"it would be illegal for her to use assets belonging solely to her husband "

[ProSense]

National Journal's Hotline falsely claimed Clinton "had to borrow funds from her husband"

Summary: In reporting on Sen. Hillary Clinton's $5 million loan to her presidential campaign, National Journal's Hotline On Call claimed that "Clinton had to borrow funds from her husband, former President Bill Clinton." In fact, Sen. Clinton has said that the loan was "my money," and, indeed, it would be illegal for her to use assets belonging solely to her husband to fund her presidential campaign. Hotline On Call also claimed that Sen. Barack Obama was asked about "what it meant that Clinton had to borrow funds from her husband," but there is no evidence that Obama was asked that question or that he remarked on her purportedly having "borrow funds from her husband."

Following Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) statement that she loaned her campaign $5 million, the February 7 edition of National Journal's Hotline On Call reported: Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "said that unlike Clinton he didn't have enough personal funds to loan his campaign that much money. On what it meant that Clinton had to borrow funds from her husband, former President Bill Clinton, he said little, saying it's a legal issue but he didn't want to get into the 'intricacies' of it." There is no evidence, however, that Clinton "borrow(ed) fund from her husband" to make the loan to her campaign. Sen. Clinton has said that the loan was "my money," and, indeed, it would be illegal for her to use assets belonging solely to her husband to fund her presidential campaign. Moreover, contrary to the assertion in Hotline, there is no evidence that Obama was asked about "what it meant that Clinton had to borrow funds from her husband," or that Obama suggested she did so.

From the February 7 edition of Hotline On Call:

And the day after rival Hillary Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million, Obama also stressed that he had disclosed his income tax returns.

"I'll just say that I've released my tax returns," he said. "That's been a policy I've maintained consistently. I think the American people deserve to know, you know, where you get your income from," he said, adding that his campaign had "set the bar on transparency and disclosure."

Obama said that unlike Clinton he didn't have enough personal funds to loan his campaign that much money. On what it meant that Clinton had to borrow funds from her husband, former President Bill Clinton, he said little, saying it's a legal issue but he didn't want to get into the "intricacies" of it.

He added that Clinton's money woes reflected her inability to generate the same kind of "grassroots enthusiasm" that the Obama campaign.

The Clinton campaign did not receive a loan from Bill Clinton, nor could it. A February 6 press conference, Sen. Clinton said of the loan: "I loaned the campaign $5 million from my money. That's where I got the money." While candidates for federal elective office have a First Amendment right to spend their personal funds without limit, federal law does limit a candidate's access to spousal wealth and to marital property. When assets are owned jointly, a candidate's "personal funds" include "the value of 1/2 of the property," unless the candidate and spouse have specified a different share in an "instrument of conveyance or ownership" of the property. Property solely owned by a candidate's spouse is not defined as the candidate's personal funds and cannot be used by the candidate.

According to video of Obama's comments to reporters regarding Clinton's loan, Obama was asked: "Does it matter in any way if it was her money or her husband's money?" Obama responded: "I think under law it does matter. So my understanding is that she can only draw from half of a joint account. But I'm not -- I'm not going to get into, sort of, the intricacies of their finances. That's something you'll have to ask them."

more

Obama Camp to Clinton: Show Us Your Taxes

Hillary's Curious Campaign Loan

[HeraldSquare212]

1. So she can draw on Bill's money, as long as they haven't declared the money as separate? nt

[DJ13]

6. I dont think so

It sounds like Hillary can only "loan" her campaign money if its from an account Bill cannot claim he owns a part of.

When Kerry loaned $6 million to his campaign in 2004 he had to get a loan by putting his residence up as collateral because Teresa's name wasnt on the deed.

[ursi]

7. I think it means she can draw on up to 50% of "their" money which would be hers

[DJ13]

10. I still dont think so

Kerry and Teresa are loaded, but in order to keep from violating the campaign finance law he got a mortgage.

If he could tap into half the Heinz fortune without worry he wouldnt have felt he needed to go that route.

[dsc]

13. There is a difference between money which preceeds a marriage

which would be Teresa's money, and money made during a marriage, which would be Bill's money. The money made by Bill Clinton was made as a couple in NY a community property state. She can spend every last dime.

[ProSense]

14. Stop making stuff up. These are federal election laws. n/t

[MADem]

32. You are the one making stuff up there, Stumpy. You have a right to your own opinions

but not to your own halfassed, lame and idiotic--oh, and did I say "DESPERATE!!!" facts...

:rofl:


Keep on stumping, Stumpy!!!

[dsc]

40. maritial propery belongs to both people

The money is Hillary's and Bill's and she could spend every cent if she wished.

[ProSense]

41. Not according to federal election law. Why is that so hard to understand? n/t

[MADem]

22. NY IS a community property state!

When you refer to Teresa's money, you're talking about the Heinz fortune, I trust, and not that they're in a Fundy Mormon marriage!!

:rofl:

I got your point, though...! They were both poor as catshit when they got married, and all their dough has been made subsequent to their vows.

[ProSense]

25. Frantic desperation! n/t

[MADem]

31. No. But thanks for playing, there, Stumpy. NT

[mondo joe]

38. But I don't believe Kerry and Teresa shared her money.

I might be wrong.

[dsc]

9. that is totally false

She owned half that house. It was reported widely at the time. NY is a community property state as is Massachusetts. Both Romney and Clinton can use marital assets as they are half theirs.

[MADem]

34. Teresa's money predated their union. He couldn't tap the Heinz fortune.

He could only tap their joint assets. I suspect they didn't have TOO many of those.

Teresa isn't stupid. That Heinz money has a life of its own.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

8. Yeah, I thought it was community property. nt

[MADem]

2. National Journal. Rightwing RAG. Why are they always quoted here? NT

[jillan]

3. National Journal?

:rofl:

oh man - this place has really gone down hill.

[ProSense]

11. Explain the joke!

I'd like to hear it!

[MADem]

17. They might as well start citing Drudge authoritatively. It's incredible...NT

[ProSense]

18. National Journal = Drudge?

Your desperation is showing!

[MADem]

21. Barack Obama, 2007 MOST LIBERAL Senator...and INSURGENT.

National Journal.

I gave you the link below.

You won't apologize, but you FUCKED UP.


On edit...tick, tock...tick, tock...

You were so QUICK to respond to me before with your snarky little slams...couldn't WAIT to hit that keyboard and tell me that NJ WASN'T rightwing, and oh, I was WRONG!

Well, I wasn't.

Feeling a bit....er....DESPERATE?

[ProSense]

24. You comments are asinine! n/t

[MADem]

27. No--Your SOURCES are, there, "National Journal." NT

[ProSense]

29. Here

click me, I'm the source in the OP

[MADem]

30. DUH. You keep doing that like it MEANS something.

:eyes:

[ProSense]

33. .

(click me)

[ProSense]

4. First of all National Journal is not a RW rag, and secondly, this is an article from Media Matters.

National Review is a RW rag!

[MADem]

15. MM is QUOTING NATIONAL JOURNAL. And it IS a RW rag.

If they aren't a rightwing rag, why do they tout bullshit like that article, and THIS one?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802060001?f=s_search

Washington, D.C. -- Conservative pundits have a new talking point courtesy of the National Journal's new claim that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is the Senate's "most liberal" member. But there's more to the story than the talking heads would have the American people think.

In an email, the National Journal Group encouraged subscribers to read the magazine's Senate ratings, stating: "We expect this story will have immediate traction in the media and blogosphere and at watercoolers around the country. In 2004, President Bush invoked Senator John Kerry's liberal Vote Ratings score repeatedly on the campaign trail and at their head-to-head debates."

The email did not mention that the National Journal has acknowledged the methodology it used to produce its "most liberal" rating for Kerry was flawed.

"It seems the National Journal is more interested in becoming part of a campaign's talking points than honestly and accurately assessing the votes of United States senators," said Karl Frisch, a Media Matters for America spokesman. "Failing to disclose previous flaws in its rating system is irresponsible. The National Journal should focus on reporting the facts, instead of spinning for attention."

Numerous outlets and conservative media figures have reported on the National Journal's rating of Obama as "the most liberal senator in 2007," but have ignored issues raised about the 2003 study and the fact that the same National Journal feature could not rate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) because he "missed more than half of the votes in both the economic and foreign-policy categories."

Still not convinced??? READ THIS: http://bendingleft.blogspot.com/2006/02/bias-of-national-journal-myopia-of-dc.html

:eyes:

I can't believe the CRAP people swallow, so easily, without questioning...

Oh, TNR is a RW rag, too, but that doesn't let NJ off the hook.

[ProSense]

16. What a silly link, and it doesn't say anything, but this does

National Journal

This is typical Hillaryites attack the source BS.

Still, the article in the OP is from Media Matters and so is the reference to the election law.

[MADem]

20. National Journal FUCKED your candidate. And the links are not SILLY.

You think it is FINE, then, that OBAMA got nailed by them...AND Kerry...and the only blog sites they reference are rightwing ones?

Your link, above is from 2006.

Check the NEWEST ONE--they FUCKED your fellah. And they called him an INSURGENT (you know, like those Ay-Rabs??).

But hey, it's more important to "prove your point" than pursue the TRUTH, I guess.

Here are a few MORE links, since you don't seem to GET IT:

http://www.gop.com/images/research/013108Research.pdf

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator.



Those links are courtesy of CROOKS AND LIARS, who, unlike you, "get it:" http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/01/national-journal-rates-obama-1-liberal-senator/

Ooooh kay. What side of the aisle are you coming from? Did you cross over from the GOP to support Obama, or what?

If you GENUINELY don't think NJ deals from the right, you must be off the VERY FAR right side of the page.

[ProSense]

23. That's idiotic! Obama is more liberal than Hillary, and on Super Tuesday:

7.3 million votes for Obama

7.3 million votes for Hillary

As for being "FUCKED" see this.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[guruoo]

19. Three guesses. n/t

[rodeodance]

36. HEY--what you doing with that RW rag as your source??

[ProSense]

39. .

click me, I'm the source in the OP


Do you feel :blush:

[MADem]

55. The source is MEDIA MATTERS, you dolt.

And they're SHITTING on NJ.

You're like a damn brick wall. And not in a nice way, either.

[MADem]

54. It ain't my source! Except to point out what bullshitters they are!

The Obama supporters use it when it sounds good for their purposes , but then try to ignore the fact that they slam him too.

It's rather ....ironic.

[K Gardner]

5. I just drilled down into that Open Secrets link someone posted here earlier..

I tried to post info here but I couldn't cut and paste. Under the Personal section of Clinton's disclosure, she has listed ALL of Bill's speaking fees from his lectures/tours and next to the name of the person/company it says: Spouse. These were huge sums of money, all $150,000 and up, and are listed on Hillary's asset page so I'm guessing its considered "joint income"

[bigtree]

46. don't ignore their assets

It's not credible to just focus on last year's income.

[suston96]

12. I distinctly heard her say it was from her mother. But, no matter....

As soon as the word got out that the campaign was broke, the floodgates opened and some 10 million poured in.

Not a bad move, eh?

[GoldieAZ49]

28. It is perfectly legal for the Clintons to put their own money into the campaign. What

is being questioned is where did the $5 million come from?

Obama has reveled his 2007 tax return and has asked for the Clintons to do the same.

If the $5 million came from someone else, and put into the campaign kitty via the Clintons bank account, that is illegal.

So, we shall see which way this one goes.

[ProSense]

37. No it's not perfectly legal for Hillary to use more than half of any community property. n/t

[GoldieAZ49]

42. retired judges disagree with you, they were discussing it yesterday

but where the money came from is in question.

[ProSense]

43. Link? n/t

[GoldieAZ49]

48. TV yesterday

since they didn't take public matching funds (like Edwards did) they can put as much of their own money in as they want (like Romney did)

Where the money came from is the BIG question. With Bill's dealing in Dubi the pressure should be building to disclose exactly where it came from.

[ProSense]

49. They can "put as much of their own money," that is the portion that is solely theirs, including half

of jointly owned assets.

[Radical Activist]

35. The where did Hillary get all of that personal wealth?

Was it all book deals?

[bigtree]

44. so where does ANYTHING show she violated ANYTHING???

this is a fishing expedition worthy of NIXON.

[ProSense]

52. What is Hillary hiding? n/t

[Evergreen Emerald]

45. Remember when DU had standards?

[ProSense]

47. Like not trying to claim that supporters of a Democratic candidate are members of a cult? n/t

[Evergreen Emerald]

50. like...looking at the issues

discussing issues without people blindly following a certain candidate cause he talks perrty and will bring you into the light.

[ProSense]

51. "blindly following a certain candidate cause he talks perrty" Oh, those standards!

Hypocrite!

[Pharlo]

53. Sheesh, I'm beginning to think no one in that group ever heard the old adage

"Now that their married what's hers is hers and what's his is hers." :sarcasm:

Seriously, considering how long they've been married, most, if not all, of their assets are joint property. If they divorced today, it would be a 50-50 split. Unless, there are funds earmarked as SPECIFICALLY belonging to one, and not joint property.