Why won't Clinton publish names of 260 Hsu contributors?

7 thoughts on “Why won’t Clinton publish names of 260 Hsu contributors?”

1. just like her worthless husband Slick Willie.
   Her ethics are down around her knees ya know.

   Log in to Reply

2. People forced to give to political causes and candidates they abhor – is there anything more un-American?

   No one forced anyone to donate. These people made a business decision that it was in their best interest to donate. This is on Hsu and his associates and has nothing to do with Hillary. Was she haranguing these people into donating? No, of course not.

   Why would a suspected swindler be a top donor to a White House favorite? Is Hsu fronting for a group, a foreign government?

   To raise their profile, prestige and influence and also to help out the candidate of their choice. Same reasons everyone, left and right, donates.

   Why did Clinton ignore warnings about Hsu? California businessman Jack Cassidy reportedly alerted the Clinton campaign in June of his suspicions that Hsu was a fraudster.

   If true that is sloppy.

   The Clinton campaign is accepting future contributions from the same people to whom, because of their associations with Hsu, it is returning $850,000. That amounts to a shell game.

   So being the acquaintance of a felon is enough to suppress your free speech rights? That’s interesting.

   The Jack Abramoff scandal dominated the headlines last year. Why do the media suddenly become less interested in campaign finance improprieties when the violator is a Democrat?

   Because Abramoff went far beyond mere donations to a candidate from a felon. There was out and out bribery of sitting Congressmen and administration officials.

   Hsu’s money is dirty but Hillary is no Bob Ney.

   I am glad to see my friends on the right have changed their tune on campaign finance. It is truly an impressive change of heart. You can help make a difference and help us clean up politics so no more Hsu’s ever darken our democratic process again. I assume you all now support publicly funded elections. Join the team at the Public Campaign Election Fund, http://www.publicamp…

    

   Log in to Reply

3. Conservatives believe contributors should be allowed to donate as much as they want with no restrictions as long as there is full and immediate disclosure.

   I believe that candidates should spend as much as they can raise, because the more they advertise and campaign, the better informed voters will be when they go to the polls. If presidential candidates spend $1 billion, it’s ok with me.

   Log in to Reply

   1. You now say,

      Conservatives believe contributors should be allowed to donate as much as they want with no restrictions as long as there is full and immediate disclosure.

      and yet earlier you approvingly quoted the IBD as stating,

      • The Clinton campaign is accepting future contributions from the same people to whom, because of their associations with Hsu, it is returning $850,000. That amounts to a shell game.

      How can you be for unrestricted donations and at the same time be upset that Clinton is fundraising from the Hsu related donors?

      It’s just interesting to see conservatives who are for unfettered donations raising a stink over donor and those who bundled with him. Hsu is a felon but not for reasons related to his fundraising so who cares how much he donated, how much he bundled or who bundled their donations with him? If you truly are in favor of laissez faire then the Hsu “scandal” is no big deal. His donations were legal, no?

      Log in to Reply

      1. There is no conflict between my posts.

         I am for full disclosure of campaign contributions and for unlimited campaign contributions by individuals and organizations.

         At the same time, when the limited disclosure we have no shows that a Hsu contributes to Democrats, the public has a right to question not only the motives and ethics of the contributors but also of the candidates.

         It’s time for the candidates to come clean on their relationships with their indicted and unindicted contributors and bundlelers.

         Why would you defend corrupt contributors and candidates who seem to be so cynical about the process?

         Log in to Reply

4. is developing faster than, um, Tri-X in hot developer…is that a bad analogy?  OK to groan.

   The Abramoff thing went on for many months, slowly gaining media momentum.  It was actually on the radar of Daniel Hopsicker at http://www.madcowprod.com for many months before that.

   So what if the HRC campaign isn’t going to reveal the names for a short while?  BFD.  Your boy Boosh didn’t start a 9/11 investigation for almost two years.

   The Dems are handling this rapidly and above board. 

   Find another reason to bitch, this isn’t it.

   Log in to Reply

   1. She has learned somethings from her scandalous years in the White House, but she’s still covering up and acting cynically.

      She wants Hsu’s contributors to re-gift, for crying out loud.

      Sleazy.

      Log in to Reply