Posted on 09/21/2002 1:41:21 PM PDT by Rensselaer
Democrats Are Fined $243,000 for Fund-Raising Violations (People's Republic of China and Clinton) nytimes ^ | 9/21/2002 | RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
Posted on 09/21/2002 1:14 AM Eastern by TLBSHOW
Democrats Are Fined $243,000 for Fund-Raising Violations
WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 — The Democratic National Committee has agreed to pay civil fines and turn over to the Treasury a total of $243,000 to settle accusations that it took more than $1 million in illegal foreign contributions in 1995 and 1996, according to Federal Election Commission records released today.
The documents also state that the election commission's general counsel found in 1999 that there was "reason to believe" that the People's Republic of China "knowingly and willfully" violated federal election law. But the heavily redacted documents also state that the commission voted unanimously to "take no action at this time" on the general counsel's recommendation.
The documents detail efforts by the Democratic Party and the Clinton-Gore campaign to build their war chest with help from wealthy Asian donors before the 1996 election. In all, the election commission disclosed $719,500 in fines today.
The largest fine, $120,000, was paid by the International Buddhist Progress Society, which operates the Hsi Lai Temple in California, the site of an April 1996 luncheon attended by Vice President Al Gore. The national committee paid a $115,000 fine and agreed to turn over to the Treasury $128,000 it had received in illegal contributions. The Clinton/Gore '96 Primary Committee paid a $2,000 fine, the records also show.
John Huang and Yah Lin Trie, two Democratic fund-raisers who pleaded guilty to violating federal laws, agreed to pay fines respectively of $95,000 and $7,000.
The commission also found "probable cause" to believe that Hogan & Hartson, a Washington law firm, violated election laws in the handling of $50,000 in donations that a client of the firm made to the national committee in summer 1996. Two officials at the firm who were involved in the handling of the donations have agreed to pay a total of $67,500.
Representatives of the national committee and for former President Bill Clinton declined to comment. Officials at Hogan & Hartson did not reply to a phone message.
After the fund-raising scandal broke in late 1996, the Democratic Party returned $3 million in questionable or improper contributions, much of it from money donated or solicited by Mr. Huang or Mr. Trie.
Kent Cooper, a former election commission official who is now at PoliticalMoneyLine.com, which tracks money in politics, said some fines disclosed today appear surprisingly low. The election commission, he said, limited the fines assessed to some people based on their claims that they could not afford to pay more. "Some people will look at this and say the F.E.C. should have fined them more," Mr. Cooper said.
He noted, for example, that the election commission waived fines against a company called Global Resource Management based on the assertions by the company's president about its "present financial circumstances," the documents show.
The election commission found that the company, which was formed in Ohio in 1996 to resolve a "construction-related contractual matter" in Saudi Arabia, decided to make a $100,000 contribution to a national committee fund-raiser in New York on Aug. 18, 1996. The event was also billed as a 50th birthday celebration for Mr. Clinton. The company's officers made the contribution in order to meet with Ray Mabus, the former Mississippi governor and ambassador to Saudi Arabia, who helped plan the event, the election commission found.
But the money used to make the contribution was provided by Sheik Mohammed Oboud Al-Amoudi, a Saudi citizen, who wired $150,000 to the company. The company used this money for the donation "even though its officers had been informed that foreign national contributions are illegal," the election commission found.
Q: Why did Dems get to keep over $700,000?
A: They don't. They were fined $115,000, plus had to pay $128,000 for illegal contributions they had not already returned to the donors or paid to the U.S. Treasury. In other words, they had to repay all illegal contributions, and pay a $115,000 fine. Most of the contributions had already been returned, which is why the total payout now is much less than the illegal contributions they got. Don't worry, they're not making a profit on this deal.
Q: Why only a $2000 fine for Clinton-Gore?
A: Virtually all of the scandalous fundraising - the coffees, the foreign contributions, etc. was done for the Democratic National Committee, not the Clinton-Gore campaign. So the fine for Clinton-Gore is very small. Think of it this way: if your brother stole a car, and then used it to run some errands you asked him to do, you wouldn't be held liable. Same here - money to the Democratic National Committee may have helped Clinton-Gore, but the Clinton-Gore campaign did not engage in the illegal activity. As for Clinton and Gore as individuals, well, I don't know the answer there.
Q: Who is the FEC's General Counsel? What's his role? (Implied that he's a Rat)
A: The current counsel, Larry Norton, joined the Commission in the fall of 2001. People seem to be implying that he gave the Dems a sweet deal. All of the FEC's findings, according to these documents, were completed before Norton was hired.
Q: Well, what about the old General Counsel?
A: The old General Counsel was a guy named Larry Noble, who is very liberal (Now works for a liberal lobbying group). In between there was an Acting General Counsel for several months. But if the Dems got off lightly, it probably has less to do with the counsel than with the make-up of the Commission - see below.
Q. Then why the delay of over a year in releasing the info?
A: Apparently (just reading between the lines, and using what I know of how the FEC operates) due to 1) certain criminal investigations that were still underway; 2) Trying to track down some of the shell corporations and foreign donors who fled the country; 3) maybe some plea bargaining (the stuff about lowering fines for people who couldn't pay indicates some bargaining was going on.) Historically, the FEC doesn't release this kind of stuff until the entire case is closed. For example, they might have wrapped up the part pertaining to the DNC 4 years ago, but they don't release it until all is done. That's long been their policy, so it's nothing new (in fact, the law prohibits them from releasing info on ongoing investigations).
Q: What about the criminal investigations?
A: The FEC doesn't do the criminal stuff. They refer that to the Dept. of Justice. So stuff like the Hsia penalties are issues for DOJ and the courts.
Q: You mean this stuff isn't criminal?
A: No, at least not most of it. It's a civil violation of the law, like filling in a wetlands.
Q: Still, the fines seem low, given the benefit the Dems got from the money, the magnitude of the violation, etc. Why?
A: Half of the FEC's members are Democrats appointed by Clinton. It's amazing there was any fine. But also, lots of stuff that is sleazy and should have been reason for people to vote against or impeach Clinton isn't necessarily against the law, such as White House coffees. Also, lots of this stuff can be very hard to prove. You have to prove, for example, that the Dems knew that the money was from illegal sources, which is not always easy if they got a check from a U.S. bank with a U.S. address, etc.
Hope this helps.
And remember, Freepers, don't jump to too many conclusions on the basis of one or two press articles from AP, the Post, and NY Times. Remember, they're the media!
Who was the illegal money benefitting? The Clinton-Gore campaign.
Who was the star attraction at the Temple? Al Gore.
Was Al Gore not part of the Clinton-Gore campaign?
I understand your argument but it is the same one used by the Mafia to avoid culpability until the enactment of the RICO law---which changed things by treating all such groups as a criminal enterprise. As the line goes in The Godfather II, "Yeah, a buffer. The family had a lot of buffers."
And going back to your analogy of the brother and the car: If my brother stole the car, robbed a bank, and split the proceeds of the robbery with me, I think I would be in big trouble with the law. Unless, of course, I had some sort of "in" with the DA or was in a position to blackmail her.
Well, I can see you missed the point. The DNC did not split any proceeds with Clinton-Gore. They kept all the money. Sure, they used some of it to help Clinton-Gore win, but that's not Clinton-Gore's fault. To keep with this analogy, suppose your brother robs the bank and buys you some nice gifts: are you guilty of anything, even though you benefited from his bank robbery? No. Sure, when they catch your brother you might have to return the gifts (though not absolutely - could depend), but in this case, that's already been done - the Dems had to return or pay to the US Treasury the illegal contributions. Don't let your passion blind your reason.
Regards.
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.