Deja vu all over again - Clinton and campaign contributor cut outs
By gensec Posted in 2008 — Comments (35) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Well surprise, the Clintons are at it again, getting more than the maximum legal amount from a single contributor because the fat cat routes part of his contributions through cut outs. I was surprised that this Wall Street Journal story Tuesday didn't stir more conversation here:
Six members of the Paw family, each listing the house at 41 Shelbourne Ave. as their residence, have donated a combined $45,000 to the Democratic senator from New York since 2005, for her presidential campaign, her Senate re-election last year and her political action committee. In all, the six Paws have donated a total of $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005, election records show.
...
It isn't obvious how the Paw family is able to afford such political largess. Records show they own a gift shop and live in a 1,280-square-foot house that they recently refinanced for $270,000. William Paw, the 64-year-old head of the household, is a mail carrier with the U.S. Postal Service who earns about $49,000 a year, according to a union representative.
So how did they have that much spare cash? Read on...
The Paws' political donations closely track donations made by Norman Hsu, a wealthy New York businessman in the apparel industry who once listed the Paw home as his address, according to public records.
...
No one in the Paw family had ever given a campaign contribution before the 2004 presidential election, according to campaign-finance reports. Then, in July 2004, five members of the family contributed a total of $3,600 to the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat. Five of the checks were dated July 27, 2004. About the same time, Mr. Hsu made his first donations to a political candidate, contributing the maximum amount allowed by law to Mr. Kerry in two separate checks, on July 21, 2004, and on Aug. 6.From then on, the correlation of campaign donations between Mr. Hsu and the Paw family has continued. The first donations to Mrs. Clinton came Dec. 23, 2004, when Mr. Hsu and one Paw family member donated the then-maximum $4,000 to her Senate campaign in two $2,000 checks, campaign-finance records show. In March 2005, the individuals gave a total of $17,500 to Mrs. Clinton.
The plot thickens in an LA Times story where Norman Hsu, the man suspected of routing his contributions through others, turns out to be a fugitive from the law.
For the last 15 years, California authorities have been trying to figure out what happened to a businessman named Norman Hsu, who pleaded no contest to grand theft, agreed to serve up to three years in prison and then seemed to vanish.
...
Hsu, it seems, has been hiding in plain sight, at least for the last three years.Since 2004, one Norman Hsu has been carving out a prominent place of honor among Democratic fundraisers. He has funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions into party coffers, much of it earmarked for presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
In addition to making his own contributions, Hsu has honed the practice of assembling packets of checks from contributors who bear little resemblance to the usual Democratic deep pockets: A self-described apparel executive with a variety of business interests, Hsu has focused on delivering hefty contributions from citizens who live modest lives and are neophytes in the world of campaign giving.
Maybe though I shouldn't be surprised that this hasn't received more attention. Aside from yesterday's much more entertaining topic of Sen. Craig's restroom adventure, we've been through all this before and it went nowhere. After some initial scandal hoopla in 1997 over Clinton's illegal campaign contributions, the Justice Department worked out sweetheart plea deals, and the Senate committee investigation got hijacked by the Democratic minority and stonewalling witnesses, leaving the general impression "Oh just the usual Washington sleaze, everybody does it."
So how will this play out in the current Presidential campaign? I don't really know, but what the heck, a little speculation...
While Hsu's guilt hasn't been proven (for proxie contributions that is; there's still the grand theft sentence to serve), the story so far suggests to me that a little digging would turn up proof. Clinton is more insulated - even if Hsu is proven guilty, she can claim (maybe even truthfully) that all she and her campaign knew was that Hsu was delivering these nice bundled contributions, and they had no idea that those other people's contributions were really Hsu's money. But as usual, sleazy money is drawn to the Clintons like flies to a pile of dung.
From the serious Republican candidates, I don't expect much to be said for now beyond a few smirking asides. If more damning info does not turn up, this will be largely forgotten by Fall 2008, and trying to make a big deal of it would in the end make them look silly. If it does turn out to be a big deal, they can wait until the general election campaign to use it; I share the conventional wisdom that Clinton will be easier to beat than Obama, so Republican candidates won't want to turn up the heat soon enough to cost her the Democratic nomination.
On the Democratic side, Obama might make some fleeting references to it, but I don't expect him to pound on the issue, unless he sees himself on the brink of beating Clinton and thinks this would put the nail in her coffin. Obama knows he has a future in the Democratic party and might win the nomination in 2012 or later if, as is likely, he loses to Clinton this year. What could destroy Obama's future chances is if Democrats blame him for contributing to a 2008 Republican victory over Clinton, because he made the same attacks on her sleaze as Republicans did.
Edwards (Mr. or Mrs.) is more likely to attack Clinton, because he knows he's already yesterday's news and this election is his last chance. Edwards has nothing to lose if his attacks end up helping the Republicans beat Clinton in 2008.
Depending on how busy today turns out, I might not reply to comments until the evening.
That changes my mind about Edwards attacking Clinton on her sleazy contributors.
I recognize that indicted lawyer from seeing him on some talking head TV segments. I don't remember much about him except thinking what a sanctimonious self-righteous ass he was. I guess it isn't really a surprise that his arrogance led him into his current predicament.
With Bubba it didn't even get a nod until his second term.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Larry Craig is an obscure Congressman who was involved in some sort of an embarrassing, and yes gay, encounter.
Hillary Clinton is well on her way to being President knee deep in yet one more scandal.
Why is the media treating the Craig scandal as such a big problem for Republicans and totally overlooking this scandal, which while there is no sex, is equally juicy.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
however the Jefferson scandal had no sex, only bribes. When there is financial malfeasance that is easy to understand, and this is pretty obvious, the public usually thirsts for that as much as it thirsts for any sexual scandal. This could easily become topic one if the media ran with it. We have a felon who it appears is getting around campaign finance laws by using straw financiers. This is exactly the sort of scandal the media thirsts for.
In any case, if they don't bring it up now, I will assure everyone that it will at some point become a topic of discussion during the general election season.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
pols, big biz, ....to be involved in financial stories..almost too bad that we've become accustom to it...however, you toss the taboo in the mix..SEX....winner every time (methinks)
personal aside...I still think, gut, that there is one more big one(story/scandal)coming out of the Clinton camp before the election...
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
from Foxnews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295031,00.html
In 1991, Hsu pleaded guilty to grand theft after raising $1 million in investments for a phony business, Smetana said. Bench warrants were issued when he failed to show up to his sentencing hearing.
Hsu's lawyer, Lawrence Barcella, said Hsu doesn't remember ever making a deal with authorities, but he does recall a legal case that was part of a settlement with creditors when he went through bankruptcy.
On top of that, among those who have "bundled" their contributions along with Hsu's is one San Francisco family of seven adults whose home is small and under the airport flight path, jobs are average and $213,000 in donations are closely coordinated with Hsu's.
Hsu's relationship to the Paw family apparently goes back a decade, and Winkle Paw, 35, is an employee of Hsu's New York companies, The Wall Street Journal was first to report. Barcella told The Los Angeles Times the Paws have their own cash, and "Norman never reimbursed anyone for their contribution."
Another New York family of three that runs a plastics packaging plant in Pennsylvania and is tied to Hsu donated more than $200,000 in the last three years, the Times states.
Clinton adviser Howard Wolfsen told The Times that Hsu has been a longtime donor to the party: "During Mr. Hsu's many years of active participation in the political process, there has been no question about his integrity or his commitment to playing by the rules, and we have absolutely no reason to call his contributions into question or to return them."
To start saying Americans expect "pols, big biz, ....to be involved in financial stories" is just nonsense. This isn't merely about finances, but crooked finances. There is a huge difference. Americans didn't look the other way on Duke Cunningham or anyone involved Abramoff. This is no better. The guy is a criminal. He used a family to become straw contributors so that he could funnel extra money to Clinton without being noticed.
In any case, this story looks like it will actually have legs sooner rather than later. I predict that this will pick up steam now. The blogs are all over it. I am going to check dailykos to see if the left wingers are as interested.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
a story here...I am saying that to the average American, I THINK a story involving sex has got longer legs than money matters...even crooked money matters....now, toss in a pol. and you have the media going freaking nuts.
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
both. Craig is an obscure Senator from a tiny state. Hillary Clinton has her sights on the White House. Her scandal has plenty of juice, convicted felon, straw contributors, and there is an easy to follow paper trail.
The thing about her scandal is it isn't complicated like White Water. He used this family to funnel extra funds to side step campaign finance laws. It is as simple as that, and anyone reading about their 270k mortgage, hundreds of thousands in campaign contributions, how their son just happens to work for him, and how all of their contributions just happen to match his in time and destination, can easily follow the trail to its dirty conclusion.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
check out the lead picture on Drudge..I think RS needs a caption thread!!
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
Hillary is a saint and the smartest female in the known universe.
Why ask a silly question ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
since no one (including Bill) apparently engages in sexual relations with THAT woman Hillary Rodham Clinton.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
will come back to haunt Hillary. She is associated with all sorts of bad people. Dick Morris highlighted one...
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/5/28/203543.shtml
The most outrageous scandal, in my opinion, involves Peter Paul and Stan Lee and it was highlighted in the book The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy by Amanda Carpenter...
http://www.target.com/gp/detail.html/602-9673529-2002258?asin=1596980141&afid=yahoosspplp_bmvd&lnm=1596980141|Books_:_The_Vast_Right-Wing_Conspiracy's_Dossier_on_Hillary_Clinton&ref=tgt_adv_XSNG1060
http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/business_mogul...
one of the geniuses of the Primary process is that this sort of thing is supposed to be vetted out. If Democrats don't pounce on this it will be even more dramatic come general election time. Does anyone really think that whoever our nominee is won't pound Hillary with the plethora of ethical lapses she has had.
This is just so blatant. The family lives in a home with a mortgage of 270k and they contribute tens of thousands on a regulary basis and it just so happens to coincide with another, convicted felon no less, who also contributes to Hillary.
I wouldn't be surprised if this picked up steam. It will certainly get play on blogs like ours. If Democrats put their heads in the sand on this one, it will only make it worse for her in the general election season.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Between Edwards' stupid ethics tricks with the hedge fund, and Hillary's phony donor schemes, Barack may well become nominee by default. I still stand by my now ancient post that Bill Richardson could get back in this primary race.
James Hansen - Scott THomas Beauchamp with a PhD.
this, along with her plethora of other ethical lapses, along with her inane comment that lobbyists represent people to, combines to form a narrative. It seems that both sides have figured out that you get more traction in the primaries attacking the other party rather than your own.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Or will it be Tomorrow?
And what if we just Don't Give a Darn?
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
He becomes a fugitive until Clinton is in the White House and then gets a pardon.
The longer we dwell on our misfortunes the greater is their power to harm us - Voltaire
Since you will be seeing alot of this one. My guess is it will be also soon be on some state's most wanted list.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
disappear in China somewhere, where he cannot be brought back to testify before any committee or court, and when placed under oath, Se Clinton will simply "not recall" anything about the matter, to the tune of 300-400 times. Some minor Clinton campaign functionary, probably an assistant deputy associate, will take the blame for the "mistakes" that have been made -- prompting the Democrat-led congress to call for REAL campaign finance reform, instead of the mere window-dressing the M-F brought us!
End of story!
however there is a drip factor. She can't recall anything in any of her scandals. They won't just be swept under the rug come general election time. Everything will come back, Peter Paul, travel gate, her excellent futures bet, this one, they go on and on, and if each are explained with "I don't recall", the voters will soon get the idea.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Not just because I am lazy and not going to read if it doesn't have a clear point in three sentences, but also because my short attention span is a reflection of the American public's short attention span.
"Senator caught in bathroom buggery sting" is pretty easy to follow. This? Not so much.
From November 1996:
In recent weeks a former high-ranking Dole moneyman received the largest penalty ever connected to an illegal political contribution. On Oct. 23 a federal judge in Boston hit businessman Simon Fireman, 71, former vice chairman of Dole's campaign finance committee, with a fine of more than $1 million and six months of house arrest (in his luxury high-rise). Fireman's Massachusetts-based company, Aqua-Leisure Industries, which distributes pool toys and swimming goggles, was fined $5 million. His crime? Making $120,000 in illegal political contributions to individual candidates and the Republican National Committee, including $69,000 to Bob Dole.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,985505,00.html
The funny part of that linked report is that Clinton disgorges what may be the only legal part of the bundled contributions she got from the convicted Grand Theft fugitive, while keeping the bigger wad of cash that's most likely illegal contributions.
Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer said the $23,000 [to be returned] included contributions from Hsu to Clinton's presidential campaign, her Senate re-election and her political action committee., Singer aid.
The Hsu contributions that Clinton is giving up are those contributed in his name, apparently legal within election law limits. The $100K+ that she's keeping are the donations that he apparently contributed illegally through proxies. In contrast, other Democrats who got bundles from the fugitive are returning both his direct contributions (legal) and his proxy contributions (illegal).
This is the Hillary that we've come to know and love over the years. The bundles are a drop in the bucket for her war chest, but with her we know she's utterly indignant that she needs to make the gesture of returning even part of it. Keep it up Hillary, we're rooting for you all the way to the Democratic Convention :)
I must have accidentally deleted part of the AP story quote, where the Clinton spokesman said they were keeping the apparently illegal part of the the bundled contributions (i.e. most of the money, donated through proxies):
The campaign did not plan to return any money Hsu raised from other donors, Singer aid.
A cursory google of "Norman Hsu" turned up the donation reporting from many well known and some lesser (nationally) known Democrat politicians. Just go back 3 or 4 pages to get past the recent chatter about him in the DBM. Norman Hsu has donated to guys I've never even heard of!
The question arises. Why does a Chinese businessman with ties to the PRC(that's Red China, the communist one) go around giving money to just about every Democrat politician he can find? Surely he's so enamored of the American democratic process that he's just doing his part to help things along?!
Does anybody here remember John Huang? How 'bout James Riady? Ted Sieong ringin' any bells?
Ladies and gentlemen, I cannot offer definitive proof of PRC Chinese tampering with our elections. Additionally, I cannot offer definitive proof that the Democrats are knowingly aiding and abetting them, but there's a whole bunch of Dems that have all taken money from this guy and his pals over the last ten years. Are they all gonna give their money back?
And we never really did get to the bottom of the Clinton/Gore/China business the last time around.
IMHO, this is just the tip of the iceberg and needs to be vigorously investigated. From where I stand, it would appear that the Chinese have bought or are attempting to buy, their very own American political party.
HRC says "Oh well...just a li'l misunderstanding between friends. We'll give that nasty ol' money to a charity and that'll make everythang fine. Move along...nothing to see here."
Are we going to let this happen to our country....AGAIN!
Shheeeesh!
It's time that we woke up and realized this for what it is. It's not an ethical lapse. Calling it an ethical lapse presumes that Caligula Rodham Clinton has days when she behavies in accordance with a strict code of honor.
She understands the concept of a code of honor about as well as a blind man can distinguish between poor and excellent calligraphy. For her, this behavior is a business practice.
James Hansen - Scott THomas Beauchamp with a PhD.
I think we all see that her ethical lapses happen on a regular basis. There is now another story floating about a Pakistani businessman with a criminal record that also contributed to Hillary's campaign. What I think this will do is put her financing under the microscope and if that happens then who knows what people will find. Stories about Peter Paul and the Chinese are just a couple examples of what I believe to be an avalanche of all sorts of misdeeds involving campaign contributions, and campaign contributions are just the tip of the ice berg for ethical lapses in all sorts of areas.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
since one of his supporters was just indicted for doing the exact same thing.