Right Hooks

Hillary's Quid Pro Quo Grows

The Clinton campaign distorted PAC rules for political gain.

Jordan Candler · Oct. 11, 2016

“You’re referring to a super PAC that we don’t coordinate with. It’s not my PAC.” That was Hillary Clinton’s retort in February after being reminded by debate moderator Judy Woodruff: “Nearly half of your financial sector donations come from … George Soros and Donald Sussman. You said there’s no quid pro quo.” Yet the truth is disturbingly homogeneous with how business is conducted over at the Clinton Foundation. A new memo just released by Wikileaks proves that Clinton sought to manipulate PAC rules for sheer personal and political gain via an email that was distributed to Clinton’s staff.

Via The Hill: “In the email, Clinton attorney Marc Elias outlined what is basically a strategy for steering large campaign donors to the super PAC without breaking the law. Elias told Clinton campaign officials it would be OK to tell staff at the super PAC: ‘Donor A works in financial services and has been a long-time contributor. I think she’d be willing to do six figures for Priorities.’ But not recommended, writes Elias, would be for the Clinton campaign official to say to a super PAC official: ‘I want you to call Donor A and ask for $250,000.’” To borrow a phrase from her husband, whether her campaign actually coordinated with the PAC, contrary to her assurances, depends on what the definition of “is” is.

The law forbids collaboration between a PAC and official campaigns. The Wikileaks revelation is all the more significant considering “Priorities USA supports Clinton’s presidential bid and raised more than $150 million from donors like hedge fund billionaire George Soros,” The Hill adds. Clinton’s core staff, like Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, was in on it too.

As Ed Morrissey points out, “This demonstrates just how hypocritical ‘campaign finance reform’ demands have been, especially Hillary Clinton’s years-long tirade against the Citizens United decision. Hillary doesn’t want ‘big money out of politics’ — she wants it controlled and shielded from public view so she can exploit it for herself.” That sounds awfully similar to how her Foundation is operated.

Click here to show comments

It's Right. It's Free.