This is deveoping storry on drudge report....

It seems Mich and Fla Dems will ask for all donations back for the previous year if thier votes dont count.

IT IS THE VOTERS THAT WILL SUE...

Delegate Battles Embroil 2 States

Democrats in Michigan and Florida struggled Friday to resolve the impasse over their disputed January primaries, coming up with a plan to hold a June primary in Michigan while remaining deadlocked in Florida.

Reflecting how tense the situation has become, influential fund-raisers for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton have stepped up their behind-the-scenes pressure on national party leaders to resolve the matter, with some even threatening to withhold their donations to the Democratic National Committee unless it seats the delegates from the two states or holds new primaries there.

The committee penalized Michigan and Florida for holding their primaries early in violation of national party rules, barring their delegates from being seated at the Democratic convention this summer. But with the Democratic contest now a scramble for every remaining delegate, the allocation of delegates from the two states could have a substantial impact on the nomination.

Mrs. Clinton won the primaries in both states, but the contests were not sanctioned by the party, neither candidate campaigned in the states and Mr. Obama did not even put his name on the ballot in Michigan.

Pushing to seat the Florida delegates, at least one top Clinton fund-raiser, Paul Cejas, a Miami businessman who has given the Democratic National Committee $63,500 since 2003, has demanded Democratic officials return his 2007 contribution of $28,500, which they have agreed to do.

“If you’re not going to count my vote, I’m not going to give you my money,” said Mr. Cejas, who was the United States ambassador to Belgium from 1998 to 2001.

Christopher Korge, a Florida real estate developer who is another top fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton, held an event last year in his home that brought in about $140,000 for the national party, which was set aside in a special account for the general election battle in Florida. But he told committee officials this week that if Florida’s delegate conundrum was not settled satisfactorily he would be asking for the money back.

“If we do not resolve this issue,” Mr. Korge said, “I think it’s safe to say there will be a request for a return of $140,000.”

The anger from Clinton fund-raisers seems to emanate mostly from Florida, where the impasse appears farthest from resolution. Democratic Party officials in Michigan on Friday proposed a new primary election on June 3 to make up for the January election.

The new vote, which would be run by state elections officials but financed with money raised from private sources, is far from a sure thing. It requires approval by the divided state legislature and from the Clinton and Obama campaigns. There is also no assurance that the party can quickly raise the estimated $10 million it would cost to redo the January contest.

Meanwhile, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, a Clinton supporter, raised the possibility of seating his state’s delegates based on the January vote — which Mrs. Clinton won 50 percent to 33 percent — but awarding each Florida delegate only half a vote at the August convention. That would mean that Mrs. Clinton would narrow the delegate gap with Mr. Obama by a net of 19 delegates, rather than the 38 she would have gained under the January result. She trails Mr. Obama by more than 100 delegates, according to most counts.

Mr. Nelson discussed the plan with Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton on Thursday on the Senate floor. A Nelson aide said they told him they wanted the Florida problem resolved but did not endorse his half-a-vote plan. Other Florida Democrats said the Nelson proposal was only one of many ideas floating around.

Mr. Obama has consistently rejected seating any delegates based on the January votes in Michigan or Florida, which he said were unfair because neither candidate was allowed to campaign there. In Michigan, while Mrs. Clinton’s name was on the primary ballot, many Obama supporters voted for “uncommitted,” a line that got 40 percent of the vote to Mrs. Clinton’s 55 percent.

As for the latest Michigan proposal, aides to Mrs. Clinton signaled they were likely to go along with the plan, but the Obama campaign was more skeptical, according to people involved in the process.

“We have to do something,” said State Senator Tupac A. Hunter, a co-chairman of the Obama Michigan campaign, “but I don’t know if this is even legal.”

A Clinton spokesman, Mo Elleithee, said of the Michigan proposal: “Nearly 600,000 Americans participated in the Michigan primary in January, and we have a solemn obligation to ensure that their voices are heard. The best way to make that happen is to honor their votes, but if that isn’t possible there should be a new state primary that doesn’t leave taxpayers footing the bill.”

He said the Clinton campaign was waiting to hear more details.

The plan was negotiated by Senator Carl Levin, Representative Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Debbie Dingell, a member of the Democratic National Committee, and Ron Gettelfinger, president of the United Auto Workers. The four Democrats, who all claim neutrality in the presidential contest, have been working with state and national party officials and representatives of the two campaigns to try to find a solution to the delegate impasse.

“We agree that the Michigan delegation should be seated at the convention, and without a fight before the Credentials Committee or on the floor of the convention,” they said in a statement Friday afternoon.

A person close to the negotiations, who requested anonymity to discuss private talks, said the Clinton campaign was receptive to the June revote plan but the Obama forces were holding back for now.

The person said that Michigan Republicans, who control the State Senate, said they would not stand in the way. But Democrats, who control the state House of Representatives, are divided between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters. “The Clinton people say they’re not going to block it,” the source said. “The question is what the Obama people are going to do.”

The situation in Florida seemed more intractable, with Clinton supporters arguing the party’s prospects in November could be jeopardized if a satisfactory resolution is not found. Some Clinton backers said they were intentionally withholding their contributions to the party, arguing that Howard Dean, the D.N.C.’s chairman, has left the situation in the hands of the states and the candidates, as opposed to exercising leadership to resolve it.

“My wife and I could max out, and we won’t,” said Ira Leesfield, a Miami lawyer who has given $61,500 to the committee since 1997. “We’re dissatisfied with the D.N.C. not taking the bull by the horns.”

About 250 top fund-raisers for Mrs. Clinton met Wednesday in Washington. Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton campaign’s chairman and a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, encouraged the donors to pick up the phone and call party leaders, as did Mrs. Clinton.

But Mr. McAuliffe said in an interview Friday that he did not approve of donors’ holding back their contributions to the D.N.C.

A review of records filed with the Federal Election Commission shows that top donors to the committee gave more to Mrs. Clinton than to Mr. Obama. Of 196 people who have given at least $30,000 to the D.N.C. since 2005, it appears 71 of them contributed to Mrs. Clinton, with donations totaling more than $295,000, while 67 gave to Mr. Obama for about $189,000. And 25 gave to both.

Stacie Paxton, a spokeswoman for the D.N.C., defended Mr. Dean’s handling of the dispute.

“While Howard Dean has been working hard to be an honest broker, too many involved have been more concerned with headlines than results,” Ms. Paxton said. “It’s never productive to negotiate through the process, but make no mistake, Howard Dean will continue to lead the effort to find a workable solution that’s fair and consistent with the rules.”

Griff Palmer contributed reporting from New York, and Abby Goodnough from Tallahassee, Fla.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/us/politics/15donate.html?ei=5065&en=68bdcd72f717cb5f&ex=1206158400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print


----------------------


Abraxas, when has drudge report ever posted false stories?  They may slant right but they are accurate.

I couldn't agree with you more; to me it sounds more like buyers remorse than anything.  If they voted for their representation and the elected rep knew the consequences of their actions before hand, they can only blame themselves.

Actually, several plans have been introduced which either rotate the states that go first, randomly decide the order or even start with smaller, less powerful states.

Personally, I have bias toward that last one. It's about time Delaware gets some attention. I've met AMERICANS who thought it was a province of Canada ...

Florida's attempt to revote has failed...

Apparently state Democrats don't see it as possible, even if the party pays LINK.

That leaves Michigan, who seems well on their way to have a revote. I'm curious to see if it's different then last time. It could really hold sway over a lot of things...