NY Times editorial criticizing "bundlers" didn't mention Fabian
SUMMARY: A New York Times editorial criticizing presidential candidates' use of "bundlers" stated that "Senator Hillary Clinton [D-NY] has been burned twice lately by so-called bundlers," and made apparent references to Clinton bundlers Norman Hsu and Sant Chatwal. The Times went on to note that "[o]ther candidates in both parties have been similarly embarrassed" but offered no further details and made no mention of Alan B. Fabian, a Maryland bundler for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's campaign who was indicted last month on fraud and money laundering charges.
A September 5 New York Times editorial criticizing presidential candidates' use of "bundlers" -- fundraisers who solicit friends, family, and associates to make campaign contributions to specific candidates -- said that "Senator Hillary Clinton [D-NY] has been burned twice lately by so-called bundlers." The editorial noted specifically, "One Clinton bundler turned out to have an outstanding arrest warrant for business fraud; the other has a history of tax liens, fraud charges and bankruptcy proceedings on two continents," apparent references to Clinton bundlers Norman Hsu, the person with a warrant against him, and Sant Chatwal, who, according to a September 3 Washington Post report, "resolved the last" of the regulatory and tax charges against him "this spring." The Times went on to note that "[o]ther candidates in both parties have been similarly embarrassed" but offered no further details.
In fact, as the Times itself reported on August 31: "Mitt Romney's campaign for the Republican presidential nomination primary recently returned a $2,300 contribution from Alan B. Fabian, a Maryland bundler indicted on fraud and money laundering charges. The campaign has retained contributions Mr. Fabian solicited on its behalf." As Media Matters for America has previously documented, TV news outlets also focused on Hsu but did not discuss the 23-count indictment against Fabian, Romney's national finance committee co-chairman, which was unsealed August 9.
Furthermore, the Times criticized Clinton for her failure to co-sponsor legislation proposed by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) that would "mandate disclosure by individuals who bundle from $10,000 on up the campaign food chain." But the editorial did not note that Clinton discloses bundlers who raise at least $100,000 for her campaign, and that, according to the Internet archive, Clinton had disclosed the names of Hsu and Chatwal as bundlers at least by April 20.
From the September 5 New York Times editorial headlined "The Candidates' Tainted Money":
The presidential candidates' gross money marathon is leaving them increasingly open to shady backslappers securing privileged access with big bags of campaign cash on the barrelhead. Senator Hillary Clinton has been burned twice lately by so-called bundlers -- aspiring power brokers who harvest large amounts of smaller donations and bundle them into irresistibly giant packages. One Clinton bundler turned out to have an outstanding arrest warrant for business fraud; the other has a history of tax liens, fraud charges and bankruptcy proceedings on two continents.
Other candidates in both parties have been similarly embarrassed. And no wonder, as an estimated 2,000 bundlers now work the major campaigns like maître d's. Business executives pass the hat among underlings and family members for impressive scores. Trade and professional groups milk their memberships for big-ticket entry to the political circus.
For all their press releases promising watchfulness, the candidates have become increasingly addicted to bundlers. This is because Congress failed to update the public financing of campaigns, the alternative that worked well for the nation for three decades. Private fund-raising, deposed after the campaign corruption of Watergate, has retaken the throne, with the money hunt becoming more rampant as the campaign season lengthens. There is no process forcing disclosure of bundling so voters could better judge a candidate's donors. Sensing the growing risk of scandal, the campaigns have offered only half-hearted swipes at disclosure.
A good solution has been proposed by Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, who would mandate disclosure by individuals who bundle from $10,000 on up the campaign food chain. This is part of a plan to revive the public financing option by adjusting the subsidies to keep pace with the private fund-raising boom. Senator Barack Obama is a co-sponsor, but other major (i.e. well-moneyed) candidates, including Senator Clinton, are hesitating, despite their vows to change Washington. It would be a tragedy if it takes another Watergate scandal to prod today's candidates into demanding public financing as the antidote to the abusive power of bundlers.















But, wait...Republicans insist that rich people throwing money at candidates is "free speech". What's their beef?
Unlike all the poor people that toss their pennies at Democrats.
As opposed to Republicans, who are only poor when it comes to morals, integrity, and honesty.
.....and liberal hysteria, don't forget liberal hysteria.
