What happened
As Sen. Hillary Clinton’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination takes on an air of inevitability, rival John Edwards sharply criticized her fundraising activities over the weekend. The Los Angeles Times reported that Clinton had collected a $380,000 windfall at a single April fundraising event in New York City’s Chinatown, where people listing their jobs as dishwasher, server, or chef made individual contributions for as much as $2,300. Edwards’ campaign manager, David Bonoir, said the news “raised eyebrows;” Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson said her campaign didn’t “ethnically profile donors.”
Article continues belowThe Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
It’s hard for Clinton’s staff to “keep tabs on all the donors” when her campaign is “raking in so much dough,” said Carl Hiaasen in The Miami Herald (free registratoin). First there was Hsu, the “natty schmoozer of high-level Democrats who was recently busted on fraud charges,” and now it emerges that Clinton also accepted money from trial lawyers at the firm Milberg Weiss who were “implicated in a sleazy kickback scheme.” But—oops—Edwards took money from those guys, too.
“The business of the American election has become, if not necessarily corrupted, at least swamped by big money,” said Anna Quindlen in Newsweek. Scandals have proven time and again that big-money donors get access to power for their donations. Maybe it’s time for reform. Giving candidates enough federal matching funds to mount “a credible race” might improve the system, by making it impossible for candidates to “declare victory based not on democracy but on dollars.”