dollar to Obama if he wants to give it to Hillary.

PERIOD!

I've seen a few posts suggesting Obama might pay off Hillary's debts, but I have yet to see any indication that this could actually happen, nor have I heard anything from Obama himself or his staffers suggesting they'll do this.

Until that happens, and I personally doubt that will happen, I'm considering this to be in the domain of rumors spread by bloggers and TV bobbleheads.

Of course, I've only donated $150 to Obama, so I don't have a big stake here, but if buying her off is the only way to get her to go away, pay the money already. The longer she spends kicking Obama, the more likely McCain is our next Presnit, and that scares me to death!

to ensure that vendors, venues, caterers, etc., who all provided services in good faith, should be paid off. First, it's the right thing to do. Second, and just as important, if they are screwed, they will remember that a Democrat screwed them -- and these people tend to have long memories, and lots of relatives who vote. Paying them off would be a classy and advantageous thing to do. They would remember that Obama stepped in and did the right thing.

However, the pollsters, political consultants, media outlets, analysts, etc. can all go to hell. They knew what they were getting into. They are the ones who helped create this bloated system of campaign financing and spending. They knew the risks. And they know that it was Hillary who screwed them and not all Democrats. Why the hell should Mark Penn buy another yacht with the money from people who sent their last $10 to Obama?

Pay off the ordinary businessfolks who provided goods and services in good faith and to hell with the professional political bloodsuckers.

Good point - needed to be re-stated.

OMG - think of the damage HRC has done to any future female AND/OR white candidates, whether D or R!

Would some of you pollyannas consider the terrible long term consequences and the precedent it would
set to have any candidate give in to pressure to turn over campaign funds to someone to get them to drop out of a race?

Why don't we just pass legislation having HRC's campaign debts assumed by the U.S. Govt.; and next it would be only fair to pay off ALL the other candidates' debts, whether they win or lose. And there shouldn't be any LIMITS on how much debt they run off and we pay up! (SARCASM)

Campaign spending has been obscenely out of control and is only getting worse. What would be useful legislation is to require all candidates to pay cash up front to any private individuals or businesses or organizations.

Good grief, Charlie Brown!

The people HRC has stiffed have contracts and can pursue Clinton in court to collect. The cases would be very simple, go before local judges/magistrates and be easy winners for the plaintiffs. Easy enough to go pro se, i.e, be your own attorney. It would be great fun - suppoena HRC to appear in Bumfuck, Anystate - schedule one action a week for months at a time in multiple states. - it would cost her more to defend the cases than to pay them off. And believe me, she would pay them off very quickly, as she is well able to do.

End of story.

:wtf: