About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Wash. Times again suggested without evidence that Hsu illegally funneled donations to Dems

September 06, 2007 7:26 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: For the second time in a week, The Washington Times asserted in an article that "[f]ugitive businessman Norman Hsu ... donated more than $1 million to senior Democrats" and that "some of his donations were made through several people." However, Hsu himself has donated only "$260,000 to Democratic Party groups and federal candidates since 2004," as the article itself later noted, and the Wall Street Journal article that first suggested Hsu had orchestrated illegal campaign contributions provided no evidence that he had actually done so.

15 Comments

A September 6 Washington Times article by reporter Jerry Seper asserted: "Fugitive businessman Norman Hsu ... donated more than $1 million to senior Democrats, including the presidential campaigns of Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton [NY] and Barack Obama [IL]." Citing no evidence, the article later claimed that "some of his donations were made through several people, raising suspicions that the money came from foreign or other hidden sources."

In fact, as the Times article itself later reported, Hsu has donated "$260,000 to Democratic Party groups and federal candidates since 2004" but has also acted as a "bundler," soliciting friends and associates to make contributions to certain candidates with their own money. According to a September 1 Los Angeles Times article, Hsu himself and through bundling has "generated more than $1 million for Democratic politicians." While bundling itself is not illegal -- an August 31 New York Times article noted that it was "[p]ioneered in an organized way by George W. Bush in 2000" -- it is "illegal for a bundler to reimburse a contributor," as The New York Times also noted.

Despite The Washington Times' claim that "[s]ome of his [Hsu's] donations were made through several people," the August 28 Wall Street Journal article that first suggested Hsu may have funneled illegal campaign contributions to Clinton provided no direct evidence that he had done so.

This is the second time in the past week that Washington Times reporters have asserted that Hsu "donated" over $1 million to Democrats and made donations through other people. As Media Matters for America documented, a September 4 Washington Times article by reporter Bill Gertz claimed: "Apparel executive Norman Hsu, who turned himself in last week to authorities in California to face fraud charges, donated more than $1 million to senior Democrats, including the presidential campaigns of Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois." The article later claimed, providing no evidence, that "[s]ome of Mr. Hsu's donations were made through several people."

From the September 6 Washington Times article:

Fugitive businessman Norman Hsu, who donated more than $1 million to senior Democrats, including the presidential campaigns of Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, failed to appear yesterday for a bail-reduction hearing in a California court.

Hsu's attorneys told San Mateo Superior Court Judge Robert Foiles they did not know the whereabouts of their client, who evaded capture for more than 15 years before his surrender to authorities last week.

"Mr. Hsu is not here, and we do not know where Mr. Hsu is," San Francisco defense lawyer James Brosnahan said outside court. Mr. Brosnahan said "there was some contact" with Hsu a few hours before the scheduled 9 a.m. court appearance, but he declined to say who talked to Hsu.

[...]

Federal Election Commission records show Hsu has donated $260,000 to Democratic Party groups and federal candidates since 2004. He donated $23,000 to Mrs. Clinton of New York, which her campaign has since given to charity. He also donated to Mr. Obama's senatorial campaign in 2004 and to his political action committee.

Mr. Obama, of Illinois, has said the $2,000 donation to his 2004 Senate campaign and the $5,000 he gave to his political action committee, known as Hopefund, will go to charity.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee said it would give to charity the $43,700 Hsu made in donations, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said it would give to charity the money he donated to it.

Hsu told reporters last week he thought the 1991 criminal charges had been taken care of when he completed his bankruptcy proceedings in the early 1990s.

"I have not sought to evade any of my obligations and certainly not the law," he said in a prepared statement.

Hsu has not been linked to any foreign government, and the fraud charges are unrelated to campaign contributions. It is not known whether federal investigators are looking into his donations, most of which were made since 2003.

But some of his donations were made through several people, raising suspicions that the money came from foreign or other hidden sources.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by bruce1ace (September 06, 2007 8:08 pm ET)
         

      How about the fact that he missed his court appearance?  No big deal?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (September 06, 2007 9:58 pm ET)
           

        What does this prove?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by proudconservative (September 06, 2007 10:22 pm ET)
             

          z-loon,

          You have got to be kidding!

          For his sake, let's hope he wasn't given a clintonian tour of Ft. Marcy Park but rather a one way ticket to Bejing.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by steve k (September 07, 2007 2:07 am ET)
               

            Hsu has been arrested.

            So you can stow all that Vince Foster crap. And remember, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/02/23/starr.report/>Ken Starr</a> didn't come up with anything there, either.</p>

            Report Abuse
    • Author by ufleirx (September 06, 2007 8:38 pm ET)
         

      As a Democrat (given the lack of realistically electable choices) this is not a position we should be defending. It can not end well for us -- if we prove no more interested in governing well than the GOP -- we might as well just vote their ticket.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by proudconservative (September 06, 2007 9:08 pm ET)
         

      Don't expect a whole lot of activity on this thread.  The lefties will run from this faster than Norman Hsu hopping a plane to Bejing.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by j4sonl33 (September 07, 2007 1:59 am ET)
           

        Good call!! 6 hours and only 10 posts. Yeah, they really hate the truth. Preach on, brother!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by therick (September 07, 2007 10:42 am ET)
             

          Nice try, but the facts are thus:  Presently, there is no charge of illegal activity.  If evidence is presented in the future, and if someone has been convicted, I personally will be one of the first to condemn the illegal activity.

