Hillary Clinton's loan to provide some return

Bill and Hillary Clinton, who were beset with legal bills when they moved out of the White House, have done all right since then. The most recent financial disclosure statement that, as a senator, Hillary must file showed the couple with an estimated net worth of $17.4 million to $53.7 million (lawmakers only have to report their assets within broad ranges, so more precision is impossible).

As was widely reported, their bank account took a hit recently when Hillary lent her presidential campaign $5 million. But even if she and Bill fall short of another stay at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., they'll get some return on that loan.

According to information filed Thursday with the Federal Elections Commission, Hillary is charging her own campaign coffers interest of 1.26% on the cash infusion she provided.

That's a low rate, as a CNN story noted, and it's not uncommon for candidates to collect some interest on such loans.

But, as the piece also pointed out, Mitt Romney -- who's much wealthier than the Clintons and also funneled much more of his own dough into his failed presidential quest -- took a pass on the practice.

-- Don Frederick   

Comments

[Jack's Son]

The question used to be- why did the Tribune publish its unsubstantiated views that John Mc Cain had acted inappropriately towards a lobbyist. Now the Tribune has decided to publish selected characterizations of second hand conversations and opinions concerning the deduced flaws which they claim to have discovered in John Mc Cain's character.

The Tribune's timing is suspect in that the Democrats are still carrying the weight of Bill Clinton's extra curricular activities in the White House. So it seems that the democrats are seizing on this opportunity to make it appear that Bill Clinton is almost normal.

So what are we going to do about this? My opinion is that if there is any truth to the undocumented opinions of gross misconduct outlined in the Tribune then John Mc Cain will do the honorable thing and apologize. Hopefully all this will be resolved and the Tribune will also apologize or take credit for its investigative activities.

In other words an apology from somebody is due.

(FYI, the Tribune did not yet do an investigation of Sen. McCain. It's reporting on the NYTimes story and the controversy surrounding it. It's not Tribune or LATimes editors/reporters who went online today to explain their thinking. You got your own facts wrong.)

[Elizabeth]

I don't see the problem. She spent money on the election after it was clear that she was losing and now she wants Obama's supporters to write checks for her, because her own fundraising has fallen short. This is pretty hard to swallow though as most of the campaign contributers to Obama really are living more modestly then she is, and it is a bit much to ask the middle class to pay her back millions of dollars so she can enjoy the same position of being far ahead of the status quo. Most americans aren't millionaires- why should we worry about her maintaining her millions?

If I buy something, its money spent, i don't get it back. Why should she expect differently? What is this 'loan' she gave herself? And, shouldn't someone close this loophole anyway as it is kind of embarrassing that politicians think they can buy elections. All other's were only allowed to contribute $2,300. She should have to do the same. However, since she already spent the money, I think it is fair that she shouldn't get it back.