Backscratching, Hillary Style
Tom Vilsack dropped out of the Democratic presidential race in February, one of the first significant also-rans to acknowledge reality. The former governor of Iowa endorsed Hillary in March, giving her a boost in the key state. However, that seems to have come as part of a quid pro quo, as her backers have piled contributions onto the defunct Vilsack candidacy -- and some of the money wound up in Vilsack's pockets:
Shortly after endorsing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack received nearly $90,000 in donations to his defunct presidential campaign from some of Clinton's major backers, campaign finance reports show.The donations, disclosed in Federal Election Commission filings over the weekend, came from Clinton fundraising bastions of New York, California, Texas, and Washington, D.C.
None came from Iowa, where Vilsack served two terms as governor. ...
In May and June, at least 45 Clinton donors contributed $87,000 to Vilsack's presidential campaign account. Vilsack used part of the money to repay himself $55,000, part of a personal loan he had given to his campaign. He paid other bills as well.
Vilsack received $87,000 in Q2 when he wasn't running for the nomination. He gained this money from 45 Clinton donors, which means most of them maxed out their $2300 contribution limit to Vilsack after he stopped campaigning. Despite having $146,000 in the red, apparently one of the first bills to get paid was the entirety of the $55,000 loan he himself made to the campaign, while leaving around $59,000 in other debts waiting to be cleared.
My, my, my. If it sounds like a quid pro quo and looks like a quid pro quo -- and pays off like a quid pro quo -- wouldn't this be a quid pro quo? Vilsack got healthy in a hurry, at least personally.
The most interesting part of these transactions is that none of them came from Iowa sources, Vilsack's own constituency. Why wouldn't Vilsack be asking Iowans to help him defray the costs of his campaign? For that matter, why didn't Hillary's Iowa donors come to Vilsack's assistance?
It's not the first time Hillary has bought an endorsement in this race, and I suspect it won't be the last. It's interesting to see who's for sale, though, and for how much.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on July 17, 2007 6:43 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (8)
Posted by NoDonkey | July 17, 2007 7:22 AM
The Most Ethical Administration II?
"Mistakes were made."
"Old news."
"I can't recall."
"Nothing to see here. Go along about your business."
"Vast right-wing conspiracy."
Should this lunatic in a pantsuit become President, the press will do a 180 and once again become the defense council for the White House.
I would like to see in writing all those who have nothing good to say about our President, detail how this hag makes them enthusiastic.
What tickles your ribs about Hillary and her freak show of a cabinet? What chicken do you expect to find in your pot?
Posted by Tom Shipley | July 17, 2007 7:42 AM
The press can't win with you guys. And I mean that literally. No matter what they do there will be people like No Donkey who will ALWAYS bring up media bias because it's an easy lazy argument.
The press does a negative story on Hilary and we get "well, wait til she's president, then they'll protect her."
And when they do a positive story on Hilary, you'll conveniently forget this one and argue the press ALWAYS writes positives stories on Hilary.
Doesn't make sense. I understand liking the media bias argument. If you don't like reported facts, you can just say "oh, it's the New York Slimes... we're supposed to believe THEM?"
Also, it's ironic that you mock Hilary for her "vast right wing conspiracy" comment, when you're media bias dependency is even more paranoid and detached from reality.
Posted by I R A Darth Aggie | July 17, 2007 7:47 AM
it's ironic that you mock Hilary for her "vast right wing conspiracy" comment
You're mistaken. We don't mock Hillary for that comment, we mock the MSM for nodding their heads and clucking their aggreement with the sentiment.
Had Nancy Reagan made a claim that a "vast left-wing conspiracy" was working against her husband, the MSM would have rolled their eyes and told us about that "paranoid loon married to the president".
Oh, no, no media bias there, no, no sir!
Posted by NoDonkey | July 17, 2007 8:05 AM
"The press can't win with you guys."
No they can't. I grew up reading Time, Newsweek and I can remember how excited I was to get the New York Times everyday when I entered college.
Now I despise each and every one of those publications, because of their lies, distortions and bias. I hope they all go bankrupt.
So the LA Times reported on this, so what? Tomorrow it will disappear. It won't be connected to anything else. Editorials won't be written. It's a one day story, soon to be "old news".
"it's ironic that you mock Hilary for her "vast right wing conspiracy" comment, when you're media bias dependency is even more paranoid and detached from reality."
80% + MSM "journalists" vote and contribute to Democrats. They're biased and they should be ignored.
Posted by Larry J | July 17, 2007 10:09 AM
This is another of those cheap relevations to get the matter out of the way long before it could cause any damage. Next year during the primary season, if anyone brings up this matter, it'll be dismissed as "old news."
Despite having $146,000 in the red, apparently one of the first bills to get paid was the entirety of the $55,000 loan he himself made to the campaign, while leaving around $59,000 in other debts waiting to be cleared.
Financial advisors often tell people to "pay yourself first." It looks like Vilsack took this advice to heart. Besides, who cares about the chumps who hold $59,000 in the other debts. Odds are they're mostly small businesses (such as printing shops and catering services) anyway, That's hardly a concern of most Democrats.
Posted by NoDonkey | July 17, 2007 10:32 AM
"No matter what they do there will be people like No Donkey who will ALWAYS bring up media bias because it's an easy lazy argument."
I guess the non-lazy, Tom Shipely thing to do, is to accept everything the MSM says, without question.
Whatever happened to "question authority"? Does that go out the window when the authority in question, is leftwing?
I bought the MSM party line, until I got old enough to think and see for myself that much of what the MSM sells, is pure bunk. And biased bunk at that.
And I can live with the bias. Just be honest about it. But don't tell me the 2+2=5 and then get all indignant when I don't trust the story.
What's absent from this story is any allegations of illegality. It's just slimy. The Clintons are lawyerly enough to get things done to satisfy the legal requirements, so they get this stuff out early in the news cycle, so when it's repeated again and again, they can say "it's old news".
Or they just switch to the next slimy tactic and the media fails to "connect the dots". We've been around the bend so many times on this kind of stuff, it's not going to be ignored (except by the MSM).
Posted by Georg Felis | July 17, 2007 12:24 PM
The Moral of this Story.
1. Get bad news out fast. The bribery of a Dem leftist candidate to drop out of the race will be forgotten by the Primary.
2. When catering a Dem political rally, get paid in advance. In cash.
Hm, I wonder if the unpaid caterer bills were “unofficially reimbursed” by a private donor. Would not be very hard to do, make a huge reservation and cancel, sacrificing the deposit. You can bet the press would look into it if a Republican tried this.
Posted by patrick neid | July 17, 2007 2:58 PM
there are few things more dangerous to our system than "attorneys' gone bad". the clintons from the arkansas days have redefined the definition.
this is another example, despite the funeral dirges, where the value and power of the press come to bear. this story will go nowhere unless, for reasons we don't know, the MSM has gotten out of bed with the clintons/dems where it has slept the better part of 25 years.
to all you dems out there, i ask a simple question. do you think if a republican candidate for the president had done the same the story would not be covered. of course it would be covered. not only that charges would be made that it was illegal--even if it was not. by the time the investigations were over so would the election. then, who cares, the damage would have been done.
i'll repeat what i have said before. hillary will be getting the nomination even she is found in bed with a dead teenage girl. bill will say hillary was giving her guidance when the girl unexpectedly died. the press will say its a personal matter and who are we to judge. her teenage years only prove she was getting guidance!
never ever say the MSM has lost its essential powers......it still shapes and manipulates 30% of the people. that's way more than you need to decide most issues.