The Most Ethical Administration Ever, Version 2

Who the hell is running this guy’s campaign?

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark will give no more paid speeches, the Democratic presidential candidate’s spokesman said on Wednesday after the Washington Post reported he may have broken the law by touting his 2004 run for the White House.

The Federal Election Commission prohibits candidates from accepting speaking fees from corporations, labor unions, individuals or universities for campaign-related events.

Since Clark announced his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination on Sept. 17, he has made several paid speaking appearances on college campuses, but FEC officials said it was unclear whether he had done anything wrong.

“Based on our review of the FEC guidelines, we believe that the paid speeches Gen. Clark delivered since he announced his candidacy were appropriate,” campaign spokesman Mark Fabiani said. “From here on, Gen. Clark will give no more paid speeches.”

Oh- Mark Fabiani. Exlpains that. I will watch with amusement as some on the right claim this is why Clark should not run for office, which would be absurd. This was, however, seriously stupid. At least he has not signed any last minute $8 million dollar book deal or asked his rich friends to shop for him.

*** Update ***

Daily Kos has more information on the Clark campaign staff.

10 replies
  1. 1
    Kimmitt says:

    In the guy’s defense, FEC guidelines are arcane at best and he corrected himself as soon as the error was brought to his attention.

  2. 2
    HH says:

    “he corrected himself as soon as the error was brought to his attention.”

    But isn’t this becoming something of a pattern with this guy?

  3. 3
    Calvin says:

    John, I’m not sure that anyone knows the answer to your first question.

    Whatever the answer is, it has the Deanies absolutely fizzy with excitement.

    I think Clark can quash the whole thing by taking direct control of his own campaign, kicking out the Party operatives and tapping Sharpton for VP . . . and blogging. Definitely needs to blog more. Definitely.

  4. 4
    mark says:

    Where the hell was Mary when he needed her?

  5. 5
    Terry says:

    John – In response to your question: “Who the Hell is running this guy’s campaign?” The national media are reporting that his campaign staff is totally dominated by former President Clinton’s aides and political handlers…which may account for some of the, shall we say, ethical lapses.

  6. 6
    Kimmitt says:

    Look, guys, seriously, this was a technical violation of an arcane law. This is a goddamn speeding ticket. I’m not a Clarkie, but Jeez.

  7. 7
    John Cole says:

    Which is kind of why I said it would be amusing to watch some people make more out of this than it is- but it is still something his staff, former Clinton lackey’s should know.

  8. 8
    Terry says:

    One might be inclined to consider Kimmit’s point that he makes above relative to giving Clark a “break” for his apparent violation of an “arcane” campaign finance law. However, as noted in Kimmit’s comments on the Wilson/Plame affair on this site last week (excerpted below), he certainly doesn’t give an inch in terms of expecting an honest and ethical handling of the Wilson affair investigation on the part of President Bush. Given the views of many, if not most, military associates of General Clark who have expressed rather harsh views of Clark’s integrity and character, I’m not too inclined to give the General a “break” on this campaign violation, arcane or otherwise.

    Here’s Kimmit’s earlier comments on the Wilson matter:

    “Wait, you really think that delaying the dissemination of documents to the Department of Justice for two weeks (and therefore enjoying the opportunity to conveniently lose or misfile a few particularly incriminating documents) constitutes investigation? You said that it was out of the President’s hands, now. The President has taken the investigation back into his hands. He now has the tools to ferret out the son of a bitch who compromised our national security.

    “He will use them to cover up the truth.”

  9. 9
    Kimmitt says:

    Yes. I do not consider a speeding-ticket-like violation of FEC law to be on the same level as covering up for the burning of a CIA spook and subsequent compromise of national security.

  10. 10
    Terry says:

    With a response like that, you prove beyond a reasonable doubt what a fool you are.

Comments are closed.