Posted on 09/01/2007 4:57:35 AM PDT by Kaslin
Hillary Clinton is once again facing questions about inappropriate campaign contributions. Anyone with knowledge of recent history is not shocked. The Clinton’s have a long history of questionable campaign fundraising.
Many, however, will once again try to paint this history as “old news” and as irrelevant to the current campaign. But this pattern of behavior calls into question both her judgment and ethics and is directly relevant to her campaign for president.
Carl Bernstein’s recent sympathetic Hillary biography gives some insight into how this pattern developed. According to Bernstein, when her future husband Bill was running for Congress in 1974 he was approached by a lawyer representing Arkansas dairy interests and offered a contribution that would – are so it was believed - insure his victory in an important county and in turn signal his support for the dairy industry if elected.
In a very close race his advisors argued for taking the contribution, but Hillary was adamantly opposed to taking the money. Bill sided with Hillary and went on to lose by just 2 percentage points. Bernstein then concludes:
Subsequently, she would be far less committed to the high road and much more concerned with results . . .By the time her husband’s reelection as president (and a decade after that, her own preparations for running for president), she would preside over a vast fund-raising apparatus and bowed to no one in her willingness to stretch the rules of campaign finance.
The recent revelations about prominent Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu has caused the issue to resurface.
Mr. Hsu first came to light after the Wall Street Journal ran a story noting how he was suspiciously bundling large sums of money from sources with apparently modest income. The Clinton campaign defended Mr. Hsu and the donations until it was revealed that he was wanted for an outstanding warrant after being accused of defrauding millions of dollars from investors in a business scheme. Having pled guilty to grand theft, Mr. Hsu never showed up in court as he had promised.
The Clinton campaign is now promising to give the $23,000 they have received from Hsu to charity but plan on keeping the money he bundled from other sources. Meanwhile, this seems like déjà vu all over again for those with any familiarity with Clinton history.
In the mid to late 1990s the Clinton administration was rocked by scandal amid accusations of improper contributions and alleged links between the contributors and the Chinese government. Democratic fundraisers like Charlie Trie, Johnny Chung, John Huang, and James Riady illegally funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Democratic campaign - and the Clinton legal defense fund - coffers in exchange for access to the White House. In many instances the First Lady was directly involved and contributions were even accepted in her office.
Her initial Senate campaign was also involved in campaign finance improprieties. Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul organized lavish fundraisers in partnership with the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee and the New York Democratic Party. The resulting New York Senate 2000 Committee, whose chief beneficiary was Clinton, underreported the in-kind contributions from these events by over $700,000 according the FEC.
Other questionable Hillary campaign donations in recent memory:
- She accepted $63,000 from former IMClone CEO Sam Waksal who was indicted for insider trading, bank fraud and obstruction of justice.
- Prominent Clinton fundraiser and supporter Vinod Gupta has been accused of helping to bilk senior citizens out of millions of dollars and is the a target of a shareholder lawsuit accusing him of using company funds for personal and political use. He has also provided the Clintons with corporate jet usage worth over $900,000.
- She accepted at least $8,000 from a Saipan based sweatshop owner Willie Tan and his family. Tan was involved with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s efforts to win sweetheart trade deals.
It is unlikely that this latest campaign finance controversy is going to derail Hillary’s campaign for the Democratic nomination. The media seems to have little interest in pursuing these often complex and litigious cases.
But it is worth remembering that Hillary’s rhetoric about transparency and honesty doesn’t match up to her actions. Hillary decided a long time ago to do whatever it takes to get elected. And if it that means stretching campaign finance laws to the breaking point, so be it.
What would a DBM/dem canidate or politician have to do before other dems wanted them to resign from office?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1889755/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1889754/posts
Imagine: “The Paw family wants their money back.” Wouldn’t that be a hoot? Who would say it wasn’t theirs? Maybe they could get the house painted.
Early this morning, listening to NPR (that’s all I get here in the boonies): Their take on this is it’s merely a case of clerical error on the part of her thighness’ vetting procedure and that she and Obama will, sadly, have to take time out from their busy campaigns to revamp how they scrutinize donars. Not one word of previous Chinese-Clinton fund-raising “irregularities”-—that’s just what happens when a high-powered and well-intended politican solicits cash from the masses.
.
The answer to that is easy... All they would have to do to get other Dems to want them to resign, is support America’s interests.
Did they actually use that term, “clerical error”?
The good news is that NPR mentioned the story at all. When even the liberal sycophants are forced to note the matter, albeit in benign terms, that’s pretty good progress for a story less than a week old, especially when there’s an earth-shaking toilet stall story to cover.
Anyone that needs to question the Antichrist’s judgment and ethics at this point in history is someone beyond redemption.
“Judgment and ethics” can’t logically occur in the same sentence with the name Hillary.
It is truly unfortunate that if nominated, this is the best the dumborats have. The ignorance of the American people to think that more Clinton years are in the best interest of this nation is appalling. If their is a price tag to sell the USA, the Clintonistas are more than willing to pound the gavel and declare,”sold”. They and their cabal disgust me....
Backhoe, I hope you can squeeze on to your server too.
If Republicans can be accused of hypocrisy for promoting family values, while getting caught with their pants down (or their feet in the neighboring stall), then Democrats must be guilty of hypocrisy for claiming that they want to keep money out of politics, and then get caught getting illegal campaign contributions, or for requiring less carbon dioxide emissions, while emitting more CO2 than anyone else.
Probably something really serious - like criminally negligent vehicular homocide then leaving the scene of a fatal accident and trying to cover it up, or running a homosexual prostitution ring out of your apartment, or having $90,000 in your marked bribe money hiding in your freezer, or maybe serial purjury, tampering with federal witnesses, and using an intern as a sex toy in your government office,... oh, wait a minute. These are Democrat politicians you are talking about!
Never mind. Sorry.
“What would a DBM/dem canidate or politician have to do before other dems wanted them to resign from office?”
Only thing I can think of is if one of them literally ate one of their own, Dahmer style.
Actually, Mr. Hsu first came to light during the 1997 investigations of Chinese money and investigations of Ted Sioeng.
Hsu was listed as a friend of Sioeng.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, DNC, Campaign Money Trail, Norman Hsu and China
Wonder if they plan on giving the money to one of Mr. Hsu's charities he floats money through???
Norman Hsu And DNC Fundraisers
“It is unlikely that this latest campaign finance controversy is going to derail Hillary’s campaign for the Democratic nomination. The media seems to have little interest in pursuing these often complex and litigious cases.”..........when it involves Democrats.
Hillary Clinton is once again facing questions about inappropriate campaign contributions. Anyone with knowledge of recent history is not shocked. The Clinton’s have a long history of questionable campaign fundraising.
::::::
Understatement of the century. Starting well before China Gate and their use of Asian money gopher, Johnny Chung, and the Riyadi family, the Clintons have hustled money from every American enemy on the face of the planet. In return for very “un-American” favors in return (e.g. ala China Gate). Now with Billy hustlying large sums via his “speech donations”, the beat goes on. Now, Hsu is clearly in the picture....it will be interesting to see where he has been getting money for Clinton, Inc. And at what potential cost to America....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.