Hillary's book was a hot item... publishers were competeing for the deal.
Was she even a senator yet when she got the deal?
Her book has been on the bestsellers list since the Spring. Of course it would slip down the list.
Al's book is still at No.3 though.
Newt was Speaker of the House as was Wright. Notice the similarities?
Neither was a former first lady... notice the difference?
How about I notice some more similarities, like all three could affect legislation and thus the advance could be seen as buying influence for all three.
As for whether she was a senator yet. She was elected but not yet sworn in. I don't see how that would make a difference.
"Smith, self term-limited, is leaving Congress. His lawyer son Brad is one of five Republicans seeking to replace him from a GOP district in Michigan's southern tier. On the House floor, Nick Smith was told business interests would give his son $100,000 in return for his father's vote. When he still declined, fellow Republican House members told him they would make sure Brad Smith never came to Congress. After Nick Smith voted no and the bill passed, Duke Cunningham of California and other Republicans taunted him that his son was dead meat."
"Smith, self term-limited, is leaving Congress. His lawyer son Brad is one of five Republicans seeking to replace him from a GOP district in Michigan's southern tier. On the House floor, Nick Smith was told business interests would give his son $100,000 in return for his father's vote. When he still declined, fellow Republican House members told him they would make sure Brad Smith never came to Congress. After Nick Smith voted no and the bill passed, Duke Cunningham of California and other Republicans taunted him that his son was dead meat."
Actually that was the case with Wright, but Newt's deal was legit.
However the matter that concerns both Newt and Clinton is earned income from outside sources while serving in the Congress. Any source of income can be considered "bribery" even if it is "earned." The rules in both the House and Senate are quite strict on earned outside income. Royalties are sort of a nebulous area and that is why Newt's deal clarified it for the House, and why Clinton's should have clarified it for the Senate.
If Clinton is on a two month tour paid for by the publisher to help promote the book that pays her, is that earning outside income while working in the senate? I conceded it is a nebulous area, but the point with Newt and with Clinton is that if you are going to be the standard bearer, you better hold yourself to the highest standard. Newt was dinged when he didn't. Hillary had plenty of complaints tossed about for what she did, but still took the money.
As for how her book did, I'm glad it did and does well for her. However it is honestly very hard to prove how well it would have done if the company didn't have 8 million worth of advance riding on it. I mean do you believe that when Britney Spears sells a million records it has nothing to do with the record company promoting the hell out of the album, slipping payola and hiring callers who inundate request lines and things of that nature. It isn't so clear cut as you may believe. That part is just opinion, I'm not going to claim to have proof of those intangibles. I'm just aware of them from seeing how they work on the music side of the entertainment field. Your company really can make or break you. The difference is Britney is considered to be earning income and working for her record company whereas Clinton somehow isn't for Viacom.
Seems like Gingrich's problems were more than just a book deal.
In its December 12, 1995 report, the House Ethics Committee found that Speaker Gingrich violated House rules on three separate occasions and strongly questioned the appropriateness of a book contract entered into by the Speaker.
According to the Committee, Speaker Gingrich:
*\tEntered into an initial book contract in 1994 for an advance of $4.5 million, and although the Committee found the contract to be in "technical compliance" with House rules, it "strongly question[ed] the appropriateness of what some could describe as an attempt by Representative Gingrich to capitalize on his office."
*\t"Misuse[d]" the House Floor for commercial purposes and used an "800" number for "improper solicitation" in references he made on the Floor to audio and video tapes of his college course, as well as violated "the proscription noted in the House Ethics Manual against inserting commercial advertising in the Congressional Record."
*\tViolated House Rule 45 and "create[d] the appearance of the improper commingling of political and official resources [which] is inappropriate."
*\tViolated House rules "by using the official resources of the House Floor for political purposes."
"The fact that Speaker Gingrich was formally found by the Committee to have violated House ethics rules is relevant, even though the Committee decided at that time to impose no sanction," McBride wrote.
The Common Cause letter also noted that one serious matter pending against Speaker Gingrich has not yet been resolved by the Ethics Committee.
This matter, first raised in a letter from Common Cause to the Committee in December 1995, questions whether Speaker Gingrich improperly used GOPAC, a political committee he chaired until 1995, to help finance his 1990 reelection effort, as well as the campaigns of other Republican congressional candidates, using undisclosed and federally illegal soft money funds. Doing so would potentially violate Clause 1 of House Rule 43.
"The Speaker is the highest officer of the House, and the second in line of succession to the Presidency," McBride wrote. As the Ethics Committee noted in its earlier report, the office of House Speaker is "a constitutional office requiring the highest standards of ethical behavior."
Seems like Gingrich's problems were more than just a book deal.
In its December 12, 1995 report, the House Ethics Committee found that Speaker Gingrich violated House rules on three separate occasions and strongly questioned the appropriateness of a book contract entered into by the Speaker.
According to the Committee, Speaker Gingrich:
*\tEntered into an initial book contract in 1994 for an advance of $4.5 million, and although the Committee found the contract to be in "technical compliance" with House rules, it "strongly question[ed] the appropriateness of what some could describe as an attempt by Representative Gingrich to capitalize on his office."
*\t"Misuse[d]" the House Floor for commercial purposes and used an "800" number for "improper solicitation" in references he made on the Floor to audio and video tapes of his college course, as well as violated "the proscription noted in the House Ethics Manual against inserting commercial advertising in the Congressional Record."
*\tViolated House Rule 45 and "create[d] the appearance of the improper commingling of political and official resources [which] is inappropriate."
*\tViolated House rules "by using the official resources of the House Floor for political purposes."
"The fact that Speaker Gingrich was formally found by the Committee to have violated House ethics rules is relevant, even though the Committee decided at that time to impose no sanction," McBride wrote.
The Common Cause letter also noted that one serious matter pending against Speaker Gingrich has not yet been resolved by the Ethics Committee.
This matter, first raised in a letter from Common Cause to the Committee in December 1995, questions whether Speaker Gingrich improperly used GOPAC, a political committee he chaired until 1995, to help finance his 1990 reelection effort, as well as the campaigns of other Republican congressional candidates, using undisclosed and federally illegal soft money funds. Doing so would potentially violate Clause 1 of House Rule 43.
"The Speaker is the highest officer of the House, and the second in line of succession to the Presidency," McBride wrote. As the Ethics Committee noted in its earlier report, the office of House Speaker is "a constitutional office requiring the highest standards of ethical behavior."
Good, good, you are starting to get it in a round about way Chu. Using an outside PAC to funnel money to your election campaigns... wrong... unless it involves Soros, $15 million with the intent of raising $100 million and it is all Democratic soft money. Mentioning a college course with book and tapes is inappropriate, giving away your book for free while soliciting campaign contributions isn't.
As Common Cause mentioned, the book deal was technically legal. It just gave off a stink. Well that is true if you happen to be a Senator from New York as well.
As I mentioned I don't really care to determine who was "worse" because I don't believe in the finance laws that would make most of these activities illegal in the first place. I'm just saying the left claims a moral high ground and then conducts business as usual. To me they have no moral high ground and shouldn't be pointing fingers.
I blamed it on my bleary eyes. After all, it was Friday 8:00am at the tail end of another long week. Was the New York Times's story actually reporting that, "Mr Bush's campaign says it is raising so much money just to remain competitive with what it says is a well-financed liberal political machine."
Whoa! This is the same President who's going to bust all fundraising records--raising over $200 million, even with an uncontested primary race? It's certainly true that unions, wealthy liberals, and others are pouring what resources they have into election 2004. They've correctly anticipated Bush's enormous financial advantage will require an expensive response and that the stakes are extraordinarily high. And Bush's own fundraising is a fraction of the money that will be spent on his behalf--his party will raise far more money than the Democrats and corporate-friendly investment in Bush, Inc. will make its voice heard loudly as well.
Bush as financial underdog? The only question is whether the press corps covering the presidential race will challenge this remarkable spin.
The conservatives on this board have sold their soul to this administration and will do, say and spin anything to justify it. Anyone who tells you that the Dems are unfairly raising more money than they are are LIARS!
Comments
Was she even a senator yet when she got the deal?
Her book has been on the bestsellers list since the Spring. Of course it would slip down the list.
Al's book is still at No.3 though.
Newt was Speaker of the House as was Wright. Notice the similarities?
Neither was a former first lady... notice the difference?
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Hillary's book was a hot item... publishers were competeing for the deal.
Was she even a senator yet when she got the deal?
Her book has been on the bestsellers list since the Spring. Of course it would slip down the list.
Al's book is still at No.3 though.
Newt was Speaker of the House as was Wright. Notice the similarities?
Neither was a former first lady... notice the difference?
How about I notice some more similarities, like all three could affect legislation and thus the advance could be seen as buying influence for all three.
As for whether she was a senator yet. She was elected but not yet sworn in. I don't see how that would make a difference.
Common Cause
Nick
Wrights and Newts problems came from having a book out and then masking donations to their campaigns and gopacs as book sales.
While we're on the topic of the appearance of bribes...
http://slate.msn.com/id/2091787/
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak...t-novak27.html
"Smith, self term-limited, is leaving Congress. His lawyer son Brad is one of five Republicans seeking to replace him from a GOP district in Michigan's southern tier. On the House floor, Nick Smith was told business interests would give his son $100,000 in return for his father's vote. When he still declined, fellow Republican House members told him they would make sure Brad Smith never came to Congress. After Nick Smith voted no and the bill passed, Duke Cunningham of California and other Republicans taunted him that his son was dead meat."
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I'm not sure what Simon&Schuster would gain from her one vote in the senate. They did make their advance back and a profit.
Wrights and Newts problems came from having a book out and then masking donations to their campaigns and gopacs as book sales.
While we're on the topic of the appearance of bribes...
http://slate.msn.com/id/2091787/
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak...t-novak27.html
"Smith, self term-limited, is leaving Congress. His lawyer son Brad is one of five Republicans seeking to replace him from a GOP district in Michigan's southern tier. On the House floor, Nick Smith was told business interests would give his son $100,000 in return for his father's vote. When he still declined, fellow Republican House members told him they would make sure Brad Smith never came to Congress. After Nick Smith voted no and the bill passed, Duke Cunningham of California and other Republicans taunted him that his son was dead meat."
Actually that was the case with Wright, but Newt's deal was legit.
However the matter that concerns both Newt and Clinton is earned income from outside sources while serving in the Congress. Any source of income can be considered "bribery" even if it is "earned." The rules in both the House and Senate are quite strict on earned outside income. Royalties are sort of a nebulous area and that is why Newt's deal clarified it for the House, and why Clinton's should have clarified it for the Senate.
If Clinton is on a two month tour paid for by the publisher to help promote the book that pays her, is that earning outside income while working in the senate? I conceded it is a nebulous area, but the point with Newt and with Clinton is that if you are going to be the standard bearer, you better hold yourself to the highest standard. Newt was dinged when he didn't. Hillary had plenty of complaints tossed about for what she did, but still took the money.
As for how her book did, I'm glad it did and does well for her. However it is honestly very hard to prove how well it would have done if the company didn't have 8 million worth of advance riding on it. I mean do you believe that when Britney Spears sells a million records it has nothing to do with the record company promoting the hell out of the album, slipping payola and hiring callers who inundate request lines and things of that nature. It isn't so clear cut as you may believe. That part is just opinion, I'm not going to claim to have proof of those intangibles. I'm just aware of them from seeing how they work on the music side of the entertainment field. Your company really can make or break you. The difference is Britney is considered to be earning income and working for her record company whereas Clinton somehow isn't for Viacom.
Nick
Seems like Gingrich's problems were more than just a book deal.
In its December 12, 1995 report, the House Ethics Committee found that Speaker Gingrich violated House rules on three separate occasions and strongly questioned the appropriateness of a book contract entered into by the Speaker.
According to the Committee, Speaker Gingrich:
*\tEntered into an initial book contract in 1994 for an advance of $4.5 million, and although the Committee found the contract to be in "technical compliance" with House rules, it "strongly question[ed] the appropriateness of what some could describe as an attempt by Representative Gingrich to capitalize on his office."
*\t"Misuse[d]" the House Floor for commercial purposes and used an "800" number for "improper solicitation" in references he made on the Floor to audio and video tapes of his college course, as well as violated "the proscription noted in the House Ethics Manual against inserting commercial advertising in the Congressional Record."
*\tViolated House Rule 45 and "create[d] the appearance of the improper commingling of political and official resources [which] is inappropriate."
*\tViolated House rules "by using the official resources of the House Floor for political purposes."
"The fact that Speaker Gingrich was formally found by the Committee to have violated House ethics rules is relevant, even though the Committee decided at that time to impose no sanction," McBride wrote.
The Common Cause letter also noted that one serious matter pending against Speaker Gingrich has not yet been resolved by the Ethics Committee.
This matter, first raised in a letter from Common Cause to the Committee in December 1995, questions whether Speaker Gingrich improperly used GOPAC, a political committee he chaired until 1995, to help finance his 1990 reelection effort, as well as the campaigns of other Republican congressional candidates, using undisclosed and federally illegal soft money funds. Doing so would potentially violate Clause 1 of House Rule 43.
"The Speaker is the highest officer of the House, and the second in line of succession to the Presidency," McBride wrote. As the Ethics Committee noted in its earlier report, the office of House Speaker is "a constitutional office requiring the highest standards of ethical behavior."
Originally posted by chu_bakka
http://www.commoncause.org/publications/010696.htm
Seems like Gingrich's problems were more than just a book deal.
In its December 12, 1995 report, the House Ethics Committee found that Speaker Gingrich violated House rules on three separate occasions and strongly questioned the appropriateness of a book contract entered into by the Speaker.
According to the Committee, Speaker Gingrich:
*\tEntered into an initial book contract in 1994 for an advance of $4.5 million, and although the Committee found the contract to be in "technical compliance" with House rules, it "strongly question[ed] the appropriateness of what some could describe as an attempt by Representative Gingrich to capitalize on his office."
*\t"Misuse[d]" the House Floor for commercial purposes and used an "800" number for "improper solicitation" in references he made on the Floor to audio and video tapes of his college course, as well as violated "the proscription noted in the House Ethics Manual against inserting commercial advertising in the Congressional Record."
*\tViolated House Rule 45 and "create[d] the appearance of the improper commingling of political and official resources [which] is inappropriate."
*\tViolated House rules "by using the official resources of the House Floor for political purposes."
"The fact that Speaker Gingrich was formally found by the Committee to have violated House ethics rules is relevant, even though the Committee decided at that time to impose no sanction," McBride wrote.
The Common Cause letter also noted that one serious matter pending against Speaker Gingrich has not yet been resolved by the Ethics Committee.
This matter, first raised in a letter from Common Cause to the Committee in December 1995, questions whether Speaker Gingrich improperly used GOPAC, a political committee he chaired until 1995, to help finance his 1990 reelection effort, as well as the campaigns of other Republican congressional candidates, using undisclosed and federally illegal soft money funds. Doing so would potentially violate Clause 1 of House Rule 43.
"The Speaker is the highest officer of the House, and the second in line of succession to the Presidency," McBride wrote. As the Ethics Committee noted in its earlier report, the office of House Speaker is "a constitutional office requiring the highest standards of ethical behavior."
Good, good, you are starting to get it in a round about way Chu. Using an outside PAC to funnel money to your election campaigns... wrong... unless it involves Soros, $15 million with the intent of raising $100 million and it is all Democratic soft money. Mentioning a college course with book and tapes is inappropriate, giving away your book for free while soliciting campaign contributions isn't.
As Common Cause mentioned, the book deal was technically legal. It just gave off a stink. Well that is true if you happen to be a Senator from New York as well.
As I mentioned I don't really care to determine who was "worse" because I don't believe in the finance laws that would make most of these activities illegal in the first place. I'm just saying the left claims a moral high ground and then conducts business as usual. To me they have no moral high ground and shouldn't be pointing fingers.
Nick
I blamed it on my bleary eyes. After all, it was Friday 8:00am at the tail end of another long week. Was the New York Times's story actually reporting that, "Mr Bush's campaign says it is raising so much money just to remain competitive with what it says is a well-financed liberal political machine."
Whoa! This is the same President who's going to bust all fundraising records--raising over $200 million, even with an uncontested primary race? It's certainly true that unions, wealthy liberals, and others are pouring what resources they have into election 2004. They've correctly anticipated Bush's enormous financial advantage will require an expensive response and that the stakes are extraordinarily high. And Bush's own fundraising is a fraction of the money that will be spent on his behalf--his party will raise far more money than the Democrats and corporate-friendly investment in Bush, Inc. will make its voice heard loudly as well.
Bush as financial underdog? The only question is whether the press corps covering the presidential race will challenge this remarkable spin.
The conservatives on this board have sold their soul to this administration and will do, say and spin anything to justify it. Anyone who tells you that the Dems are unfairly raising more money than they are are LIARS!
Oh wait... it's not... it's not even being given to the DNC.