In yet another example of why more and more people are turning to the Web for their news, the DBKP blog has just uncovered information that the John Edwards campaign has been refunding campaign contributions even before billionaire Warren Buffett suggested that Edwards could be hit with a class action lawsuit. And can you guess which of the two of Edwards' Americas got the majority of the refunds? DBKP explains:
The Edwards ‘08 Campaign for President has quietly refunded almost $4 million to individual contributors, a number of them, bundlers and big backers. This should be news to Warren Buffet who recently mused that Edwards’ supporters should get together and file a class action suit. It seems another “class” has already had their contributions refunded–and it’s not the “grassroots” little guys.
We had no idea the campaign was handing out refunds until we happened to come across the information while perusing the site OpenSecrets.org and the data supplied to the Federal Election Commission by the Edwards’ campaign.
We were baffled, how did the Edwards’ campaign manage to refund that much money, almost $4 million, and no one notice? We hadn’t seen any mention of the refunds elsewhere, not on the web, not in the MSM, and not on the Edwards’ campaign website.
No surprise there that this fact slipped by the mainstream media. Once again it is the blogosphere that has dug up this information. Here is a breakdown of some of those who received their refunds:
Out of 667 “bundlers” or designated fundraisers, 276 or 40%, had received a refund of their individual contributions. Not only did the individual bundlers get their money back but in some cases so did their family members.
Other refundees included Fred Baron, Edwards’ former national finance campaign chairman in both the ‘04 and ‘08 elections. Baron recently admitted that he had been monetarily “helping” Edwards’ ex-mistress, Rielle Hunter. The list includes some of Edwards’ largest bundlers, Thomas Girardi, John O’Quinn, and William Lerash, as well as other “famous” refundees: Michael Eisner, Don Henley, Eric Montross, and Michigan Congressman (D) David Bonoir of Michigan.
And what of the "other America?" How did they fare in the refund department? DBKP provides the answer:
As for the little “grassroots” contributors, the percentage of those who received refunds is laughable, less than 1/5th of a percent. Some of the “little” people who gave a $100 or less were professionals: attorneys, physicians, and lobbyists, a far cry from those who could only afford to give “$15″ at the Texas fundraiser given for Edwards last year by attorney John O’Quinn. Out of the 125 refunds given to people for $100 or less, only three were under $15, two of those were contributions from attorneys.
It will be interesting to see what happens if and when the MSM decides to cover this. And will they give credit to the blogosphere for digging this up? Meanwhile the MSM continues to follow where the Web leads.
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
From what I saw in the article
August 25, 2008 - 08:17 ET by sarcasmoBuffett only said "Edwards should pay his small donors back." I was the one speculating here, due to my fantasies of a class action lawsuit against a big time shyster, which I doubt Warren shares. The article linked today says he speculated about a lawsuit, but the article I originally saw didn't mention it. I guess I should try to find the CNBC interview.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Typical SOP
August 25, 2008 - 08:39 ET by BayshoremanThis is just another example of the typical Standard Operating Proceedure of the Dems and their MSM enablers. For all their sanctimonious talk about caring and compassion for the "poor working people", they could care less about them when it comes to personal money (and social) matters concerning themselves and their friends. It's all about THEM.
BTW, why isn't Buffet suggesting a class action against Bill Clinton who was guilty of doing the exact same thing, i.e. having an affair and then publicly lying about it, as Edwards? I also find it outright laughable that Bill will be given a major speaking role at the Dem convention while Edwards will be a persona non grata.
I also find it outright
August 25, 2008 - 09:08 ET by rimskyI also find it outright laughable that Bill will be given a major speaking role at the Dem convention while Edwards will be a persona non grata.
Bill was forgiven a LONG time ago for his lying. Edwards has to do his pennance, which is to say he just needs to get a few speaking engagements in front of sypathetic gatherings under his belt in order for the Dems to "Move on" from this.... as if any of them are really that upset in the first place.
If this guy had ANY scruples at all he'd tuck is worthless tail between his legs and crawl off into the woods, never to be seen again. The exasperating thing is though, he and others pols like him are almost energized by this. I think it's the limelight. Doesn't matter what causes it, they just freekin' love it, and they eventually find a way back into the power circle.
Think it through
August 25, 2008 - 09:44 ET by CobraMan"I also find it outright laughable that Bill will be given a major speaking role at the Dem convention while Edwards will be a persona non grata."
I find it laughable that some people think that's it hypocritical for a two-term democratic President to speak at a convention where the next democratic nominee will be chosen. Think it through, Bill Clinton was a two-term president who withstood an attempt to remove him for office. That gives him a legitimacy that Edwards can NEVER match. Who in their right mind would actually deny Clinton a chance to speak? After all, he is the only presidential winner the Democrats have had in the last 30 years. Do you just toss that away just because another democrat got caught with his pants down? Not if you're smart.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
sole reason
August 25, 2008 - 13:05 ET by sawing battaThe sole reason Silky was asked to skidattle was his lying. Clinton did exactly the same thing...but did so under OATH. So, what is it about Clinton's lie that gives him the express pass to the podium?
The fact that he was sitting (or standing) President (not just a Presidential candidate) at the time arguably makes his offense worse.
That said, it doesnt matter what I think. And I'm glad the DNC asked slick willy to speak. I just think that they're being hypocritical to disinvite Edwards for the same or lesser offense.
Most Americans still consider Clinton a slippery guy and if the DNC wants to telegraph the character of their Party leadership, go for it. But they dont have any grounds on which to disinvite poor Silky.
"If that marriage [Clinton's] was any more about convenience, they'd have to install a Slim Jim rack and a Slurpy machine" Dennis Miller
Missed my point
August 25, 2008 - 15:46 ET by BayshoremanI think you missed my point Cobra. I was not suggesting that Bill Clinton be denied a speaking role, rather I find it laughable that Edwards would be denied a speaking role for doing nothing more grevious than what Bill did. The Dems applying their double standard to themselves...what's not to love about that!