Why should she when she can avoid campaign finance laws by campaigning without saying that’s what she’s doing?
Via NY Post:
When The Washington Post exposed Hillary Clinton’s contract for a March speech at UCLA, the terms looked more like something a rock star might demand than something from a former senator and first lady.
Among the details Clinton negotiated were the color and style of the armchairs she would be sitting on, the plates of hummus and crudités she demanded and the number of photos she would be willing to pose for.
Oh, yes, she also told the school it would have to cough up a $300,000 speaking fee on top of all this to get her.
When a college representative asked if Mrs. Clinton would consider a discounted rate because it was a public university, her people quickly responded: This was the discounted university rate.
Naturally, the blogosphere has had a field day with these details, which came not long after Hillary had written about how she and Bill were “dead broke” at the White House.
But what’s interesting to us is what it says about the state of campaign-finance reform. One UCLA alumnus, attorney Charles McKenna, e-mailed this to the university:
“In effect, this is a campaign appearance, as Ms. Clinton is undeniably looking into a presidential run in 2016. Why is a public university charging the public for the pleasure of providing Ms. Clinton the benefit of a high-profile platform?”