          The last thing I want is to have Democratic lawmakers lowering themselves to the level of the Republicans.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by steve k (September 06, 2007 10:51 pm ET)
         

      Let's be clear about the strange case of Norman Hsu.

      Hsu donated his own money to various Democratic campaigns. This was legal, and most of the campaigns (including Hillary's and Obama's) have given the money to charity.

      Also Hsu was a bundler for Democrats. That is, he took money from lots of smaller donors, put it all together, and gave it all to a candidate's campaign. As MMFA has pointed out, this is also a legal practice.

      What remains to be seen is where Hsu got the money from. The names of all the donors who give to a bundler must be reported to the FEC, so there's at least a record. The FBI has opened up an investigation into the sources of Hsu's bundled money. Some of the money will probably be dirty, but I'll wait to hear the official verdict.

      It's important to note that Hsu isn't being accused of bribery or influence peddling. There is, so far as I know, no evidence of quid pro quo. (Something which distinguishes this from the Abramoff and K Street scandals, both of which were much bigger in scope than this one and which involved exclusively Republicans). Nor is there any evidence that Hillary or the other politicians who took money from Hsu knew of his background.

      That said, this shows incredibly bad judgment on Hillary's part. How on earth could she not have found out that there was a felony warrant out on this guy? It can't be that hard for someone of Hillary's means and position to do a complete background check.

      The smartest thing for her to do would be to release the names of all the bundled donors, and to return all money that turns out to be dirty. So far she has refused to do this. I hope she does, or it'll be awfully hard for me to support her.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by tex (September 07, 2007 9:14 am ET)
         

      STEVE K:

      Are you being realistic? You think Hillary should personally vet all donors, extensively investigating backgrounds?

      If you ran for dogcatcher, or county commissioner, in a small community, would it be up to YOU to make sure all votes cast for you were valid? Would you be expected to know if someone voted who, by some technicality, should not have cast a vote?

      No. It's not your job. If "laws were broken" in anything surrounding an election, it's up to law enforcement personnel to uncover and prosecute those instances. The Candidate? He or she should, of course, be ASKED if they knew illegality was taking place. But to expect THEM to investigate all aspects of an election ... especially a nation-wide election ... that's just daft. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by steve k (September 07, 2007 12:24 pm ET)
           

        Hsu was not just a private donor; he was also a bundler--someone who collects from a huge number of smaller donors and gives all the money to the campaign. He was a "Hillraiser", someone whom Clinton relied on to raise a lot of money for the campaign. As such he was more important to her than a common donor. So yes, I am surprised she didn't vet him more carefully.

        Hsu's criminal background seems to have escaped not just Hillary, but many other Democratic politicians. There is no evidence that any of them knew of his past. Nor, as I said, is there any evidence of bribery or influence peddling. So I am willing to believe that Hillary was just not quite as careful as she should have been.

        As I said the FBI is investigating the sources of Hsu's bundled donations. If Hillary is smart she won't wait on them to find out how much of it is dirty (and right now there is no proof that any of it is dirty), but have her campaign investigate and return all of the money that turns out to be dirty.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by johnrtorres638 (September 07, 2007 11:10 am ET)
         

      Disgraced Democratic donor arrested in Grand Junction

       

      HRC just might have to start getting "lawyered up" for the coming trials.

       

      "HillRaiser"  - HILLARIOUS!

      Still being "honored" at the official campaign web site?  yup!

       

      JOHN EDWARD'S '08 BLOG -

       

      It makes one wonder just how much dirty money has been funneled to candidates such as Clinton when the man behind the transactions walks away from a $2 million bond.  Where is he and, more importantly, where did all of his money come from?  When they do find his body I won't be surprised if it will be because he "shot" himself in the mouth, "fell" off of a building or under a train, or fell "asleep" with a plastic bag over his head.

      It would be in keeping with the Clinton fundraising principles to keep these ill-gotten gains; we should not be surprised.  After all, returning the funds would demonstrate some level of moral authority.  Moral Authority does not seem to be much of a priority for the Clinton camp ..."triangulation" is so much easier to pronounce.  Yeah, she's a fundraising leader alright ....

       

      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Is the country really in a mood to go back to the sleazy Clinton years?  I'm thinking that a lot of Dems are going to pull the lever for Obama or Edwards just so that they can sleep at night. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by therick (September 07, 2007 5:40 pm ET)
           

        JT, you are one amazing unit.  You've got no evidence of any wrongdoing, either now nor during the Clinton administration, but by God you're sure they did it!!!  Yet you'll brush aside numerous facts that show how George W Bush has railroaded this country.

        C'mon, give us something with a little meat on it.  Oh, you don't have anything? As I thought.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by johnrtorres638 (September 08, 2007 1:05 pm ET)
             

          I know that it's kind of "thin" to quote from the John Edward '08 blog ... 

          Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.