Norman Hsu: Where's the Crime?

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

Comments

[shrinqrap]

There is no need for any actual crime for this story to gain traction.

Norman Hsu has all the qualifications to fit one of the media's tried-and-true narratives - that the Clinton's coffers are filled with illegal money - and so his story is pursued.

It is another short-cut taken by reporter-s­lash-pundi­ts, and meets no real resistance by their editors. The facts be damned.

When left-leaning pundits (has Maureen Dowd done any precious 'Hsu's your daddy' hit pieces yet? stay tuned) push this story, their words are taken up by the right-wing echo chamber and added to their own twisted tales, and the vicious cycle continues, another Grand Myth to contaminate Election 2008.

Welcome to Hillary's nightmare.

[annefrank]

Hillary and the DLC SOUGHT Hsu's fundraising skills! When the campaign was WARNED about him last June - they ignored it since he'd promised to raise $1M for Hillary - and almost made his goal.

[1differentdrummer]

And your point is?

[avergejoe]

hrc again?

BostonGlobe 2/28/07:Pardons reemerge as issue in Clinton run

WASHINGTON -- Six years ago, the launch of Hillary Clinton's career in the US Senate was marred by allegations that her brothers had received payments from people pardoned by President Bill Clinton in the waning months of his presidency.

Now, in the wake of the launch of her presidential campaign, the pardon controversy has reemerged in an obscure court case in which Senator Clinton's brother Tony is battling an order to repay more than $100,000 he received from a couple pardoned by President Clinton.

Tony Rodham, who acknowledged approaching the president about a pardon for the couple, is the second of Hillary Clinton's brothers to receive money from people who were eventually pardoned by President Clinton. Hugh Rodham received $400,000 from two people, one of whom was pardoned and one whose sentence was commuted.

But while Hillary Clinton immediately expressed chagrin over the news in 2001 that Hugh received the money -- and asked him to return it -- she said Tony was "not paid," according to a congressional report. The Clinton campaign yesterday declined to comment on the case involving Tony Rodham.

Clinton critics have been seeking to revive an array of controversies, from the Whitewater land deal to the Monica Lewinsky case. The Clinton campaign has sought to depict them as old or moot cases. But the Tony Rodham case could be different because it is in court...

Yesterday, US Bankruptcy Court Judge Marian Harrison of Nashville ordered Tony Rodham to respond by March 16 to the allegation that he failed to repay a loan of $107,000 from the couple pardoned by Clinton, according to attorneys involved in the case.

President Clinton's pardons have been a political issue for Hillary Clinton because of her ties to a number of the cases. In addition to the people who paid her brothers, those receiving pardons included commodities trader Marc Rich, a fugitive who was prosecuted for tax evasion .. and fled to Switzerland. Rich was pardoned after his former wife, Denise Rich, contributed heavily to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign.