« The liberals' worst nightmare: President Rush Limbaugh and Vice President Ann Coulter | Main | Updating Santayana »

Hillary pays $200,000 to Black leader for endorsement

The Clinton political war machine is on the march, buying its way to the Democratic nomination:

Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign reached a deal to pay a key South Carolina black leader's consulting firm more than $200,000 just days before he agreed to endorse her run for president, it was revealed yesterday.


The arrangement involves South Carolina state Sen. Darrell Jackson, a well-connected African-American leader and pastor whose support is coveted by national campaigns.

Jackson confirmed to The Post yesterday that his public-relations firm struck a deal with the Clinton campaign just days ago for a contract worth up to $10,000 a month through the 2008 elections.

Jackson had also been in talks with Sen. Barack Obama's campaign about endorsing him and entering into a consulting contract for more than $5,000, sources said - raising questions about whether Jackson's endorsement was bought by a higher bidder.

Link via Lucianne.

The New York Post's headline characterizes this deal as "shocking" but it isn't shocking at all. We're talking about the Clintons here - this kind of behavior is in their nature. When they were in the White House, they sold pardons and sleepovers in the Lincoln bedroom to the highest bidder as well. The American people need to remember how corrupt the Clintons were when they were in power. Investor's Business Daily recounts the corruption in an article from last month:

Amazing how fast corruption's odor trails the Clintons. Just as Hillary announces she's running for president as her own woman, we now learn her brother got loans he never had to repay. Same old grifters.


That should be a warning, because the seedy memory of the Clinton scandals has faded since Bill and Hillary left the White House in 2001, pardoning criminals, signing book deals and perhaps carting off the silver on their way out.

Today, Hillary is presenting herself as a crisp, well-coiffed, new-style Democrat presidential candidate, standing on her own record in the Senate, projecting her own hard-driven ideology and owing nothing except maybe a few political pointers to her savvy ex-president husband.

That would be fine, except that wasn't the way the Clintons ran things when they were in the White House. Hillary was no retiring first lady, but a Washington power player in her own right.

She billed herself as co-president and built enough political clout to try to take over one-seventh of the U.S. economy in a health care nationalization scheme. She also brought her own political cronies from left-wing law firms and social service lobbies into high offices.

Even more important, the Clintons were master campaign fundraisers, an endeavor that not only took most of their time, but marked their era with a corruption not seen since the Gilded Age.

The couple abused the office of the president by selling political favors in exchange for campaign contributions. The two were so shameless in shaking money out of those who sought White House access that one collaborator, Johnny Chung, compared their operation to putting coins in a subway turnstile.

In return for campaign donations, they allowed U.S. technology to be sold to the Chinese, rented out the Lincoln bedroom to Hollywood second-stringers, indulged in improbably profitable commodity trades, and, for their finales, pardoned a long string of atrocious criminals, confident that their last-minute abuse of office would be forgotten as the nation turned its focus to a new president.

This story brings back all the awful memories of the Clintons' unseemly activities in the White House. Some of these activities still have unanswered questions, and Tom Fitton put together ten of them that he'd like Hillary to answer.

Anyone who thinks that Hillary's revamping is real is hopelessly naive. The Clintons have always been and always will be corrupt and without scruples. The American people need to be reminded of that before they cast any vote for Hillary Clinton.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hillary pays $200,000 to Black leader for endorsement:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Clinton addresses 2002 Iraq vote during N.H. visit

Comments (27)

The joke in this upcoaming ... (Below threshold)
Chris G:

The joke in this upcoaming election is not Obama (Media Crush Story), Al Sharpton (Pimpin' Ain't Dead, Y'all Just Scared), or Joe Biden (Ass Clown). It's Hillary Clinton.

No person in the history of the galaxy is as staged managed as Hill. She is staged managed to within an inch of her life. If she bent over to pick up a fundraiser's check, a consultant's hand and arm would be sticking out her back. Ever notice how her eyebrows and chin move at the same time lile a ventriloquist dummy's?

Also, her chops as a senator are also suspect. Senators usually make horrible presidential candidates, unless you are like Lieberman or McCain, whose actually had been in the senate longer than one term before they aspired to the presidency. Hillary doesn't do jack. She got ont he Armed Serv. Comm, because she controlls much of the Dems purse strings. She voted for the war to hone her hawkish chops. When things got rough, she would haul Rummy in to appease the left, without marginalizing the right, never even considering the right didn't trust her war vote to begin with.

