Clinton May Lose Her Loans

I have never understood the concept of candidates "loaning money" to their campaigns. What essentially candidates are doing is asking their contributors to pay them back. But US News and World Report highlights a provision of the McCain-Feingold law that means that instead of "loans" Clinton will have simply spent from her own pocket with no hope of recovering her outlay.

Experts disagree on whether or not Clinton will actually stick in the fight until the Democratic National Convention in August. But the date looms large for another reason—at least, if she hopes to recoup any of the millions she has sunk into the campaign. Thanks to a little-known provision in 2002's McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill, a campaign must repay the loan to a candidate before Election Day. In this case, that's the nominating convention. After the election has passed, a bankrupt campaign is limited to gathering just $250,000 from contributors, which means that modest sum is all it can give back to a candidate. In short, Clinton stands to lose $11,150,000. "If she wants to be repaid, she'd have to move on that between now and the national convention," says former Federal Election Commission chairman Michael Toner. "Otherwise, it just becomes another contribution." The campaign, meanwhile, has other debts to consider as well. According to her latest FEC filing, the Hillary Clinton for President campaign committee owes millions to vendors, including more than $4.5 million to Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, the consulting firm of her former chief strategist Mark Penn.

That adds another wrinkle to her decision to stay in the race. Time is running out to pay off friends, allies, and vendors. Plus, by all accounts, Clinton's most ardent supporters are tapped out, either unwilling or unable by law to donate any more. If she's going to continue competing, she has to ask herself how many more millions she's willing to spend in a quest many describe as increasingly quixotic. In short, how much does she care about the money? Politics guru Larry Sabato at the University of Virginia figures not much; after all, the Clintons earned $109 million since leaving the White House. "It's like Michael Bloomberg spending a billion. Would he miss it? Is she going to miss $10 million? There's only so much you can spend yourself anyway."

Then there is the "Obama Bank" scenario:

Still, $10 million is no small amount of coin, even for high rollers. That's led many in political circles to speculate that the money issue has Clinton carefully considering her options. Fundraising is tough; fundraising for a perceived loser is even tougher. How will the candidate pay off her debt? The best shot, paradoxically, is seeking the help of her chief rival. It's more than probable that she and Obama could work out a deal: She gets out of the race, saving him the millions he would spend in the remaining primaries, and he would help put her campaign back in the black. That could be accomplished by headlining fundraisers for her, and leaning on his donors to cut her a check. "It would be a matter of mending fences," says Scott Thomas, another former FEC chairman. "If his campaign fundraisers are able to help her retire her debt, she's in a much more comfortable position and would be far better disposed (to help him in the general election)." Adds Toner: "That's very common, particularly when you're trying to join ranks to help your defeated colleagues."

The fact that Hillary might be negotiating an exit from the race in exchange for Obama raising money to pay off Hillary's debts just seems, well wrong from a moral sense. I know that it is proper legally, but it just feels wrong.

Now Obama's supporters could raise $10 million in a matter of a few days time if Obama pushed the button. But I am not sure that Obama's supporters are going to want to fork over the cash. Plus what is the profit for Obama? He can outraise and outspend Hillary anyway and still has that vast network of donors ready to go for the general election.