News and Commentary on Politics, Media and Culture

The Clintons sure do know how to talk the Chinese into donating every last cent they have, and then some, to the election campaign of Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. Forget the fact that most of the Chinatown donors don’t make as much per month as they are donating to Hillary Clinton, forget the fact that many said they felt pressure to donate or that some say the donations were reimbursed. That is of course the instances when “the donors” can be found. Unfortunately some are willing to forget; mainly the usual suspects in the mainstream media.

Here is the LA Times report that started it all.

NEW YORK — Something remarkable happened at 44 Henry St., a grimy Chinatown tenement with peeling walls. It also happened nearby at a dimly lighted apartment building with trash bins clustered by the front door.

And again not too far away, at 88 E. Broadway beneath the Manhattan bridge, where vendors chatter in Mandarin and Fujianese as they hawk rubber sandals and bargain-basement clothes.

All three locations, along with scores of others scattered throughout some of the poorest Chinese neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx, have been swept by an extraordinary impulse to shower money on one particular presidential candidate — Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton’s campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown.

At this point in the presidential campaign cycle, Clinton has raised more money than any candidate in history. Those dishwashers, waiters and street stall hawkers are part of the reason.

[~snip]

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.

Part of this is a ploy to help illegal immigrants. Another part of the plan seems to be rooted in collecting illegal campaign donations, either by ineptitude or a willful act of deception by playing the “we aren’t watching close enough” game. In either case we have a Presidential candidate with a family history of corruption tied to China allowing more of the same.

At best Hillary Clinton is one of the most incompetent people to ever run a campaign. At worst she is corrupt. If I had to choose I’d pick door C for “corruption”; especially considering the LA Times report.

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.

And several dozen were described in financial reports as holding jobs — including dishwasher, server or chef — that would normally make it difficult to donate amounts ranging from $500 to the legal maximum of $2,300 per election.

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.

Many said they gave to Clinton because they were instructed to do so by local association leaders. Some said they wanted help on immigration concerns. And several spoke of the pride they felt by being associated with a powerful figure such as Clinton.

Pretty damning evidence. One would think that the mainstream media, naturally following its stated goal to inform and investigate, would feel compelled to pursue these Clinton fundraising scandals further. Especially considering that the person elected to office will be the most powerful person in the free world. Having a corrupt or inept person in that role just might be a little newsworthy.

The NY Times did cover the story in Saturday’s edition (see Clinton Returned $7,000, Campaign Says). Unfortunately the NY Times version of the story doesn’t ask some key questions and actually makes it look like the Clinton campaign took action on their own without any impetus such as an external investigation by the LA Times.

Among other things the New York Times fails to address, how in the world did the Clintons locate these people to give the money back? Also, if the Clinton campaign raked in $380,000 in a single fundraiser (one similar to a previous one held by John Kerry that netted him only $24,000), and 1/3 of the donors could not be found based on information provided, that would put the Clinton campaign somewhere around $125,000 in unaccounted for donations (assuming that the donations were proportionally divided as an example). So why then is the campaign only returning a paltry $7,000

It doesn’t take a reporter to answer these questions. It takes a New York Times reporter to ignore these questions. Think about that the next time you feel compelled to waste $1.25 on the worlds worst newspaper.

It takes a paper like the NYT cross town rival, NY Post to do the real work:

October 20, 2007 — Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been raising huge piles of money in Chinatown, but some of it has come from donors who can’t be located or who were improperly repaid for their contributions, according to The Post and other reports.

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.

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.

Such “straw donations” are strictly prohibited by federal law.

As for Hillary Clinton; what did anyone expect? This is more of the same ol’, same ol’. You get what you see. If anyone thinks that Hillary Clinton offers some hope for this nation I’d like to know why. Up to now all I have seen is fake accents, false promises, a bogus resume and a whole lot of illegal fundraising. That should be all that anyone needs to know about the Democrat heir apparent.

See also: Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, Right Voices

 Send this post a Friend  

Trackback URI | Comments RSS