Al Giordano at The Field reports that Clinton may have lied about her Feb. fundraising totals, to the tune of nearly 16 MILLION dollars, or 1/3rd of what they claimed they raised.
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=926
Clinton Campaign Raised $16 Million Less in February than It Claimedfundraisingfordummies.jpg
At the end of February, "a Clinton advisor confirmed" for Politico's Ben Smith that the campaign raised $35 million during the month of February.
The Wall Street Journal reported the same: "Rebounding dramatically from dismal fund-raising in January, Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign raised more than $35 million in February--a record haul for the campaign."
ABC News reported that Senator Clinton herself made the claim:
Sen. Hillary Clinton said Thursday she was incredibly gratified to learn her campaign hauled in a record 35 million dollars in the month of February, despite losing 11 contests during that time.
"I was sure excited by the generosity of thousands of new donors," Clinton told reporters in Hanging Rock, Ohio. "It was really heartwarming because a lot of them sent e-mails talking about why they were contributing and it was often five, ten, fifteen dollars and they would write about how they wanted to do for their children."
I'm not singling out those news sources. In the days before the March 4 Ohio and Texas primaries, virtually every political reporter repeated the claim as fact.
But Houston, we have a problem: it was untrue.
Clinton's true fundraising take in February was far less, almost by half.
The Los Angeles Times reports, after scouring Federal Elections Commission (FEC) reports that Clinton's, uh, creative math, included "$10 million from her Senate campaign account and a $5-million personal loan."
The Associated Press digs deeper into the numbers (the February filing reports came in yesterday) and notes that most of the $19 million that Clinton did raise in February was either offset by unpaid bills or was "general election" money (what big donors, lobbyists and PACs that have already given the maximum $2,300 to the primary campaign then give to a fund that can only be used if the candidate becomes the nominee):
reports filed with the Federal Election commission late Thursday showed that Obama set a single-month fundraising record, with more than $55 million in contributions.
Both Democrats ended up with more than $30 million in the bank, but Clinton can't use two-thirds of her cash on hand because it's only for the general election. That and her debt left her with less than $3 million in the black. The debt doesn't include the $5 million she lent her campaign in January.
The fact that so much of Clinton's money is in that "general election" category that can't be spent also betrays the candidate's claim, above, that her fundraising was boosted significantly by donors of "five, ten, fifteen dollars." Small donors never give (and are never asked) for the general election campaign: that category is for the fat cats (who can now give to Clinton with increasing assurance that their money will have to be refunded, by law, when she doesn't win the nomination).
So, what's really been going on is a big game of mirrors-and-smoke in which unquestioning journalists have played along or been used.
The full reports will shortly be available and The Field will analyze them further.
But, really, political reporters and bloggers that got snowed late last month by the Clinton campaign's claims ought to realize that such adventures harm their credibility to have repeated such nonsense as if it were fact.
I think that this sort of thing really plays into the Honesty and Trustworthiness issue. You see, Clinton's camp apparently isn't afraid of lying or manipulating numbers in order to fool not only the media - but her own supporters and super-delegates. In truth, she came nowhere NEAR Obama's total of 55 million dollars for the month - for the second month in a row, she was more then doubled up in fund-raising.
An important point for super-delegates to look into when deciding who is going to be a stronger candidate in the fall: ability to raise funds. Obama's donor base is massive. Walt Starr has been keeping track of his donor amount, and has reported that based upon Conservative projections, Obama ought to do at least as well in March as he did in Jan., if not match his Feb. totals. He is currently WAY ahead in fund-raising.
Here's the link to the LA Times story:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-money21mar21,1,6702245.story
Here's a Great Orange Satan link:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/21/124415/357/523/481545
More to Come!
|
|
|
Permalink :: 21 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
