Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Clinton Received $500 - $2,500 Contributions from Nonexistent & Poor Immigrants
According to an investigation conducted by the Los Angeles Times, Hillary Clinton received $500 - $2,500 contributions totaling $380,000 from dishwashers, waiters and others with low paying jobs from some of the poorest Chinese neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx. Most have occupations that would normally make it difficult for them to donate such high amounts of money. Some of the addresses and phone numbers of these donors proved to be false or non-existent. Many are recent immigrants from Fujian province and seem to think that if she becomes president,she will be able to reunite them with their families. Some lack the legal-resident status required for giving campaign money. Most have not registered to vote. Some speak little or no English. Many said they gave to Clinton because they were instructed to do so by local association leaders. Clinton has not returned the funds to any of the contributors who gave illegally.
You can read more about the donations and the investigation at The LA Times.
Has Clinton truly been vetted?
Comments (22)
The hits just keep on coming! Thanks.
March 6, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Update: a complaint has been filed with the FEC, but I do not know if it just faded away or if something is being done. For more info on the complaint, go to:http://tinyurl.com/22wasv
Does anyone know more?
March 7, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you quoting this old story (see date on the story mast) that WAS vetted last Fall, today? Or are you relying on the fact that most Obamaniacs have the attention span of a four year-old and they will think this is something new?
Your candidate is finally getting some real scrutiny and all you can shout is "Quick, look over there at that old shiny thing!"
March 6, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
LMAO! Brilliant.
March 6, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haha, this coming from Hillary supporters who keep bringing up Rezko even though all of that was old news from LAST SUMMER?! October is a lot more recent than almost a year ago. Ohh you gotta love the hypocrisy.
Hey, if Hillary wants to bring up old news, fine, we'll play ball.
March 6, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
There re also reports that the money was laundered ans some of the poverty-stricken "benefactors", who actually existed paid on behalf of a man named David Guo, president of the Fujian American Cuisine Council as well as other donors,who later repaid them the money. Could this be a way to get around the maximum donor issue?
Just because the media is not covering it does not mean the issue is vetted. There are still questions that remained unanswered. Ask Hillary is doing for Obama, shouldn't she prepare herself for the Republican attack machine?
March 6, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
pmSanFran, please inform us how this story created a true vetting on the issues brought up about these donations. Just because a story came up doesn't mean the candidate was vetted in terms of the story. Waiting......
March 6, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately the whole electorate has a short attention span.
When Hillary supporters say "So what if he was against the war. Hillary was duped like the rest of us, we forgive her."
The point is thats not the judgement we need as POTUS.
For those who need a visual - lets pull up that oldie from last year - the fantaistic movie detailing the fantastic planning for the Iraq war:
No End in Sight
http://www.noendinsightmovie.com/
March 6, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary loves chinese cash.
March 6, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't this be considered vetting? Nowhere in that entire article does it accuse, assert or provide any evidence that the Clinton campaign solicited illegal donations, although it does say that any that they found had been returned.
Campaigns have millions of donors and it takes months to check out every single donation - that is why they regularly audit them - there is simply not enough time, money or personnel to check each and every donation.
Both campaigns receive donations, legal and illegal, but neither campaign is going to knowingly accept illegal donations that would compromise their campaigns. It would not be worth it to them, especially when they know that the press and the opposition will comb them looking for them.
This tactic is shortsighted and stupid since it practically begs for the opposition to retaliate.
March 6, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
But yet Hillary's campaign will do a "six degrees of kevin bacon" on Obama. Maybe Rezko's paperboy or store clerk where Rezko picks up his morning coffee gave to the Obama campaign.
"See!" Hillary supporters chant, "he got money from Rezko channeled through others."
Save your "millions of donations" excuse. If it is good enough for Hillary, it is good enough for Obama. Nuff said.
March 6, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for reminding us that Hillary gets her money from the American people LOL (except for illegal bundling and self-funding). I think it is important to go back to these things because they are all part of this campaign season and will arise again.
March 6, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't there already a Law and Order episode about this a month ago? Still an important story, though.
March 6, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's wrong with you Obamaniacs? Jealous? Hillary Clinton inspires people from all walks of life. Why is it so hard for you to believe that a Chinese dishwasher would be so excited by Hillary that he would donate his salary for the month. Some people like living with 12 roommates. He can't vote because he's not a citizen, so this is his way of influencing the election. The threats from his boss are irrelevant because he would have donated that much anyway. Those exploited immigrants will carry Hillary to victory!!!! LOL
March 6, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for weighing in on this, Genghis. I was about to have to do so myself! :)
March 6, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well it just proves that Hillary is a real champion of the little people. They love her so much in the slums tenements of China Town in NYC that they fork over huge wads of money and wash dishes over time for Hillary.
March 6, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was taking a look at the data for Clinton as well and noticed families (last names) where numerous people donated, including those listed as students. All were giving the max $2,300 or $4,600. It appeared to be that dad, mom, kids, gramps, aunts, uncles etc. provide a opportunity for the wealthy to beat the system.
March 6, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
That reminds me: I should start having some more kids so that I can properly influence upcoming congressional races.
March 6, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
i'm a full bore hrc supporter, and you know how clinton supporters respond to such charges: we say "bring it on!"
see, a clinton supporter understands that politics is a contact sport, perhaps the toughest there is since nothing requires and individual to be more publicly exposed in their deed and comment.
...and a clinton supporter understands that the folks on the other side are adults who have absolutely no compunction about playing rough, throwing elbows and being as tough as they can figure to be to win the day for their candidate.
...and lastly, a clinton supporter understands that in politics as in life, anything worth having is worth fighting for.
i'm sorry to burst the bubble of all you obama-ite idealist out there, but this very online back-and-forth your engaged in, and all the unsupported accusations about hrc, personally, and the clintons, generally, being "untrustworthy", "willing to do anything to get elected", so on and so forth...
i hate to break it to you, but you're fighting. you're fighting for the nomination for your man. and you and he have been doing it since day one of this campaign and playing pretty hard ball but under the loving cloak of a loving media that, honestly, is always tougher on the front-runner than the underdog.
so spare me the "woeth me's" and "how unfairs" about tactics in this race. your camp has been pushing out the misleading at best, false at worst, mailers and radio ads and tv ads by the armful. the only thing that changed in the past month is that, after 11 in a row, no self-respecting media personality could any longer not declare your guy the "front-runner" and now he's got to deal with front-runner heat and scrutiny.
...and the grade on round 1: F.
i'm fine with trusting my girl to handle charges about chinatown contributors, not yet released tax returns, whitewater, travelgate and whatever other mucky muck your camp wants to throw her way. she'll handle it because that's what a clinton does -- they persevere, they triumph.
what does an obama do? from what i can tell from this comment thread and viewing your man's on the trail responses, it seems all about whining.
you're not going to whine your way to this nomination, and certainly not going to whine your way to the white house.
man up, for christ sake! (no offense to the female contingent of obama supporters).
March 6, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you kidding me? Who was it that was whining about a non-existant press bias? Oh....that's right....Clinton....
Who has attacked Obama has not having crisis experience, while having none of her own....oh....Clinton....that's right...
Who gave McCain his script in the General by saying he was more experienced than Obama, thus essentially attacking her own party? Starts with C and ends in -linton.
Who have 3 of the 5 Rezko co-defendant's donated to? Obama? Nope, it's Clinton.
Who actually called the Canadian government to give 'em the *wink wink* on NAFTA, as opposed to their opponent, who's adviser had a conversation that was unsolicited taken out of context, distorted, and unfairly leaked to the press? Do you get the pattern?
You are voting for the past, wake up and smell the coffee, Hillary doesn't care about you, she only cares about one person....and I think we all know who that is.
March 7, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure bdiddy was being satirical. The use of Bush's "bring it on" suggests so to me, at least.
Otherwise, what was written makes no sense.
March 7, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you vetted your story sufficiently. Do you know if Obama returned the contributions referenced below?
Hsu, an apparel executive who made his first-ever political contribution — to John Kerry — in 2004, is listed as one of the top 20 Democratic fundraisers in the country and is one of Clinton's "HillRaisers" — people who rustle up at least $100,000 for Clinton's campaign, The Wall Street Journal reports.
Click here to read the report in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required).
Among those who have said they will return or donate money raised by Hsu are Kerry and Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts; Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein of California; Al Franken, a Senate candidate in Minnesota; Reps. Michael Honda and Doris Matsui of California; and Rep. Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania. Hsu also has contributed to Sen. Barack Obama's political action committee.
Fox News, Aug. 30 2007.
I remembered the story this is simply the first googled item to reference it.
March 7, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment