Just Curious: Who’s Paying (Bill) Clinton’s Campaign Tab?
If this weren’t the Clintons, I wouldn’t be asking.
Over the past couple of days as I’ve been driving around LA (where we Angelenos do a lot of our thinking), I was wondering whether or not the (Hillary) Clinton campaign was picking up all of her husband’s campaign tab. I mean, it would seem that his campaign appearances (which may draw more people than hers) cost as much to stage as those of a presidential candidate. And that would put a pretty serious dent into her kitty.
I mean, has any other campaign for a party’s presidential nomination had to pay for appearances by two candidates one candidate and a spouse drawing as much attention as he?
Normally, I’d assume the campaign would pay for such appearance, but this being the Clintons, ya’ never know. I mean, given his reluctance to disclose the donors to his presidential library, maybe he’s asked that institution to pick up his tab. This all being part of legacy building.
Just wonderin’.
15 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Perhaps a certain amount of the costs is covered by having his Secret Service detail hold bake sales and sell the trinkets he picks up on his various visits here and there. They may also share raw FBI data with individuals who are then moved to make large contributions.
Maybe Jessie Jackson showed them how to do it without any source of income.
Comment by heliotrope — January 27, 2008 @ 9:02 am - January 27, 2008
This may help answer the question.
Comment by heliotrope — January 27, 2008 @ 9:32 am - January 27, 2008
Why not ask Charlie Tree, John Huang, Hsu or Rezko or any of the other slimeballs that have been hanging around Clinton, Inc. since 1992….
The Clintons are famous for their (conveniently) faulty memories. Does anyone remember how many times Hillary testified that she couldn’t remember anything about anything during the Whitewater hearings?
MSM: “Nothing here folks. Move along.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — January 27, 2008 @ 3:41 pm - January 27, 2008
3: MSM: “Nothing here folks. Move along.”
That’s pretty a pretty friggin’ hysterical response considering the original post contained a link to the New York Times and the article itself refers to other investigations by the Washington Post. In fact, the entire piece by Frank Rich is extremely critical of the Clintons. Guess I can’t keep up…is The New York Times no longer part of the ever-evil MSM?
Comment by Kevin — January 27, 2008 @ 7:13 pm - January 27, 2008
#4 - Kevin, honey, Frank Rich and the NY Slimes can caterwaul all they want to about how “awful” the Clinton, Inc. scandals are.
But trust me - at the end of the day, we will know who they voted for.
And it ain’t Obama.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — January 27, 2008 @ 10:16 pm - January 27, 2008
Have you guys read where lefties are spending $8.5 million on a Bush-bashing ad campaign. Since Bush isn’t running for anything, that’s a pretty expensive temper tantrum. Think of all the school supplies you could buy for poor kids with that $8.5 million. Well, I guess throwing a temper tantrum against Bush is more important, huh lefties?
Comment by V the K — January 28, 2008 @ 8:40 am - January 28, 2008
From the article V the K links above:
The Republicans have exactly the same tool at their disposal. While the Democrats can make Bush look dumb and dumber, the Republicans can remind the world that Bill Clinton is slimy and slimier.
Democrats hate “swiftboating.” That is the process of telling the truth about a skunk who says he is a lion. You can slime Bush and keep the pitchforks and torches rabble stirred up, but when you “swiftboat” Bill Clinton you remind everyone that the two of them are liars, opportunists and shameless.
The mud thrown at Bush may tarnish the party, but the truth thrown at Bill Clinton sticks to Hillary like glue.
Comment by heliotrope — January 28, 2008 @ 9:56 am - January 28, 2008
I don’t know why righties all think that all the Democrats are in love with the Clintons in spite of how many people have come out to endorse Obama and how critical so many of are of the Clintons, especially on the blogs.
Comment by Houndentenor — January 28, 2008 @ 10:21 am - January 28, 2008
So, Houndentenor, when November rolls around and it is Clinton v. McCain (or Romney) which one will you vote for?
