One sign that the early on coronations on Hillary! Clinton by some media outlets may be a bit premature is illustrated quite nicely today by the Washington Post editorial board. They have been trying to get an answer from the Clinton campaign to a pretty straightforward question: Will the Clinton campaign release the names of the big "bundlers", or major donors who agree to round up big money for the candidate.
After all, that proprietor of "the most secretive administration in history" did just that. Bush has routinely released the names of his campaigns bundlers. Clinton won't even answer the question.
SEN. HILLARY Rodham Clinton had a party at her house the other night for an elite group: about 70 fundraisers who agreed to raise at least $250,000 — and some as much as $1 million — for her presidential campaign. That soiree and a meeting for lower-level fundraisers ($25,000 and up) prompts us to raise again the question that we couldn't get the Clinton campaign to answer the other day. What are the candidate's plans to release the names of her big bundlers? Will she meet the standard of disclosure set by President Bush and every 2004 Democratic presidential contender except John Edwards and make the fundraisers' identities available? So far — though we've been putting this question to the Clinton campaign since last Friday by telephone and by e-mail — we haven't gotten an answer.
Candidates are as indebted to big bundlers as they would be to big check-writers; the public deserves to know who's underwriting their campaigns. Disclosure of this sort should be a no-brainer…..
Interestingly, Barack Obama and John McCain have both said they would release the names; John Edwards appears to have declined. Other campaigns have not answered the question yet either, although I rather suspect most will once this becomes a higher profile issue. This illustrates both that declarations of victory and over-confidence are both premature.