She will go one CBS with Katie, and the Today with Matt and Meredith. She would probaly go on Hardball is Chris Matthews worse a welder's mask to keep the spit from flying. She won't go on Fox though. Someone might ask her a question that was forwarded to her staff.

She has been running for the presidency for.... oh, I don't know.... 7 years now. You would think she would have one policy to talk about. Other than unfettered abortion and tax increases. Now, she's buying the Black vote, which is downright stupid. Most Black's would vote for her anyway because her last name is Clinton (except for me anyway).

She could have used that 200K to feed the poor.... Or pay someone to go thorugh Obama's garbage and sick a private investigator on Bill's current mistress.

While it is routine for pre... (Below threshold)

While it is routine for presidential candidates to make political contributions to key state legislators' campaigns to gain their support (that's what "exploratory committees" are used for -- the dough doesn't count and is virtually unregulated), this event stands out for two reasons: (1) the sheer size of the amount, and (2) that it is given not to a candidate or his committee or party, but to his private business.

In Massachusetts, I dare say it would be investigated as a violation of the ethics law (for both giver and receiver), where it would give the appearance that Sen. Jackson's private company obtained "an unwarranted privilege" (the contract) "for or on account of his official position."

In any event, that's what good government types would argue.

I'm curios just how prevale... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

I'm curios just how prevalent these arrangements are for every Presidential candidate, on both sides of the political spectrum? No matter who does it, this practice is contemptible.

'Mental health bill moves f... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

'Mental health bill moves forward in Congress' (Drudge/Reuters)

Self preservation for the liberals in congress. LMAO

Someone identify the adult liberal in congress. I only see those reared as spoiled brats and the mentally retarded.

Also, remember when some Ca... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Also, remember when some Catholic churches put out voting issues guides an election or so back, when the left howled about the seperation of church and state? Think we'll hear the same hue and cry when Dems once again stand behind the pulpits of black churches in the campaign season?

"While it is routine for... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"While it is routine for presidential candidates to make political contributions to key state legislators' campaigns to gain their support (that's what "exploratory committees" are used for -- the dough doesn't count and is virtually unregulated), this event stands out for two reasons: (1) the sheer size of the amount, and (2) that it is given not to a candidate or his committee or party, but to his private business."

The opinion that this event stands out because of the amount assumes that this is an outright donation, and discounts the fact the money is not going to the Senator Jackson committee, but is in the form of a contract for public relations services.

Is there any evidence that Senator Clinton is not going to receive $200,000 worth of PR services from Senator Jackson's company?

Here's "the deal":

Jackson confirmed to The Post yesterday that his public-relations firm struck a deal with the Clinton campaign just days ago for a contract worth up to $10,000 a month through the 2008 elections.

Here's "the spin" (Kim's headline): Hillary pays $200,000 to Black leader for endorsement.

If Jackson provides Clinton with PR services the headline is a lie. Hillary is paying $200,000 and receiving $200,000 worth of PR services, AND is getting an endorsement.

Jackson also states in the story that he had higher offers for his PR services, but went with Clinton's because that's his candidate of choice.

"It's not about the money - there were some other candidates who offered to double [Clinton's] offer," Jackson told The Post, though he declined to say which candidates. He said his firm, Sunrise Enterprises, is the "oldest, largest and the best" in the state.

"I could work for any candidate right now for more money . . . It's not a matter that we chose the Clintons. I have offers from every major candidate," he added, suggesting the issue was being raised as sour grapes by Clinton rivals whom he had turned down.

This further supports that this isn't an endorsement for hire - if all Jackson was doing was selling his endorsement why didn't he take the highest bidder?

I think it is interesting that he said "we chose the Clintons" (plural). Sounds like Bill is actively involved, at least behind the scenes - and that is likely to have disastrous results for Hillary, imho.

"Walking around money" has ... (Below threshold)

"Walking around money" has been a feature of Democratic campaigns in the South for over a century.

For the last several decades, it has been a major means of "getting out" the black vote, through preachers and other community activists. Naturally, $200,000 is rather a lot of it.

