Village Spillage

Kevin

Feldman, Kohl and Pasch are simply taking a page out of the Sheldon Wasserman Play book.

Wasserman won his first election by "lending" himself thousands of dollars ...... But the real Kicker is HE REPAID HIMSELF WITH SUBSEQUENT CONTRIBUTIONS.

Supporters of Wasserman -- after his election and in subsequent election campaigns -- had no idea that the money they were contributing to his campaign, was actually going back into HIS POCKET to repay his earlier "loans".

This is definitely the Achilles Heel of our election campaign finance laws.  

1) The candidate can give UNLIMITED amounts of cash to his or her own campaign, as a matter of Free Speech, thereby circumventing contribution limits in the law.  

2) If the candidate wins, they then run as an incumbent, and raise a ton of money --- which they use to Repay Themselves.

I would wager that Wasserman will also lend himself a lot of money running against Darling -- and if he wins (and even if he loses) he will hit up his contributors for more money in different election cycles, and Pay Himself Back.

Umm .. is that the Sheldon Wasserman playbook, or, for example, the state's top Republican (and top legal officer) JB Van Hollen's playbook?  He loaned his campaign $700,000.   How will he ever get that paid back?  Future donors.  

In the end, it's silly to criticize Wasserman for any loans he may have given his campaign.  It is currently legal, and TONS of politicians do it on both sides of the aisle.

If any "supporters of Wasserman" who donated to a campaign and did not know their funds were going to repay an earlier loan .. are somehow unhappy about this, they have only themselves to blame, as that's the way the system works.  Candidates use your donations to pay for their campaigns, which includes the repayment of loans.

I have no problem with politicians who have their own skin in the game .. (as long as they aren't trying to buy the election.  In Wasserman's case, he's just keeping up.)

(And for the record, I'm not sure who I'm voting for, as I've voted for both Darling and Wasserman in previous elections.)

Kevin

You cannot compare Van Hollen (who I think should never have been elected) with Wasserman when there is a 16 year separation of the events !!  When Wasserman was pulling the scam, folks had absolutely No Clue .......

Even now, I will wager that 90% of contributors have no idea that their contribution is going back to the pocket of the candidate --- and if the Candidate let them know he or she were soliciting contributions to repay the Rich Candidate --- I believe they would not send that check.

It is patronizing to say that the folks who give money to politicians who use it to repay their loans have only themselves to blame --- NOBODY announces it --- certainly Not the Candidate, and not the press.  I think it would be more accurate to say it is Sad, that the Contributors are being taken for Suckers...

Dave

I am wondering how something legal can be a "scam"?

Exactly correct, wfbdoglover.   A candidate loaning his campaign money, then being paid back with future donors is simply how the system works, and has worked for decades.  By definition, this legal practice is no "scam."

Wasserman, Feldman, Kohl, Pasch, Van Hollen .. not to mention Hillary Clinton this summer ..   6 examples of candidates who loaned money to their campaigns.  Search the campaign finance database, you'll find 50 more examples.  With luck, future donors will pay all those loans back.  

Believing all these candidates are "scamming" their donors is .. very unique.