Clinton declines public funds, others may follow (Reuters)

[Eugene]

Clinton declines public funds, others may follow

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
Reuters
Monday, January 22, 2007; 6:41 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's decision to reject
public financing and its accompanying spending limits throughout her presidential
campaign could pressure White House rivals to quickly follow suit.

Clinton, the New York senator and former first lady, opened her White House campaign
on Saturday and quickly became the first presidential candidate in history to reject
taking taxpayer dollars if she reaches the general election -- which in this race
would be nearly $84 million.

-snip-

The challenge for her opponents will be to keep up.

"She has thrown down the gauntlet from day one," said Michael Toner, a member of the
Federal Election Commission. "What will be interesting now is the ripple effect -- other
serious candidates can't sit back and let her get a big fund-raising lead."

-snip-

The expected high cost of the 2008 White House campaign, which could easily surpass
the nearly $300 million raised by President George W. Bush in 2004, made it too enticing
to opt out of public financing and avoid the spending limits it imposes.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201080.html

[illinoisprogressive]

1. the reason is so she can try for half a billion to run her campaign

It lets her raise unlimited amts of money.

[durrrty libby]

2. Good for her. I hope she raises one billion

[Mz Pip]

3. 1 billion

Sigh. There is something obscene about having, needing or wanting to raise 1 billion dollars to run for president. No wonder people are turned off.

I suppose it's the reality of the situation but I still think there is something wrong with it.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[illinoisprogressive]

4. End of Campaign reforom. She thinks throwing obscene amts of money will buy her the

white house. It's a very dangerous trend and the end of campaign reform

[Mz Pip]

5. Pretty soon

the only people who will be able to afford to run for office will be professional sports heros or corporate CEOs.

Maybe it's a bad analogy but this bothers me because usless you are a rock star you have no chance. You may have answers and vision but you won't be able to get you message out unless you have tons and tons of money backing you. And with tons and tons of money comes the expectation of that money buying influence.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[PSPS]

6. I understand that she has to do this, but this system we have really stinks

Why not just put the job of president on the auction block and be done with it? We've been doing that figuratively, if not literally, for a long time.

[MrSlayer]

7. Spending 300 million to get a job that pays 400K.

Seems kind of fucked up to me. And then you are beholden to all those donors at the expense of the people. Something is really wrong with our system.

[Earth_First]

8. Oh certainly it's for the love of public service...

You've become much too cynical my friend...

:sarcasm:

[AtomicKitten]

9. Just about every Democrat did the same in 2004.

I was not at DU then; I wonder if they got the same negative response I am reading here about HRC.

[ieoeja]

17. Thank You!

I am going fairly ABC (Anyone But Clinton) into this election. But this excerpt:

"quickly became the first presidential candidate in history to reject taking taxpayer dollars if she reaches the general election" is very misleading as you point out. W did this in 2000 forcing Gore to follow suit. And every serious contender since has gone the same route.

The only thing that stops this from being a flat out lie is the pronoun "she".


Between now and the general election, a single massive corporation will spend billions trying to sell its product. When you think of it that way, a few hundred million trying to sell your ideas on how the country should be run seems too small.

[GeorgeGist]

10. If she declined corporate funding...

would others follow her leadership?

[Le Taz Hot]

11. Hillary Clinton?

Decline corporate funding????? :rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

12. The Corporations OWN Hillary Clinton!

And their Media is forcing her on us. :puke:

[FreeStateDemocrat]

13. She's going to buy it with the corporate money that owns her soul.

I'm becoming very bitter about all this clever contrived spin that huge money interests are applying through Hillary with access to power and their ability to manipulate pubic opinion by using their corporate whore media to advance their agenda to perpetuate the current wealthy ruling class in power forever. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Fuck the ruling class, big money always wins.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

14. Kerry did the same as this- raised over 100 million

from people like you and me.
Dean and Trippi showed the potential was out there, and the internet/credit card form webpages allowed it to happen.
Be happy that we can now compete with the Republicans on their own terms.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Corporations are prohibited by law from donating to campaigns of federal candidates

[oasis]

16. "the first presidential candidate in history to reject taxpayer dollars".K&R

[ieoeja]

18. ...if "she" makes it to the general election.

Because every serious contender since W (quickly followed by Gore) in 2000 and 2004 did THE EXACT SAME THING.

[oasis]

20. Mmmmkay. She'll have little use for GENERAL funds if she's NOT in the general.

:think:

[ieoeja]

21. It's semantics.

The inclusion of "if she makes it to the general election" is the only thing that prevents that sentence in the article from being an outright lie. I'm not calling you a liar. You didn't write the article. But if the full sentence had only included the portion you posted, then the author would have lied.

Because Hillary is NOT the first candidate to reject public financing. W did it twice. Gore did it. Kerry did it. Howard Dean did it. But Hillary will be the first "she" to reject public financing, so the inclusion of that pronoun is required to prevent this statement from being false.


"Wait a 'sec. Did you say, Dean? But he didn't make it to the general election."

Right, because you also get public financing for the primary if you meet the appropriate guidelines. One of those is not exceeding spending limits. Howard Dean exceeded those limits. As stated above, that portion of the sentence is needed for the pronoun "she" and nothing else.


For the record, I am ABC (Anyone But Clinton). But truth trumps wishes.

[leftofthedial]

19. until there are nothing BUT public funds

we will continue not to live in a democratic republic