BUT ~ since it is perfectly legal under both federal and SC law [wavemaker: I don't know about MA law, but Jackson isn't being paid because he is in the state senate, he is cashing in as a statewide political mover and shaker], it is a very shrewd move on the part of the Clinton campaign. Locking up influential pols like Jackson and Robert Ford early will make it that much tougher on other candidates to make progress in the state.

Black voters will typically comprise about HALF of the Democratic primary vote in this state. While the "leadership" doesn't dictate how those votes go, they do have a strong influence.

One need not like or admire the Clintons to admit they know their politics.

Good points Lee. If anythin... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Good points Lee. If anything, this might (might) have been a quid pro quo arrangement ("you hire our firm, I give you my personal endorsement"), but that's very likely not uncommon.
And yeah, a perception of Bill Clinton pulling a George Wallace might cost Hillary some support.

<a href="http://www.msnbc.m... (Below threshold)
Lee:

More on Jackson's "motives":

Two key black political leaders in South Carolina who backed John Edwards in 2004 said Tuesday they are supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

State Sens. Robert Ford and Darrell Jackson told The Associated Press they believe Clinton is the only Democrat who can win the presidency. Both said they had been courted by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama; Ford said Obama winning the primary would drag down the rest of the party.

They previously backed Edwards, and yet passed both Obama and Edwards by in choosing Clinton. I've said it before - I don't think Clinton can win - but its seems that's where the bets are going from both sides of the aisle. Lorie had a post a week or so ago on Wizbang Politics about Repubs predicting a Hillary presidency.

I don't buy it (yet anyway).

I don't know that it's ille... (Below threshold)

I don't know that it's illegal. And I'm no lawyer, but it doesn't sound illegal. There's plenty to criticize Billary for if one just takes the time to review the timeline of Bill's presidency (particularly the second term). I don't think this is it though.

If Obama wasn't such a media darling right now Hillary would ordinarily have the black vote - and a significant number of the female vote - in her pocket. That she has to shell out the big bucks for it is indicative of her worry on that account.

Would that Republicans ever even have tried to woo the black vote. But nooooo. They just sit back and let Democrats vilify them to black voters and do nothing about it. Black conservatives seem take the brunt of it.

Illegal or not, and it does... (Below threshold)
Matt:

Illegal or not, and it doesn't seem to be illegal, the question remains.

Would Jackson have endorsed Hillary if his public relations firm hadn't received a 200,000 dollar contract?

Nothing is illegal in the d... (Below threshold)
mpp:

Nothing is illegal in the deal, but it will most certainly reflect poorly on Hillary's campaign.
http://political-buzz.com/?p=50

Her campaign is just a mammoth corporation strong-arming support.

Hilary is just another de... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Hilary is just another democrat pardoned felon running for President. This makes Democrats proud.

Here is something that make... (Below threshold)
Dan Irving:

Here is something that makes me shiver - IF Billary gets elected to office in '08 we'd have had a Bush or Clinton in office for over two decades.

Bush Sr. = 4
Bill C. = 8
Bush Jr. = 8
Hill C. = 4

I suppose I have been livin... (Below threshold)

I suppose I have been living in Massachusetts too long.

If a legislator up here had a "consulting firm" and was hired to perform "consulting services" for a fee, it would be unusual for the legislator to actually do anything for the money other than open doors and generally make the client's life easy. This sort of common graft has dissipated in the wake of indictments and changes to the state ethics laws over the years -- but once one is jaded, the shady patina is hard to scrape away.

The ethics laws here would not permit a sitting legislator from using his legislative position to solicit business from clients who would have legislative business in the state -- even if the public relations firm was not involved directly in the legislative business (otherwise it would be a blatant conflict -- but two state senators recently went to jail over just such a situation).

If the business at hand were political, but not official legislative business, that problem is not present.

Lee:Is there a... (Below threshold)
marc:

Lee:

Is there any evidence that Senator Clinton is not going to receive $200,000 worth of PR services from Senator Jackson's company?

Is there any evidence the PR firm won't benefit in financial terms and potentially in prestige by working for the Hillary campaign?

That's the point isn't it Lee. They claim it isn't about the money others offered money and reports say in the amount of a half million dollars (Gee what other Dem whore is looking for a pimp) was flashed.

For the sake of argument lets say they truly believe in Hillary and that's why they accepted her cash and turned down other offers.

How does that change the dynamic? It doesn't no matter how you spin it.

FWIW,South Caro... (Below threshold)

FWIW,

South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 8, SECTION 8-13-700. Use of official position or office for financial gain; disclosure of potential conflict of interest.

(A) No public official, public member, or public employee may knowingly use his official office, membership, or employment to obtain an economic interest for himself, a member of his immediate family, an individual with whom he is associated, or a business with which he is associated.

Query: does a legislator like Jackson "use his official membership" when his position as a legislator is a significant factor to him becoming the "go to" guy for a political campaign?

The question the Ethics Commission would ask is, "would Rev. Jackson have been sought for public relations consulting services if he were not a member of the legislature?"

Jackson is clearly not "usi... (Below threshold)

Jackson is clearly not "using his office" to gain this business, as I stated earlier. He is a state senator. He represents a small portion of the state. He isn't introducing or voting for legislation on Clinton's behalf, so I don't see how you can keep coming back with the backhanded accusation against him.

Our state senators hold a part-time position. They ALL have other jobs, and most are professionals or business owners. By your interpretation, virtually any income any of them earned would be "unethical" because they MIGHT have become known to the customer as a state senator.

Nonsense!

The New York Post's head... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The New York Post's headline characterizes this deal as "shocking" but it isn't shocking at all. We're talking about the Clintons here - this kind of behavior is in their nature. When they were in the White House... This story brings back all the awful memories of the Clintons' unseemly activities in the White House.

Excuuuuuuuse me?

Now, here's the reality, Kim, if you can manage to put aside your partisan yip-yapping for longer than it takes you to open your mouth in the morning.

Hey Kim -Wondering... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Hey Kim -

Wondering when you were going to do a retraction/correction to your Ellison cigar story.

Thanks.

Money in politics? I'm shoc... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Money in politics? I'm shocked, shocked I say!

jp2 wrote:"Hey Kim... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

jp2 wrote:

"Hey Kim -

Wondering when you were going to do a retraction/correction to your Ellison cigar story.

Thanks."

Why don't you concentrate on your cess pool of a Party and their Media. Thanks.

It would seem from various ... (Below threshold)
Bolshevik:

It would seem from various and may articles and such that the Clinton team are quite possibly the most corrupt in the entire history of politics.
It is also interesting point that this can happen in the most democratic and free country in the history of the world, in spite of what some would say in their small minds.
In the large scheme of things US is the one to beat in freedom.
So what gives?

The Clintons are the most c... (Below threshold)
Jo:

The Clintons are the most corrupt couple ever to set foot in the White House.

With Hillary running, we will probably get a chance to revisit all of their crimes and sleazebag actions, and for that alone, it will be worth Hillary running (and then getting her ass whipped). People need to be reminded of these thugs, and the things that went on under their administration.

The Clintons need an experi... (Below threshold)
capitano:

The Clintons need an experienced fixer like Johnny Chung to handle these things. Is he out of jail yet?

Jim Addison, in all fairnes... (Below threshold)

Jim Addison, in all fairness, do you actually know the answer to the question posed in my comment?

I am only saying those are the legal questions that are asked, and I look at how it would be reviewed here (about which I am only too familiar). The problem is that the statutory language is ambiguous on the meaning of "use" of position or office.

Please note that I referred the opinion onto the "good government types," a member of which I am not, and I intended the comment to be ironic.

I am not even saying that I disapprove of it if it is true that Jackson obtained the business in significant part because of his official position.

But your analogy I think is too broad.

I think a fair analysis is whether or not the private work that the elected official is engaged in is meaningfully related to the exercise of his political duties and interests, such that his personal economic interests is liable to affect the exercise of his official judgment.

CHECK OUT MR. JACKSON IN SO... (Below threshold)
Charles:

CHECK OUT MR. JACKSON IN SOUTH CAROLINA. HE IS A PASTOR OF A CHRUCH THAT SOME BLACKS ARE CALLING A BREEDING GROUND FOR HIS POLITICS. I UNDERSTAND THAT HE PLAYS LARGELY ON THEIR IGNORANCE WHILE HE GET PAID BIG TIME..FORM THE CHURCH, PR FIRM AND LEGISLATURE




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy