Wednesday, October 31, 2007
|
|
Bloggers File FEC Complaint Against Hillary Clinton
|
|
Posted by:
Patrick Ruffini at
10:11 AM
|
Conservative bloggers Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan will file a formal complaint about Hillary Clinton's shady fundraising practices with the Federal Election Commission today.
On the heels of the Norman Hsu scandal, the Clinton campaign was rocked by questions of even more Hsu-like shakedowns in connection with a $380,000 fundraiser in New York which saw contributions ranging from $1,000 to $2,500 from cooks and dishwashers. At least one donor admitted to being an illegal immigrant. Another said she was illegally reimbursed for her contributions. Others said they felt pressured to give.
Unlike the Hsu cash, Hillary's campaign has yet to return the bulk of this tainted money.
This complaint brings these charges into a formal FEC process. The Clinton campaign will have 15 days to respond and publicly defend itself from charges of illegal campaign fundraising.
When lefty blogger Lane Hudson filed FEC complaints against Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani, the press couldn't get enough of the story. I expect Margolis and Noonan will get similar treatment.
This is really smart on Margolis and Noonan's part, who know the issue of Democrat corruption backwards and forwards as the authors of Caucus of Corruption. For about the time it would have taken to write a blog entry on this issue, they can demand real accountability from the Clinton campaign. I wish I'd thought of this.
The full complaint is after the jump.
October 31, 2007 Office of General Counsel Federal Election Commission 999 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20463 Dear Counsel: We write to file a complaint against the Hillary Clinton for President Committee for violation of Federal Election Law under the Commission's jurisdiction. It is clear from recent news accounts that the campaign and its donors and fundraisers have violated 2 USC 441f, the provision of law that prohibits campaign contributions in the name of another, and that some donors may have violated 2 USC 441e which prohibits donations by foreign nationals without permanent resident status. A recent Los Angeles Times article, [available here], indicates that several reported donors to the Clinton campaign are non-existent persons, illegal immigrants, or were reimbursed by others for contributions. The article documents several instances in which reported donors could not be found, even by those living at the same address reported in the campaign’s FEC filing: The Times examined the cases of more than 150 donors who provided checks to Clinton after fundraising events geared to the Chinese community. One-third of those donors could not be found using property, telephone or business records. Most have not registered to vote, according to public records. […] Of 74 residents of New York's Chinatown, Flushing, the Bronx or Brooklyn that The Times called or visited, only 24 could be reached for comment. […] The tenement at 44 Henry St. was listed in Clinton's campaign reports as the home of Shu Fang Li, who reportedly gave $1,000. […] A tenant living in the apartment listed as Li's address said through a translator that she had not heard of him, although she had lived there for the last 10 years. Census figures for 2000 show the median family income for the area was less than $21,000. About 45% of the population was living below the poverty line, more than double the city average. In the busy heart of East Broadway, beneath the Manhattan Bridge, is a building that is listed as the home of Sang Cheung Lee, also reported to have given $1,000. Trash was piled in the dimly lighted entrance hall. Neighbors said they knew of no one with Lee's name there; they knocked on one another's doors in a futile effort to find him. Salespeople at a store on Canal Street were similarly baffled when asked about Shih Kan Chang, listed as working there and having given $1,000. The store sells purses, jewelry and novelty Buddha statues. Employees said they had not heard of Chang. In yet another case, a “donor” denied ever giving money to the campaign: Another listed donor, Yi Min Liu, said he did not make the $1,000 contribution in April that was reported in his name. He said he attended a banquet for Clinton but did not give her money. The article also demonstrates that the Clinton campaign received large campaign contributions from illegal immigrants barred from contributing under Federal law: One New York man who said he enthusiastically donated $2,500 to Clinton doesn't appear to be eligible to do so under federal election law. He said he came to the United States from China about two years ago and didn't have a green card. These incidents are far from isolated occurrences at the fringes of the Clinton campaign. Campaigns routinely stay in close contact with their most prolific fundraisers and encourage them to raise even more money from associates. Community organizers even organized a fundraising event for Hillary Clinton that netted $380,000, implying substantial knowledge of and involvement in procuring these donations on the campaign’s part. As Clinton campaign bundlers, these community leaders also placed improper pressure on those who could least afford to donate: Clinton has enlisted the aid of Chinese neighborhood associations, especially those representing recent immigrants from Fujian province. The organizations, at least one of which is a descendant of Chinatown criminal enterprises that engaged in gambling and human trafficking, exert enormous influence over immigrants. The associations help them with everything from protection against crime to obtaining green cards. Many of Clinton's Chinatown donors said they had contributed because leaders in neighborhood associations told them to. In some cases, donors said they felt pressure to give. […] "Everybody was making a donation, so I did too," [He Duan Zheng] said. "Otherwise I would lose face." The New York Post conducted a further examination of the Hillary Clinton for President Committee's campaign finance data. Their story is available here. The New York Post story indicates that several unlikely donors, including cooks and dishwashers, made $1,000 contributions to the campaign. A search of Chinatown donors yesterday by The Post found several bogus addresses and some contributions that raised eyebrows. Shin K. Cheng is listed twice in federal records for giving $1,000 donations to Clinton's campaign on April 17. But the address recorded on campaign reports is a clinic for sexually transmitted diseases, hemorrhoids and skin disease. No one at the address knew of a Shin K. Cheng. Another donation came from a Shih Kan Chang on Canal Street. But the address listed is a shop that sells knock-off watches and other pirated goods. The sales clerk there did not know the donor. The investigation by the New York Post also found evidence of illegal “straw donations.” Hsiao Yen Wang, a cook in Chinatown, is listed as giving Clinton $1,000 on April 13. Contacted yesterday, she told The Post she had written a check. But it was on behalf of a man named David Guo, president of the Fujian American Cuisine Council, and Wang told The Post that Guo had repaid her for the $1,000 contribution. In addition to the aforementioned evidence, it is worth noting that the Hillary Clinton for President Committee has clearly decided to take no action to remedy these violations. According to the New York Post, “The Clinton campaign dismissed the L.A. Times story as derogatory to Chinese-Americans.” Accordingly, the Clinton campaign's disinterest in and failure to remedy these violations along with the potential scope of the abuse indicates that that the Commission should investigate and take action against those responsible for violation of the law. The information in this complaint is based upon information and belief, and not on our personal knowledge. Respectfully, Matthew Margolis & Mark Noonan
|
|
Hillary and a Holocaust Denier? 100,000
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3AZTmDBt50 |
|
We must move to public finance of national campaigns.
A Presidential race should be 6 to 9 months. not 3 years. |
|
...campaign finance laws. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill was supposed to 'fix' all the problems in campaign funding but obviously didn't, ....as most astute observers knew it wouldn't. The problem never was a need for 'more' laws. It was always an enforcement issue. Look at all the illegal money the Clintons had to 'give back' the last time 'they' ran for the presidency! They know the 'game' all too well...and abuse it to their complete advantage. They know they will never be held criminally responsible for their actions...and returning illegal contributions 'after' they are elected and in office is nothing more than a mockery of any system of justice.
My campaign finance reform bill, if I can be so bold, would be very simple. First...no new laws and repeal the idiotic McCain-Feingold bill! Then pass a bill that would not only force a criminal investigation when illegal funding is discovered to occur ...but would exact the stiffest of punishments that any politician dreads more than anything. That being if a politician is found to be knowingly and willingly accepting illegal campaign contributions, they would immediately be dismissed from their office and equally important, be 'forever banned' from ever running for or holding a politically elected office in their lifetime! |
|
Conservative Bloggers. The nice folks at CBS News did and they fannies fed to them for lunch.
The question is two part: Has Hillary Rod'em engaged in, or benefited from, fundraising practices in violation of well established law?
Yes.
In recent history have dimocrat politicians enjoyed a double standard of treatment from the FEC?
Yes.
And two more to follow up:
May we expect the favorable treatment of dimocrats by the FEC to continue?
Unknown.
Has anyone actually observed, seen, or verified that the money raised by Hsu actually being "returned" or "Donated" in such a fashion that we may be confident that Hillary Rod'em is not still drawing benefit from it?
No.
It seems that in the dimocrat party there is a documented, actual culture of corruption. |
|
|
Do they have room to include Lieberliar? Or are they being partisan in their selective outrage? |
|
|
If there were any actual evidence of "Chinese/Clinton money connections" other than your unsupported word. The claims of "Chinese/Clinton money connections" were investigated thoroughly by Newt Gingrich's House, Trent Lott's Senate, and Ken Starr's Independent Counsel Office during the next president's husband's administration. Nothing came of those claims then, and nothing will come of them now. |
|
If there were any, you know, evidence of "Chinese/Clinton money connections" other than a few far-right nuts. These claims were investigated to death back under the 44th President's husband's administration. Nothing came of it.
Haley Barbour took hundreds of grand from Hong Kong when he was RNC Chair, but the GOoPers decided he'd be just fine as governor of Mississippi anyway. |
|
|
It's their right! They deserve to rule!!! |
|
Brian J
YOu're so quickly dismissive of campaign donors who do not exist or have fled the country one would have to conclude:
You're making money at home as a Soros/MoveOn shill.
No objective person could not help but be troubled by the Chinese/Clinton money connections.
|
|
Somewhere in the Washington area, full of unsubstantiated right-wing complaints about the Clintons, filed with various government agencies. This will just add a few more pages.
The "questionable" donations in the LA Times article (which, by the way, contained more blatant racism against Chinese than a Charlie Chan novel) were all returned months ago.
You trusted the EmmEssEmm, which supposedly never says anything bad about the Clintons, to complain about a matter long since resolved. Have you ever even heard of the term "irony"?
'Tis Himself- there's a reason it "falls to you." No GOoPer in his right mind would touch this because it's so obviously a non-issue. That, and they're probably all hiding worse indiscretions themselves. Like Senator Vitter, and Senator Craig, and Tom DeLay, and Duke Cunningham, and Bob Ney... |
|
|
The RNC hasn't got a dime from me in months because of Sen.Specter and Hagel.....I heard they quit calling their donors because everyone was so mad at them about these RINOS. The groups you join (NRA ,Numbers USA, NRL),etc) have to act on their own for the ads, and then each indiviual needs to give money to good individuals. |
|
... that it falls to bloggers to lead this effort? Where is the RNC? The Clintons have been doing this for decades. ACORN has paid the fines and is now ready to skew another election. The 527's make a mockery od election laws along with the unions and it falls to a couple of bloggers to dial 911? Kitty Genovese must be spinning in her grave. No big deal, it's just the next national election that is ar stake. |
|
|
Hillary skates , even in the debate last night. No Dem took advantage of her corruption and poor performance last night. The Dems altogether are caught in a web of deceit. Fund raising only is to punish Pubs not the elite Dems. Brave of the bloggers to do this but if I were them, I would begin to fear for my life!!! Not many survive the Hildabeast. |
|
You wrote, "The Clinton campaign will have 15 days to respond and publicly defend itself from charges of illegal campaign fundraising."
My edit would have read, "The Clinton campaign will have 15 days to respond and defend itself publicly from charges of illegal campaign fundraising." Parallel verb contruction: live it, learn it, and love it. |
|
At the risk of putting off the Lefties, I was at Rick's in Casablanca this summer...so much fun, had coffee,got pictures all over the joint and the staff were so friendly and nice to the EVIL Americans! I did get a "Bad Hate Bush" comment at the marketplace from a merchant and I turned and said, "Oh, he is my brother!" the guys mouth dropped open and he starting telling everyone and pointing! Hillarious! The Nastis' are going to starting turning on Hillary and her "Meanness" will make them sorry! Remember that long long walk of Billy's (with Chelsy between them) to the copter after the blue dress came out? Mech; you really don't make sense.... |
|
Citizen Journalists, activate!
Please, please tell me how this is going in six month, Hugh. Promise me and your all-too-loyal audience. I want to know all about it once the FEC politely ignores this and becomes something to laugh about at their office's Christmas party.
"Oh, then these guys came into the office -- remember how they enunciated the word 'blogger' to us? Like that gives them special powers? You shoulda been there, Pete."
This is just part of the comedy of errors between now and Hillary Clinton's probable presidency, aka the Former American Spectator Hack Full Employment Act of 2008.
http://www.themechanicaleye.com
DU |
|
Hugh fears YouTube. So TH disabled the link. Funny, the YouTube clip I posted was Claud Reins in Casablanca saying he was "shocked, shocked" that gambling was going on at Ricks (while collecting his winnings). Real subversive stuff.
God Forbid anyone post a YouTube clip of Mitt Romney saying he is pro choice, pro gun control, an independent who does not support Reagan/Bush, and that he is for McCain-Bush immigration reform. |
|
I am shocked, shocked that could be going on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM_A4Skusro |
|
who the FEC works for, the American people or the DNC!
Patrick, if you think that this will get "similar treatment", you are deluded beyond belief. Wild Hunt and melanzan are both correct. |
|
|
Sadly, neither the Dem voters nor the MSM care about illegal or even shady contributions to Hillary. They didn't care in the 90s when Clinton/Gore did it and they don't care now. The media will say it isn't a story, thus won't cover it. Dem voters don't care about lying and corruption as long as someone other than a conservative is elected. Corruption is always bad, but it's even worse for our country when the media only cares about GOP corruption. |
|
What will it take to fix campaign finance? I think of it as trying to plug the holes in a net. Every restriction we place on the system winds up providing an advantage to those willing to cheat, which results in cheaters being far more likely to win nominations and elections, assuming they aren't caught and prosecuted.
Hillary has been well and truely caught, but will she be investigated and/or prosecuted? The laws are selectively enforced, and therefore I have no faith in them. |
|
|
|