Campaign Fundraising

[boedicca]

The first quarter fundraising results for the 2008 election have been reported. One thing I do not understand is why it is legal for Hillary to transfer $10 million of surplus from her now concluded Senate campaign to her Presidential one.

After 9/11, the Red Cross was publicly shamed for using donations from the 9/11 fundraising campaign for other disaster relief efforts. Why aren't politicians held to the same standard? If someone donates money for one election effort, it should not be transferred to a different election.

DEMOCRATS:

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

Total contributions: $26 million of which $19.1 million is for the primary election.

Transfers: $10 million from her Senate campaign.

Total debt: $1.6 million.

Cash on hand: $24.1 million for the primary.

Top donor states: New York, $7 million; California, $5.1 million; District of Columbia, $3.5 million.

Top employer: Employees from Morgan Stanley $75,650; NRG Energy, $59,325; Goldman Sachs, $48,600.

Notable donors: Leo J. Hindery Jr., CEO Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, $2,300; Andrea Alberini, Guess, Inc. $4,600; Kate Capshaw Spielberg, actor, $2,300; Candice Bergen Malle, actor, $4,600....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_money_at_a_glance

 

[maineman]

don't like campaign finance laws? whine to your congressman and senators.

 

[boedicca]

Thank you for sharing, but your comment is meaningless.

 

[maineman]

no...you are whining that political candidates ought to be treated the same way as non-profits. talk about apples and oranges! That is like asking why, when a batter strikes out, they don't give his team a ten yard penalty.

 

[boedicca]

Campaigns are non-profits! If they weren't, then the surplus from Hillary's 2006 campaign should have been declared as profits in a tax return for 2006.

Once again, you allow politicians to avoid the legal and tax consequences they impose of everyone else.

 

[maineman]

Campaigns are non-profits! If they weren't, then the surplus from Hillary's 2006 campaign should have been declared as profits in a tax return for 2006.

Once again, you allow politicians to avoid the legal and tax consequences they impose of everyone else.

campaigns are not non-profits...they are campaigns...and campaign finance laws - not laws about non-profits - dictate what they can and cannot do with money. And how is it that I am the one allowing politicians to do this? what the fuck have YOU done to stop them?

other than whine, of course.

 

[boedicca]

If campaigns are not non-profits, then why didn't Hillary's Senate Campaign Fund have to pay income taxes on the PROFITS of over 2006 fund raising efforts? It's funny that she supports Excess Proft Taxes on Oil Companies while realizing Excess Untaxed Profits on her Senate Campaign.

 

[maineman]

If campaigns are not non-profits, then why didn't Hillary's Senate Campaign Fund have to pay income taxes on the PROFITS of over 2006 fund raising efforts? It's funny that she supports Excess Proft Taxes on Oil Companies while realizing Excess Untaxed Profits on her Senate Campaign.

what don't you understand about the FACT that non-profits and political campaigns are treated differently under the law?

and again:

how is it that I am the one allowing politicians to do this? what the fuck have YOU done to stop them?

other than whine, of course.

 

[boedicca]

Why do you believe it is okay for Hillary to transfer $10M of PROFIT from her 2006 Senate Campaign Fund to her 2008 Presidential one? The rest of us have to pay taxes on our income each year. Why should she be allowed to carry a surplus into another year?

 

[maineman]

Why do you believe it is okay for Hillary to transfer $10M of PROFIT from her 2006 Senate Campaign Fund to her 2008 Presidential one? The rest of us have to pay taxes on our income each year. Why should she be allowed to carry a surplus into another year?

because the campaign finance laws allow it.

And again... what the FUCK have YOU done to change it if it bugs YOU so fucking much?????


besides whine.

 

[red states rule]

The first quarter fundraising results for the 2008 election have been reported. One thing I do not understand is why it is legal for Hillary to transfer $10 million of surplus from her now concluded Senate campaign to her Presidential one.

After 9/11, the Red Cross was publicly shamed for using donations from the 9/11 fundraising campaign for other disaster relief efforts. Why aren't politicians held to the same standard? If someone donates money for one election effort, it should not be transferred to a different election.

DEMOCRATS:

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

Total contributions: $26 million of which $19.1 million is for the primary election.

Transfers: $10 million from her Senate campaign.

Total debt: $1.6 million.

Cash on hand: $24.1 million for the primary.

Top donor states: New York, $7 million; California, $5.1 million; District of Columbia, $3.5 million.

Top employer: Employees from Morgan Stanley $75,650; NRG Energy, $59,325; Goldman Sachs, $48,600.

Notable donors: Leo J. Hindery Jr., CEO Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, $2,300; Andrea Alberini, Guess, Inc. $4,600; Kate Capshaw Spielberg, actor, $2,300; Candice Bergen Malle, actor, $4,600....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_money_at_a_glance

Here I thought Dems wanted to take money out of politics

Or do they only want to take money from Republican candidates?

 

[red states rule]

Why do you believe it is okay for Hillary to transfer $10M of PROFIT from her 2006 Senate Campaign Fund to her 2008 Presidential one? The rest of us have to pay taxes on our income each year. Why should she be allowed to carry a surplus into another year?

It was the ONLY way she could say she raised more money then Obama

 

[red states rule]

If campaigns are not non-profits, then why didn't Hillary's Senate Campaign Fund have to pay income taxes on the PROFITS of over 2006 fund raising efforts? It's funny that she supports Excess Proft Taxes on Oil Companies while realizing Excess Untaxed Profits on her Senate Campaign.

Libs like Hillary want OTHERS to pay more in taxes

 

[red states rule]

campaigns are not non-profits...they are campaigns...and campaign finance laws - not laws about non-profits - dictate what they can and cannot do with money. And how is it that I am the one allowing politicians to do this? what the fuck have YOU done to stop them?

other than whine, of course.

When have the Clinton's EVER followed campaign finance laws?

 

[red states rule]

Hillary is in dep trouble - and she knows it - and so do Dems


Huge Increase in Hillary's Negatives Changing Presidential Race
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

There has been a sudden and highly significant shift in the Democratic Presidential race: Hillary Clinton is rapidly losing her frontrunner position to Barack Obama as her negative ratings climb.

According to the Gallup poll, most Americans don't like Hillary Clinton and the number of people who view her negatively has been steadily increasing ever since she announced her candidacy for President in January.

Hillary isn't wearing well. It seems as if the more people see her, the less they like her. Now, for the first time, her low likeability levels are costing her votes, as Democratic party voters are abandoning her to support Barack Obama.

In February, Hillary had a 19 point lead over Obama. He is now only 5 points behind her.

The most recent Gallup Poll, taken on April 13-15th, shows the biggest increase in negative opinions of Hillary since March of 2001, when she was awash in the pardons and White House china theft scandals.

Gallup, which had Hillary's favorability rating up as high as 58% in February, now shows that only 45% of American voters rate her positively, while 52% have negative opinions of her. This is a huge shift. In the fourteen years that Gallup has been polling Hillary, there have only been two recorded polls with worse ratings for her - the March, 2001 poll where her favorability was 44% and a January, 1996 survey when she scored only 43% favorable.

Capitalizing on Hillary's declining image, Barack Obama, who is rated favorably by 52-27, has now closed to within five points of her in the Democratic Primary trial heat. The latest numbers are:

Hillary Clinton 31%

Barack Obama 26%

John Edwards 16%

Al Gore 15%

These numbers mean serious problems for Hillary.

Particularly startling is the collapse of her favorability among key demographic subgroups that are usually considered to be stable parts of her political base. Her campaign is premised on a strategy of attracting women - especially young and single women. Yet, in the last month she has lost 7% of her favorability among all women, 10% among women aged 18-49, and 11% among single women. She is losing her base.

The following table compares the Gallup findings for several of these key subgroups in polling between November 9th and March 4th with those in their most recent three surveys taken between March 23rd and April 15th. (Gallup pools its polling in this fashion so each subgroup will have a statistically valid number of interviews)


RATINGS OF HILLARY AMONG KEY SUBGROUPS

Source: Gallup Polls

Group Favorable Percentage

_______Nov 9 - Mar 4__Mar 23 - Apr 15___Change

All adults ---------------- 55% ----------------- 46% ........... -9

Democrats -------------- 86 -------------------- 78 .............. -8

Independents ----------- 52 -------------------- 43 ............. -9

Liberals ------------------ 81--------------------- 73 ............. -8

Women ------------------- 61-------------------- 54 ............. -7

Women, 18-49 ---------- 65 -------------------- 55 ............ -10

Single Women ----------- 69 -------------------- 58 ............ -11

Nonwhite ---------------- 78 -------------------- 73 ............. -5


The obvious question is this: What has caused this sharp decline? There is no current Hillary or Bill Clinton scandal, for a change. She has not been subjected to any negative media campaign and Obama and Edwards, her two rivals, have been positively gentle in their treatment of her.

So, what's happening?

One is driven to the conclusion that Hillary is defeating herself! Voters are watching the former first lady in her first extended period of national exposure since her health care debacle and don't like what they see. She appears scripted, phony, artificial, and even boring. Her ridiculous attack on Obama last month completely backfired. And her southern-preacher accent in Selma was downright scary.

Undoubtedly her flip-flop-flips on the Iraq War and insistence that she was just voting to send more U.N. inspectors are also stimulating a sense of cynicism about her and she has no other issue to take its place.

Her overall decline is serious, but her slippage among her key groups - a 10 point drop among all women and an 11 point decline among single women - must be particularly troublesome for her advisers.

Worse, from her point of view, there seems no obvious cure in sight. Hillary is not about to clarify her position on the war as she seeks to straddle a general election strategy of being a moderate with a primary campaign emphasis on moving to the left. She has no national forum for new issue positioning and the more she becomes exposed to public view, the more her negative ratings increase.

And she can't alter her personality more than she already has. In short, Hillary's in trouble.

Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of “Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race.” To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email, go to www.dickmorris.com.

 

[boedicca]

because the campaign finance laws allow it.

And again... what the FUCK have YOU done to change it if it bugs YOU so fucking much?????


besides whine.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!

I'll takeover Congress and change the campaign finance laws when you and your buddies go to Iraq and act as human shields for Al Qaeda.

 

[maineman]

Campaigns are non-profits! If they weren't, then the surplus from Hillary's 2006 campaign should have been declared as profits in a tax return for 2006.

Once again, you allow politicians to avoid the legal and tax consequences they impose of everyone else.

once again...I ask you...why is it that I am the one allowing politicians to do any fucking thing? What role do you play in that?

and your comment about human shields for AQ is- in a word - nonsensical.

oh...and it is "rhetorically flatulent", too.... that's two more words.

what other goofy shit do you have for us today?

moron.

 

[maineman]

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!

I'll takeover Congress and change the campaign finance laws when you and your buddies go to Iraq and act as human shields for Al Qaeda.

so...since I am perfectly happy with campaign finance laws the way they are...and I have no intention of supporting America's enemies.... I guess that means that we are all destined to listen to you continue your ignorant rants about how political campaigns OUGHT to be non-profits...because you have no plans on moving beyond whining toward any meaningful actions aimed at changing things for the better..... why am I not surprised?

 

[boedicca]

Well, if we have to listen to the Lefties rant about how The Rich and Corporations are not paying their Fair Share of Income Taxes, it is only fair to question why politicians are allowed to take the surpluses of one campaign from a past year and roll them into another in a different year. If they are not non-profits, those surpluses are PROFITS and should be taxed.

And then their is the little issue of diverting donations for one cause to a different one. There is something rather devious about that practice.

 

[maineman]

Well, if we have to listen to the Lefties rant about how The Rich and Corporations are not paying their Fair Share of Income Taxes, it is only fair to question why politicians are allowed to take the surpluses of one campaign from a past year and roll them into another in a different year. If they are not non-profits, those surpluses are PROFITS and should be taxed.

And then their is the little issue of diverting donations for one cause to a different one. There is something rather devious about that practice.

and again, pal...if you are so all fired upset at the way our campaign finance laws allow politicians to LEGALLY hold over funds or to LEGALLY transfer funds from one campaign to another, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT OTHER THAN WHINE.