Tommy's mocking clouds the fact the "money is free speech" argument from the wealthy is one of wanting to get rid of limits that you can contribute to a campaign. It may be true that the poor throw their pennies to the Democrats, but don't you think that maybe it's more significant when thousands of people donate small amounts to a candidate rather than a small handful donating huge amounts?
Pennies at Democrats was sarcasm.
Unless you consider rich Hollywood limousine liberals who toss gazillions of pennies at Democrats "small amounts"?
Pennies at Democrats was sarcasm.
Not if you feel you have to explain it.
Mr. Hsu has vanished :-OHe's probably hanging out with Ma & Pa Paw. Fugitive Political Donor Misses Court DateBy MIKE McINTIRE and CAROLYN MARSHALLPublished: September 5, 2007<!--NYT_INLINE_IMAGE_POSITION1 -->
Norman Hsu, the fugitive fund-raiser for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and other Democrats who turned himself in to California authorities last week, failed to show up for a court appearance today, and his lawyer said Mr. Hsu’s whereabouts were unknown.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/us/05cnd-hsu.html?bl&ex=1189137600&en=8b382da5229af6ce&ei=5087%0A
Nobody here [on the Left] wanted to even talk about Hsu last week...so why would they want to talk about Fabian? Oh yeah, this is only important if a Republican is involved...too ;-)
Hey Jeter, actually there was a bunch of talk about the Hsu story here last week. Maybe we were too busy thrashing over Tucker's Follies to notice?
Hey SunDog,
I knew there were threads here last week on this topic...I participated in several myself. What I meant was that many on the Left were saying 'oh there's nothing here, why discuss this? Hillary had no knowledge yada yada yada'.
I'd like BOTH parties held accountable if there's any hanky panky with campaign funding.
I still think there's something shady with Hsu & the Paw family, but that doesn't mean Hillary was involved. Just like Fabian being indicted doesn't point guilt at Romney.
Don't even bring up the Tucker thread...it gave me a frigin headache ;-)
Yeah but here is the thing. We are not the media we have no obligation to inform anyone. Why would the media talk about ONLY the Dems in this type scandal while leaving out the exact same thing from the GOP?
Why indeed? Personally I'd think any kind of shady dealings involving campaign donations should be something the media would examine & report on. And both parties should be subjected to the same scrutiny.
Since it was the WSJ that first broke the Hsu/Paw/Democratic connection & they are considered by most to lean Right, I'm not surprised that they jumped all over this. I didn't expect they'd find any direct link to Hillary, mostly because I wouldn't expect that she or her campaign would knowingly do anything that stupid.
This story has had some coverage by others in the media, BUT hardly enough to describe it as wide coverage. Hillary & other Democrats have given any "Hsu money" back or to charity, so other than Mr. Hsu who is now a fugitive [again], this story doesn't seem to have legs.
The Fabian story was covered in the press. I remember reading about it in the Boston Herald some weeks ago. I was actually shocked it didn't at least get some mention here. [if it did I missed it]
I think the Hsu case might have been a tad more interesting because of the Paw family. At least it was to me.
Of course once the Conservative radio talk shows, as well as FOX got a whiff of the WSJ story they ran with it.
I don't believe the MSM covered it as extensively.
Don't even bring up the Tucker thread...it gave me a frigin headache ;-)
You think YOU've got a headache, think about the sap that had his head slammed into that bathroom stall door!
Ouch. It probably would've really hurt if the guy wasn't fictional.
J,
I think MMFA is touting Fabian's Republican involvement, what do you think?
I agree 100% Tommy, this is "touting" pure & simple ;-)
Yes, they are touting it. But MM is an openly left website, not a supposedly objective reporter of the news. I think it would be tough to actually dispute the point they've made that the supposedly middle of the road media gives WAY more attention to something that could put Hillary in hot water than someone like Rudolph. They reported Hsu this way, 'Here's something that the Right is REALLY going to hammer Hillary on. Could this doom her campaign?' They're being objective, just reporting about how this 'scandal' may unfold. But of course the obvious affect of reporting it this way is to make the Right's case for them. MM has accurately pointed out that there have been stories of equal or greater importance pertaining to GOP candidates that the 'objective' media didn't splash all over the headlines. Hence, the 'mainstream' media as usual being a tool for the Right. Tommy's usual straw man aside, can you really refute the point MM made on the Hsu story?
I'm not using the word 'objective' here entirely literally. My point about MM being simply that they have made their mission perfectly clear whereas the danger of the mainstream media is that they claim to be just a reflection of reality while obscuring their role in actually shaping it.
Hey SunDog,
Instead of me repeating myself...scroll up to my reply to Solon :-)
Go ahead, repeat yourself. Why should this thread be any different from the hundreds that came before it?
Tell me Easy, have you ever actually refuted anyone here? Or posted anything of worth? Why not change your moniker to Easily The Most Useless Poster Here. That would describe you a hell of a lot better.
Well YEAH, as opposed to the press which is ignoring it while TOUTING the Dems involvement in the same thing.
Solon,
Scroll up to my other post to you.
As I wrote there, I read about Fabian in early August. It wasn't covered as a bombshell in the way that the WSJ seem to handle the Hsu story. But consider the source.
I don't believe that this story got quite the coverage the WSJ & those Republican whom are *Hillary-Haters* had hoped.
FACT CHECK:
Something seems a tad fishy here.
I look forward to the WSJ continuing their investigation.
Or anyone else that wants to give it a go.
- jeter2 / Tuesday August 28, 2007 08:05:44 PM EST
Jeter, I really do hate it when you're right ;-)
major Democratic Party fundraiser named Norman Hsu is wanted by authorities for skipping out on an agreement to serve up to three years in prison after pleading no contest to grand theft swindling charges
- pearlene_scott1602 / Wednesday August 29, 2007 02:14:17
Pearlene,
I did in fact write:
Nobody here [on the Left] wanted to even talk about Hsu last week...
I amended that in my following post by writing:
What I meant was that many on the Left were saying 'oh there's nothing here, why discuss this? Hillary had no knowledge yada yada yada'.
Being I'm a stickler about specifying Many or Some instead of the blanket implication of All, I do apologize. You & a few others [Pete comes to mind] did not brush this Hsu thing off.
Jeter, no problem, however I don't think we've heard the last regarding Hsu. I read somewhere that Hsu paid a 2 million cash for bail but didn't appear in court to hand over his passport skipping out again.
Norman?? Norman Hsu, are you in here??! Norman, did you go back to China with all the evidence??? Norman????
Please come back Norman, we miss you and your financial ways!
With Love, Charlie Tree (Your favorite short-order cook/democrat fundraiser)
Are you looking for Alan? Alan is cooperating with US attorneys and will be unable to "give" any more $$ to Mitt or to future Bushies.
Alan B. Fabian was charged in a 23 count indictment, including charges of money laundering, mail fraud, perjury and obstruction of justice. It’s reported Fabian, a former Bush Pioneer, allegedly ran a scheme that netted him millions of dollars which were used to purchase beach front property and travel. The Romney campaign said they would return Fabian’s $2,300 campaign donation, but not funds donated by others through him. Fabian stepped down from Romney’s campaign shortly after his August 9th indictment.
I am an undecided liberal democrat who will vote for the chosen nominee regardless of who it is, but I think that our party must go on the attack before the low life republicans gain an upper hand. Karly Rove perfected the dirty campaign, by having others do the slime slinging while his candidate stayed in the background. It left no room for our guy to attack the other candidate while they were still able to slime Kerry. We need to do the same thing. Organizations like "Moveon.Org" and the like need to dig up the dirt and then embellish it a bit. I know it sounds like dirty politics and it is, but it is what they will use against again this come next fall. I hope who ever our candidate is uses there own tactics against them and that our candidate counters any of their filth slinging. Kerry was and is a decorated war hero that was depicted as a coward, incapable of leading America, while Bush sat out the war in a Texas guard unit snorting coke and drinking whiskey. Kerry bled for his country while Bush was a "Cheerleader" for his school. It is no wonder we are in such a quagmire in Iraq; no "cheerleader" in the history of the world has ever made a good leader of a nation. What were republicans thinking or are they just dumb like Mr. D+ Bush.
Thomas, while I understand your frustration (and share it) I disagree that we need to adopt their tactics to the point of embellishing stories. The fact is, we win with the truth and with the issues. They really ARE wrong just about everything. The problem has been not making the case strongly enough and not calling them out when they lie. If one more Democrat spends half a minute chasing around some asinine straw man argument that they've posed I'm going to freak. What needs to be done is call them out on their tactics clearly so people can understand. Not "Uh well gosh, Kerry really was in the war." But, "How dare you use proxy groups like Swift Boat to spread lies about a genuine decorated veteran to cover for your draft-dodger. You insult ALL veterans you hypocritical 'troop supporters'." The truth really is on our side and it's more powerful than any 'embellishment.'