Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Donor is Also Clinton Vendor

By Matthew Mosk
One of the biggest beneficiaries of Hillary Clinton's campaign spending during 2007 was also one of her top donors, the former Rhode Island Democratic state chairman, Mark Weiner.

Finance records filed with the Federal Election Commission yesterday show that Clinton's campaign paid Weiner's company, Financial Innovations, Inc., more than $800,000 over the past year. Weiner is listed on Clinton's campaign web site as one of her "Hillraisers," meaning he has bundled more than $100,000 in checks for the senator's presidential bid.

Weiner is a longtime friend of both Clintons who has served as treasurer of the Democratic Governor's Association. The FEC filing says the payments to his company were for printing. His company makes campaign paraphernalia, including bumper stickers, yard signs, visibility signs and buttons.

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 1, 2008; 4:03 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: MoveOn Backs Obama
Next: Jetting the Oprah Way

Comments

If you are wondering where I saw the $1.5 million figure for Weiner's firm, it is here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-superdelegates-clinton-webmar24,1,6772455.story

Posted by: Dave27 | March 24, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

If you are wondering where I saw the 1.5 million figure for Weiner's firm, it is here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-superdelegates-clinton-webmar24,1,6772455.story

Posted by: Dave27 | March 24, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

aha...
Okay, add this up people.

-Hillary loaned $5 million to her campaign in February.
-Her campaign collected $34 million in February.
-After expenses, her campaign has $3 million left over.
-Her campaign paid $1.5 million (not $800K) to Weiner's firm to make posters.
-Her campaign paid $687K to weiner for his services alone.
-Her campaing don't have enough in the bank to return her loan.
-Hillary is refusing to release her tax return.

Do you feel something fishy is going on here? I do. If she loses, hire a smart detective and send him/her after Hillary, and you will see the $5 million loan come back to Hillary from Weiner. Do you think the Clintons are going to spend their money for us to put them in White House? No way Jose.

Posted by: Dave27 | March 24, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

$800,000 of campaign money spend on one guy to print some posters. That sounds fishy. There should be some investigation on this Hillary deal with Joe Weiner. How long have they known each other? What other favors he has recieved from the Clintons? Are there any government contracts the Clintons diverted his way. He is one of the HillRaisers. We know another HillRaiser who is serving time in jail right now, Norman Hsu. Joe Weiner could potentially be the next Norman Hsu. $800,000 is a lot of money to be wasted on one guy. Even if all contributers to her campain donated $2000 each, it will take 400 people to spend their hard earned money to let Hillary do this favor for Joe Weiner. This definitely warrants an investigation.

Posted by: MaryHiggins1 | February 2, 2008 11:52 PM | Report abuse

How convenient. Weiner bundles money and gives it to Hillary or Bill. They give the same bundle back to Weiner. Now if Hillary gets into the white house, all our tax payer money and government contracts will go to Weiner's company. This is white water and travelgate all over again. If Hillary gets elected then the next 4 years will be spend on her impeachment proceedings. What a drain of tax payer money last time when Bill fooled around with Monica. All the partisan bickering and noncooperation will only eat away the hard earned money of the people of this country which the government collects as taxes.

There is one alternative though. Don't elect Hillary. We can avoid the payback for all the Hillraises and bundlers.

Posted by: ChunkyMonkey1 | February 2, 2008 12:28 AM | Report abuse

Why is this "simply information" here, and not the hundreds of thousands of other pieces of "simply information" disclosed in the filings? If it is not implied as improper, why is it newsworthy?

Posted by: zukermand | February 1, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

I read neither insinuation or implication in this item. It is simply information.

Posted by: toneye | February 1, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

The point y'all are missing is that whenever the Post writes a story that includes favorable information about a major advertiser, they include a disclaimer, ABOVE THE HEADLINE in eqully larger and bolded letters, informing us that the company mentioned in the story is a major advertiser in the newspaper writing about that company. So they expect politicians and other business to follow a similarly pristine example!

Yeah, right!

Posted by: 33rdStreet | February 1, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

yeah and?

Posted by: trisha2 | February 1, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

I must have read too fast. I'm going back now to judge the evidence in terms of other than arms length pricing, campaign finance law violations, personal enrichment of the Clintons, and any other criteria I might consider relevant in determining the accuracy of a charge of impropriety of this nature.

I'm sorry, what? There's no charge of impropriety? Just insinuation and baseless attempts to smear by implication? Then what is this doing in a major "newspaper"? It's not a major "newspaper", it's a tabloid rag? Oh, I guess I haven't kept up with the long sad decline of the Washington Post and the new "standards" by which tabloids like this operate. My mistake.

Posted by: zukermand | February 1, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company