Thursday, September 20, 2007

More Fund Raising Troubles for Clinton

The WSJ reports more fund-raising shenanigans in the Clinton campaign. I kinda wish the press would not make that big a deal out of it because I don't want anything to derail Hillary's ability to win the Democratic nomination.

Anyway, it seems another fund-raising "bundler", William Danielczyk, founder of a Washington-area private-equity firm, reimbursed many of his family and employees for donations giving to the Clinton campaign. One woman, Pamala Layton, is on record having donated $4600, the maximum allowed.

But the 37-year-old Ms. Layton says she and her husband were reimbursed by her husband's boss for the donations. "It wasn't personal money. It was all corporate money," Mrs. Layton said outside her home here. "I don't even like Hillary. I'm a Republican."

Of course, Clinton's campaign is unaware and will return any money that wasn't given from any donor's own funds.

Asked about the donations bundled by Mr. Danielczyk, Mrs. Clinton's campaign said yesterday it would return the $9,200 donated by Mr. and Mrs. Layton.

Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, said: "These allegations are troubling and we will again ask each of the individuals solicited by Mr. Danielczyk to affirm that their contributions were given with their own funds." Mr. Wolfson said the campaign will return any contributions that didn't come from the donor's own money.

Mr. Wolfson also said the campaign provides information to its donors that "clearly spell out that donations must be from personal funds."

I find it very hard to believe that the Clinton campaign is oblivious to the practice of these fund-raising "bundlers". They are either naive or are encouraging it, both of which are not good attributes in a Presidential candidate.

We are 15 months away from the election and these pesky fund-raising scandals are starting to pop up.

What's next??

8 comments:

  1. Andy: What’s next? More of the same! It looks like Hilarity Clinton will be forced to give back all her illegal money, her campaign will go broke, and then she will be indicted. Or maybe she will be indicted and then her campaign will go broke. Whichever. But she and the other criminals in her group are toast.

    Here is my take on the latest news about the Clinton Crime Organization, which I just posted over at Eric’s blog.

    Norman Hsu has been indicted by federal authorities in New York for massive campaign law violations and investor fraud. These charges are in addition to the charges he faces in California.

    The way the story is starting to look now, Hsu created several front companies to funnel money from “investors” to various Democrats, the Clinton Crime Organization being the main recipient. One company, called “Source Financing Investors,” claims Hsu duped them out of $40 million. However, Source Financing Investors is also run by the folks who brought you the Woodstock music festival.

    As the facts are revealed, it will likely come to light that most or all of the duped “investors” in Hsu’s fraudulent businesses were leftwing outfits and individuals who were really not duped at all. They all knew very well what Hsu was doing with their money: He was laundering their money through his phony business accounts. He would then write checks to his Asian co-conspirators in California, such as the Paw Family, who would in turn write new checks as campaign contributions to the Clinton Crime Organization and other Democrat criminals.

    Read today’s AP story, “Norman Hsu Charged With Fraud in NY.”

    ReplyDelete
  2. More about Danielczyk here:

    Clement, other locals associated with key figure in latest Clinton finance tangle

    Journal report calls into question the fundraising tactics of a Hillary Clinton backer whose firm counts the former mayoral candidate and several other well-known Nashvillians as advisors

    ReplyDelete
  3. Colby Natale9/20/2007 4:17 PM

    "I find it very hard to believe that the Clinton campaign is oblivious to the practice of these fund-raising "bundlers". "

    Andy, other than some vague, unqualified gut feeling of yours, what evidence do you have to make it hard to believe Clinton was unaware of such a localized practice?

    I'm dying to know.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You’re right, Colby. It’s common knowledge that your girl is totally oblivious to everything, so how could she know?

    PS: What’s a “localized practice”? Is that like a crime that only locals commit?

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's purely a gut feeling, Colby. Based on the fact that there are now two shady individuals who have donated approx $1 Million to the Clinton campaign. They claim to have vetted the donors and these guys just "slipped through the cracks".

    Go ahead and believe it if you want. I don't.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's purely a gut feeling

    Truthiness. You do realize that you are a parody of yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  7. You do realize that you are a parody of yourself?

    And given your recent exchanges with David Budge it's fairly obvious you're...'special.'

    ReplyDelete
  8. Interesting that the great minds of Montana’s lefty blogs--those great minds that always have something to say about everything--are rendered speechless when it comes to defending the criminal activities of the Democrats. Ooops. That’s right, you’re not supposed to defend criminal activities, are you Shane? So just say something moronic about a figure of speech someone used and hope nobody notices you’re a little chicken shit.

    ReplyDelete