Money piety is dangerous. Obama shoots himself in the leg.
This is a pretty serious issue that Obama is going to have to confront. Maybe
it’s not a violation of the letter of the law (because since when is the letter
enforced?), but it sure is a violation of the spirt of the law– especially
for a candidate that vows to not accept PAC money.
I know we had discussions with Warner’s Forward Together PAC about spending
it down before the campaign started. Obama is stretching the rule to claim
that his presidential campaign and his PAC activities have “no affiliation”,
especially given that 68% of the PAC’s contributions are going toward officials
in the states where his is campaigning 80% of the time.
It’s not so subtle bribery. Now imagine if this story was about Clinton.
Clinton Campaign Responds To New Revelations About Obama Campaign
In response to a report this morning in the Washington Post revealing
that Senator Obama’s leadership PAC has given the majority of its campaign
contributions to officials and committees in the early nominating states,
the Clinton campaign released the following statement:
This morning, we learned that Senator Obama has been using his leadership
PAC to give political contributions to officials in the early primary states.
In fact, 68 percent of contributions from his PAC have gone to those in states
that are scheduled to hold nominating contests on February 5th or earlier.
It is our understanding that a candidate’s campaign is barred from using
the candidate’s leadership PAC to benefit his or her campaign which is why
we shut down HillPAC when Senator Clinton announced her run for the White
On the campaign trail, Senator Obama is outspoken about his desire to reform
the campaign finance system so it was surprising to learn that he has been
using his PAC in a manner that appears to be inconsistent with the prevailing
election laws. Considering how often Senator Obama talks about his efforts
to be transparent, we presume he will answer the following questions regarding
the behavior of his PAC:
1. Who decided what contributions would be made by Hopefund?
2. Did any presidential campaign staff, consultants or advisors participate
in any discussions about Hopefund contributions? Who?
3. Did the decision-makers know who was endorsing the presidential campaign?
If so, how did they find this out?
4. Who told Hopefund which Iowa and New Hampshire candidates and committees
should get contributions?
5. Are there any overlapping employees, consultants and advisors between
Hopefund and the presidential campaign?
6. The Washington Post article suggests that Hopefund was dormant earlier
in the year. Who made the decision to start making contributions again and
on what basis was that decision made?
Can’t wait for Obama’s answers.
Better yet, what will the media say? How will they cope with their darling
doing money deals? Or maybe it doesn’t matter as long as it’s anyone but Clinton.
Like I told you, if you’re looking for an “anti Hillary” it isn’t Barack Obama.
*IOKIYATC: Compliments of readers gmartinez, which means It’s OK If You Are Trashing Clinton.