The New York Times and Washington Post have long articles today in which the reporters try to trace Norman Hsu's fund-raising contributions to Democrats. The articles practically take it as a given that Hsu's fund-raising was illegitimate because he was a a fugitive from California and they've managed to track down unhappy investors in his business deals that were unrelated to politics.
Despite new interviews reported in the articles both with people that knew Hsu and those whom he asked to contribute to various candidates, one critical allegation is missing: None of the contributors so far have said Hsu reimbursed them for their donations. Without reimbursement, there's no campaign finance crime. Bundling donations is legal and all the candidates have bundlers.
It's been my impression since the story first appeared in the Wall Street Journal that Hsu did nothing illegal in his fund-raising activities. The media keeps looking for and coming up short in discerning Hsu's motives in becoming a bundler for various campaigns.
Hsu strikes me as a political groupie, someone who wanted to go to the parties and mingle with the VIPs, and the way for him to do that was by becoming a big donor.
By all accounts, he never asked for anything from the candidates in return. No one has found a voting record for him.
Some of the people whose contributions were attributed to his bundling say they never even knew him, meaning he wasn't the person who asked them to contribute. One possibility is that he had junior bundlers under him and that he took credit with the campaigns for the monies bundled by others under his direction. But, that's not illegal either.
Hsu may have asked X to contribute and X in turn asked Y and Z. When the checks came in, Hsu took credit for X, Y and Z's contributions, rather than giving X the credit for Y and Z's contributions. So what? That may be chutzpah, but is it illegal?.
As for his fugitive status, he apparently returned to Hong Kong for several years after his criminal case in California. I would buy that he was running from the possible three year sentence he had agreed to if, when he returned to the U.S, he either kept a low profile or changed his name. But who returns to the U.S., knowing they skipped out on a jail sentence, and then seeks to become a big-shot under their real name? It doesn't make sense.
More evidence he's a groupie: The Times reports on his contributions to the Innocence Project. He didn't just decide they were a worthy cause, call them and offer money. He saw Barry Scheck at a restaurant and wanted to meet him. So he walked over to his table, introduced himself and offered a donation. And then he made more donations to become important to the group.
I really think there's nothing sinister behind his political donations. He wanted to be liked and he wanted to be a player. Unless those from whom he collected donations come forward with documentary proof he reimbursed them for their contributions, he's committed no fund-raising crime I can think of.
On the other hand, the media obsession with his "questionable" donations and complete and almost instantaneous assassination of his character, led him to the brink of suicide.
If there's a crime here, right now I'm not seeing Norman Hsu as the perpetrator, but the victim.
[Jeralyn Merritt blogs daily at TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime..]
Follow Jeralyn Merritt on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TalkLeft
1. to bundle contributions;
2. to provide false information about the name and address of the contributor; and
3. to contribute in excess of the maximum amount.
You need to think before you put your reputation on the line defending crooks.
1. to bundle contributions;
2. to provide false information about the name and address of the contributor; and
3. to contribute in excess of the maximum amount."
....And the names of the contributors were not even at the addresses listed in at least some cases. There is a chance that some of the contributors MAY NOT EVEN EXIST.
Further, the question lingers: Who REALLY donated to Clinton? Too many of those questioned said they had no idea what Hsu was doing with their money. They certainly did not intend to donate the money to any campaign in some cases.
If true, Hsu donated far in excess to the maximum amount. It's easy to see why he stayed on the run.
Either way (providing false information, contributing in excess to the maximum amount involved, etc), Hsu could be seeing a lengthy stay in the pokie for this kind of very shady funding alone.
The repubs tend to be big on smug self-righteousness and downright hypocrisy. The lastest in a series of classic cases: Larry Craig, telling Tim Russert that Bill Clinton was a "nasty, naughty boy"...when his own behavior has been...well, you know.
The dems, on the other hand, tend to be much more easygoing about original virtue, and tolerant of original (or unoriginal) sin.
But holy cannoli, do they play the victim card every chance they get.
Hsu a victim? That's about as believable as Larry Craig's "wide stance".
I always wondered what Donald Trump did with his old rugs.
Now I know. Hsu's sporting two of them...
That said, I am troubled that the DNC doesn't require better vetting of funds as large as those Hsu donated. I am suspicious of money in the hands of a man convicted of Grand Theft. "Victim", ... not so sure of that I'm afraid.
The Chinese government and it's use of operatives inside the US.
Let's just go back to 1996, shall we?
http://www.senate.gov/%7Egovt-aff/12.pdf
They'll keep up this story til the elections, probably. Because right now, it's the only thing (real or made up) they've got to disparage the Democrats on.
Yes, the MSM still beats up on Dems about everything else but in everything else, especially the war, most of the rest of the country (outside the Beltway echo chamber) agrees with Dems.
So my bet is this story ain't going away and I do think Hsu is the victim here (absent any concrete proof - remember that Vick defenders? Innocent Until Proven (Or Confessed) Guilty)?
Obviously - it wasn't.
You clearly have a problem with the campaign laws that are currently on the books.
I would like to point out that these laws are on the books because Democrats wanted to prevent Republicans from buying elections.
It is ironic.
Advocate123
http://copiousdissent.blogspot.com
To me, the source of his money is highly suspect but then, I may be all wrong.