320 Years of History
Gold Member
All day long yesterday, CNN had reporters and commentators discussing Trump's paucity of campaign funds. Well, as with everything, there's good and bad about it.
The Good:
To be sure, with his campaign short of funds, there exists an opportunity for Trump to finally put a material portion of his multiple billions where his mouth is and write a half-billion dollar check to his campaign. That would shut up all the critics who have "whatever" to say about his not sticking to his word about being self-funding. It would also show potential donors (big money donors) that he has as much faith in his own ability to win the election as he has insults, platitudes, lies and whatnot to toss toward doing so.
The Bad:
Laughably, last week, Trump sent out a mailing all but begging for a paltry $100K -- paltry for a multi-billionaire who's spent nothing near a billion of the several billion dollars s/he claims to have. That's just ridiculous. I don't care how much money Trump has lent (not donated, because his contributions, unlike those of the supporters who've given money to his campaign, have been loans) to his campaign, something's not right when a billionaire can't muster $100K and must ask for it in an "emergency" fundraising email.
What? Isn't his Presidential campaign important enough to him that he would readily toss $100K at it in a moment of need rather than asking others to do so? One thing's all but certain in my mind and in the minds of deep pocketed donors: if Trump's begging for $100K rather than simply writing that check himself, what with all his "self-funding" braggadocio, there's surely no good reason why I would be willing to do so, even if I were a Trump supporter.
To be sure, with his campaign short of funds, there exists an opportunity for Trump to finally put a material portion of his multiple billions where his mouth is and write a half-billion dollar check to his campaign. That would shut up all the critics who have "whatever" to say about his not sticking to his word about being self-funding. It would also show potential donors (big money donors) that he has as much faith in his own ability to win the election as he has insults, platitudes, lies and whatnot to toss toward doing so.
The Bad:
- An "elephant in the room" is that the Trump campaign shouldn't be having money woes. Never mind whether Trump should or can self-fund his campaign. Bernie Sanders funded his campaign entirely on individuals donations, the vast majority of which were small donations, or, as Sen. Sanders noted often, on average, $27. In March, Sen. Sanders raised $44M and $25M in April, all from contributions from his supporters.
What's up with Trump's supporters? It's conspicuously notable that they aren't ponying up money as did Sen. Sanders' supporters. I wonder why? Might they be expecting Trump to follow through with his self-funding promise, thus refraining from sending money? Might they be supportive enough to punch and insult Trump's opposition, but not supportive enough to write a $27 check?
I know that the Trumpeteers have a lot of talk. I've seen all they lip they have to give right here on USMB. But you know the old saw as well as I do. Money talks and BS walks. - Fortunately the "elephant" above isn't lonely. There's another "elephant in the room." In May, Trump paid $1.1M to his own companies and family members for campaign expense reimbursement.
"He could end up turning a profit if he repaid himself for the campaign loans,” said Paul S. Ryan, a campaign finance expert with the Campaign Legal Center. “He could get all his money back plus the profit margin for what his campaign has paid himself for goods and services.”
Sure, "self-funding." You know who's being funded when Trump's campaign repays the loans Trump has given it? Let me assure you, it's not the smattering of individuals and organizations that contributed to his campaign. Heck, if he were really self-funding, he should return the donations he's received, asking the donors to instead rally their friends and families on his behalf. But self-funding Trump is not doing that, is he? - Well, as fate would have it, there's actually a family of "elephants" in the room. Strategically and rhetorically, Trump has put so much emphasis on his being self-funding and that "fact" makes him beholden to nobody, most notably Wall Streeters. That's all well and good, and it may well have that effect, but it will make for a very cagey situation if/when he starts accepting money from Wall Streeters and others like them who are part of the establishment. Yet, that's exactly from whom he needs to collect money, if only because they are the people who have it to give, seeing as his millions of supporters aren't clamoring to write $27 checks payable to his campaign.
- Okay, let's call it an extended family of "elephants." As we all know Trump hasn't released his tax returns, not even ones that are not pertinent to the tax years being audited. Not releasing them surely has some personal benefit for Trump. Not releasing them may too have political benefit, or at least the avoidance of political harm, which, politically speaking is just as valuable as political gain. Now CPAs, tax attorneys and other tax strategy professionals can come up with all manners of reasons why Trump refuses to release them, not the least of which is that doing so may well reveal the sorts of things Trump does that would, to average Americans, seem shady.
(I say that because even knowing of them and understanding them, they seem shady to me, and I know they are perfectly legal ways -- loopholes if you want to call them that -- to minimize one's tax while maintaining a very nice income and cash flow. If someone really wants some, I can give a couple examples that are at least plausible given the mere fact that he's in the real estate development industry and I'm very familiar with that industry, on top of being a CPA, but for now I'll refrain for that's not the point of this bullet or thread.)
What's most damning about Trump not releasing any of his tax returns is that act alone, especially in light of his money shortage creates an air of doubt. Doubt about how he uses his money. Doubt about whether, as his bluster states, he truly has the money to self-fund, which if he doesn't, it'll be clear he's been lying to us about yet another thing, a thing that people aren't keen to overlook as they have been willing to do re: all the other stuff he's lied about.
Laughably, last week, Trump sent out a mailing all but begging for a paltry $100K -- paltry for a multi-billionaire who's spent nothing near a billion of the several billion dollars s/he claims to have. That's just ridiculous. I don't care how much money Trump has lent (not donated, because his contributions, unlike those of the supporters who've given money to his campaign, have been loans) to his campaign, something's not right when a billionaire can't muster $100K and must ask for it in an "emergency" fundraising email.
What? Isn't his Presidential campaign important enough to him that he would readily toss $100K at it in a moment of need rather than asking others to do so? One thing's all but certain in my mind and in the minds of deep pocketed donors: if Trump's begging for $100K rather than simply writing that check himself, what with all his "self-funding" braggadocio, there's surely no good reason why I would be willing to do so, even if I were a Trump supporter.
Last edited:
