The Clinton campaign wasted no time in repackaging this John Solomon story on the recent activity of Barack Obama's Hopefund PAC into a press release accusing Obama of "using his PAC in a manner that appears to be inconsistent with the prevailing election laws" and trying to raise doubts about his fundraising ethics and purity by posing the following six questions:

1. Who decided what contributions would be made by Hopefund?

2. Did any presidential campaign staff, consultants or advisors participate in any discussions about Hopefund contributions? Who?

3. Did the decision-makers know who was endorsing the presidential campaign? If so, how did they find this out?

4. Who told Hopefund which Iowa and New Hampshire candidates and committees should get contributions?

5. Are there any overlapping employees, consultants and advisors between Hopefund and the presidential campaign?

6. The Washington Post article suggests that Hopefund was dormant earlier in the year. Who made the decision to start making contributions again and on what basis was that decision made?

Trying to muddy the waters between yourself and another candidate is standard operating procedure for most campaigns, but is it smart for Clinton to start throwing stones at other candidates over fundraising ethics?