Will this great Democrat disgust for the Clintons mean a landslide for McCain or Romney because of the huge Democrat crossover vote?
I am not asking about Obama. Just the hated Clintons. What’s the answer?
Comment by heliotrope — January 28, 2008 @ 11:51 am - January 28, 2008
What typically happens when a campaign gets dirty and ‘unfair” especially during a parties primary season, one group gets so unset it has a hard time voting a party line in the general election. So if Bill and Hill keep up the race baiting, it is possible black turnout will be down enough for Romney to win. Ins’t it exciting to see the Clinton bash machine pointed at a fellow Democrat instead of W or Ken Starr or the troops. Obama’s speach after South Carolina was amazing and inspiring. We really need to wash away this mean spirited win at all costs politics exhibited by the Clintons. If Romney can win the nomination early, I say Republicans try to switch in time to vote Obama inthe remaining Dem Primaries and sweep this hateful couple out of national politics.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 28, 2008 @ 12:40 pm - January 28, 2008
5: Really? You “know” how they voted (or will vote)? I think as the few primaries and caucuses are already showing, not everyone who is a democrat is voting for Clinton. People here blather on about the hatred of Bush, but how different is it from the hysteria that surrounds Hillary Clinton from the Republicans? It seems to me that they’re more scared that she actually has a chance of winning.
Comment by Kevin — January 28, 2008 @ 6:05 pm - January 28, 2008
#11 Kevin:
I am confident that if Hillary Clinton is nominated that the Democrats will fall in line behind her, regardless of protestations to the contrary. Hillary Clinton is without credibility, humility, or substance. She returns nothing but her gender and a history of slime and corruption back to her husband’s Oval Office.
I hope the Republicans can overcome her pandering campaign and the onslaught of dead, illegal and alzheimer votes that the Democrats round up in their “get out the vote” drives. If your party were a cleaner operation, I would be more comfortable. But with Jessie Jackson, Rahm Emmanuel, Al Sharpton, George Soros, Tom Cruise, Charlie Trie, and a world of other ‘ethically challenged” thugs and clowns on the Board of Directors, I am forced to realize that many vote for circuses over common sense. I suspect that you might be among them.
Comment by heliotrope — January 28, 2008 @ 7:18 pm - January 28, 2008
#12 - Right on, Heliotrope.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — January 28, 2008 @ 7:35 pm - January 28, 2008
There is a reason that the Democrats are the party that opposes proof of citizenship and identity being required to vote.
There is also a reason that the Democrats are the party that opposes any means of vote counting other than paper ballots — which are the easiest to forge.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 28, 2008 @ 9:46 pm - January 28, 2008
Bruce, whether Bill’s travel is paid by one of the Clinton Library’s various slush funds or private donations by large corporate backers or Mrs Clinton’s campaign funds isn’t too important to most Americans. Given the GSA’s oversight of the budgets of former Prezs’ offices and their widows, I can tell you it isn’t the federal govt… all of that political stuff gets reimbursed. Carefully, accurately. Treasury has 11 CPAs and 5 attorneys on the professional staff who do nothing but flyspect what the former prezs and their widowed spouses pursue for reimbursement.
In fact, in 2003, the flyspecking got so nit-picky that the Carters elected to run a majority of their routine Pres Office expenses through the Carter Center than have feds pick up the tab.
There’s a good reference for the gross 2007/2008 numbers at
http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/staffoffices/former-presidents.htm
It may not answer your specific question because the feds won’t close the books on 2007 until late October 2008… but the reference does help provide some sunshine.
Frankly, I don’t think we ought to be spending a single federal dime beyond moving expenses after these guys leave office. They’re a virtual small business enterprise within themselves… long gone are the days when Harry Truman had to worry about paying the light bill in Independence, MO.
PS> did you read about HarryTruman’s daughter dying today?
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/01/29/ap4587471.html
The entire “former presidents’ office budgets” only amounts to $2.8m and that includes travel expenses.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 29, 2008 @ 1:18 pm - January 29, 2008