Beck falsely claimed William Paw gave Clinton "$200,000 in donations"

While discussing recent allegations that businessman Norman Hsu may have funneled illegal campaign contributions to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) by reimbursing members of a California family, on the September 5 edition of his CNN Headline News show, Glenn Beck, apparently referring to William Paw, falsely stated that Paw, who he said had an income of $46,000, sent Clinton "I think $200,000 in donations." In fact, according to the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) searchable donor database, William Paw (whose income as a mail carrier is listed as $49,000, according to a union representative cited in an August 28 Wall Street Journal article) himself donated $4,200 to Clinton and $11,800 to all Democratic candidates beginning in October 2005, while, as Media Matters for America has noted, according to the Los Angeles Times, "Over a three-year period, they [seven members of the Paw family] gave $213,000, including $55,000 to Clinton and $14,000 to candidates for state-level offices in New York." The Journal, which first highlighted the Paws' donations, reported that William Paw's "grown children have jobs ranging from account manager at a software company to 'attendance liaison' at a local public high school. One is listed on campaign records as an executive at a mutual fund."

During the program, American Spectator founder and Editor-in-Chief R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. stated that Hsu is one of several "shadowy Asian figures" who have been involved with campaign finance violations linked to the Clintons and that Hsu is "reported to have been dispersing as much as a million dollars to Clinton people, to other Democrats." Beck later added: "Bundling is just when they take -- they've got one guy who was a postal worker making $46,000 a year, and he gave I think $200,000 in donations. That's just people just gathering a bunch of money and spreading it out, right?" Tyrell responded, "Yes, and Hsu was the man that worked with him on this, Hsu the man without a home."

As Media Matters documented, Tyrrell has a long history of making wild claims about the Clintons in the Spectator and in anti-Clinton books he has written, including The Clinton Crack-Up: The Boy President's Life After The White House (Nelson Current), which Tyrrell hyped during his appearance. Under his watch, the Spectator, once a little-known conservative monthly, used tabloid journalism to smear the former president and first lady on a regular basis with no evidence. In his October 20, 1997, "Media Notes" column, Washington Post staff writer Howard Kurtz wrote:

The magazine has been staunchly conservative since Tyrrell and [co-founder Ronald] Burr launched it while they were at Indiana University. But in recent years, as its circulation has mushroomed from 30,000 to more than 200,000, the Spectator has dived headfirst into the scandal-mongering business, fueled in part by the [right-wing philanthropist Richard Mellon] Scaife donations.

Now the magazine, which broke the "Troopergate" story, runs such pieces as "Boy Clinton's Big Mama," "The Clintons' Brewing Micro-Scandal," "Hillary, the CIA & the Iraq Cover-Up" and "Fast Times at White House High." Tyrrell himself has weighed in with two pieces on Bill Clinton's supposed ties to drug-running at the Mena, Ark., airport and another titled "Is Clinton on Coke?"

From the September 5 edition of CNN's Glenn Beck:

BECK: Now, two things that get politics into more trouble than anything else: sex and money. Media prefers a story where they're combined, but quite honestly we'll take either one of them on this program. Now, things will get a little tricky, a little dicey when two stories happen simultaneously; if one is about sex and the other is just about money, sex wins every single time. And that is exactly the scenario that occurred last week. But should it have?

While the media was feasting on the bones of Larry Craig's little Penthouse Forum moment, another scandal, this one involving some Democrats and their campaign donations, was almost completely ignored by the mainstream media. What a surprise there, huh?

Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is the founder and editor-in-chief of the American Spectator and the author of The Clinton Crackup. You've been following this scandal. Why is this a huge scandal?

TYRRELL: Well, you know, this is what the Clintons would call "old news," but it's old news because campaign finance violations with shadowy Asian figures have been going back with the Clintons all the way back to 1986. I mean, this is Chapter 5 of my book. There's been one figure after another.

In '96, you had half a dozen shadowy Asian figures, and now you, of course, have Norman Hsu reported to have been dispersing as much as a million dollars to Clinton people, to other Democrats. And it turns out we've now discovered he doesn't even have an address. His home address was a New York public library, and he's on the lam again.

BECK: OK, where does he -- where does he get his money? Where is this money coming from?

TYRRELL: Well, we don't know. He was supposed to appear for -- he put up $2 million -- at the end of last week, the week in which the story wasn't reported, as you quite incisively point out. At the end of the week, it was discovered even worse. Not only is he dispersing money that apparently is increate, but the money -- he's been on the lam since 1992. So he appears up at a San Francisco courthouse, and the San Francisco courthouse, he posts $2 million bail, and today, this very day, he was supposed to appear in the courthouse once again, and he skipped bail. He's out on the lam once again.

BECK: All right. Tell me about the -- do you have anything on this Pakistani -- I read something last week about a guy who is a Pakistani national, he also gave money to the Clinton campaign, and then he disappeared. Do you know anything about that? Or is that true at all?

TYRRELL: No, I only know about the Indian that disappeared. There was an Indian that gave money. I don't know if he's disappeared. But the Clintons have been tied up in the last six weeks with at least two people fighting felony charges, one a convicted felon.

BECK: OK. This is kind of -- the reason why this is bad -- let's just say all of this is innocent, which I find that hard to believe, this just brings back -- I mean, I immediately thought of the monks. I immediately thought of, what was the other guy back in the `90s that was funneling money from the Chinese army?

TYRRELL: Chinese military -- Johnny Chung. And he was dealing with Chinese military intelligence. Again, it's Chapter 5 of The Clinton Crackup. It's all over the book.

BECK: OK. I don't know, I don't know if anybody else feels this way, this is why I'd like to stop the Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush thing, maybe next time around. Bundling, is this illegal? Bundling is just when they take -- they've got one guy who was a postal worker making $46,000 a year, and he gave I think $200,000 in donations. That's just people just gathering a bunch of money and spreading it out, right?

TYRRELL: Yes, and Hsu was the man that worked with him on this, Hsu the man without a home.

BECK: Is it illegal?

TYRRELL: It's very much illegal now, as of the 202 [sic: 2002] campaign finance law, it's very much illegal. And the Paw family, another Chinese-American family, in this case Chinese-born, they are facing serious investigations.

BECK: OK, Emmett, thank you very much.