Hillary's Campaign to Return $850k in Hsu Related Contributions

By Jeralyn, Section Hillary Clinton
Posted on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 09:43:18 PM EST
Tags: Norman Hsu (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Hillary Clinton's campaign tonight announced that it will return not only the money Norman Hsu donated to her campaigns, but also the money donated by 260 persons associated with Norman Hsu. The total amounts to $850,000.

Hillary's campaign also will begin conducting background checks on its bundlers.

I hope, as the article says, the background checks are limited to bundlers. Bundlers legally collect money from other persons to donate to campaigns. So long as the bundler doesn't reimburse the donee, it's legal, and all the campaigns have bundlers.

For the individual donor, I think it's important they be allowed to donate to political campaigns, up to the allowed $2,300.00, without fear of a background check. We should encourage former offenders to participate in the electoral process. By providing them an outlet to express their interest, we increase the likelihood they will remain law abiding. Continuing to stigmatize them is not only unfair, but likely to increase recidivism.

More....

A recent study published in the Columbia Human Rights Law Review demonstrated a relationship between voting and reduced recidivism. The American Correctional Association and the American Bar Association also have noted that collateral consequences such as disenfranchisement impede the successful re-entry of individuals into the community. Put simply, those who vote believe they have a stake in the society of which they are a part and are less likely to re-offend than those who do not vote.

< The Move On Ad | Iraq: Doing Everything Possible To End It? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Hillary's Campaign to Return $850k in Hsu Related Contributions | 14 comments (14 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

cynic (none / 0) (#1)
by diogenes on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 10:02:30 PM EST

Not allowing former offenders to donate to candidates will stigmatize them and make them more likely to reoffend???
Whenever crooks reoffend, it's society's fault, I guess. If the former offenders want to take part in society so much, maybe they can donate $2300 a year to a cause which would help victims of whatever crime they were convicted of.
Why is it exactly legitimate to have bundlers? Just because it is legal doesn't make it a good idea, and it invites reimbursing the donors (hard to prove). This seems like a smokescreen; I'll bet that Hillary has more bundlers than anyone else whereas Obama has more small donors.

Do all that many persons convicted of (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 10:06:10 PM EST

felonies contribute to political campaigns?

Ah yes, (none / 0) (#3)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:58:59 AM EST

the well known correlation between donating large sums of money to Presidential candidates and reduced recidivism. Finally, someone has come up with a sensible justification for the role of money in politics. As we clearly can't expect anyone to argue with a straight face that money in politics has improved either the candidates or the political system I'm overjoyed that we can now proudly choose to ignore all the bad things caused by the influence of money because it improves the donors. The perversion of the electoral process and corruption of government is a small price to pay in exchange for fewer repeat crimes by donors.

I wonder what.... (none / 0) (#4)
by kdog on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:01:08 AM EST

Hsu and his donor friends were buying from Hillary with that 850 large.

Good government, (none / 0) (#5)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:06:33 AM EST

of course! What else could possibly be the motivation?

: Like my man Greg Palast said.... (none / 0) (#6)
by kdog on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:39:14 AM EST

it is the best democracy money can buy:)

[ Parent ]

kdog (none / 0) (#7)
by cpinva on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 03:48:40 PM EST

i think your friend stole that from will rogers, but i could be wrong.

hate to break the news to you guys, but there's been money in politics since there's been politics. the greeks and romans did it, everyone's doin' it, doin' it! cash is the lubrication of society, any society. so, what else is new?

the real question is: do you get value for your hard earned bucks?

i'd say with hillary, yes, you do; competent, smart, effective, experienced and well dressed. with romney you get, um, uh............special underwear! with obama you get sincerity. that, and a buck, will get you a small coffee at 7/11. with rudy you get, well, rudy.

as to the corrolative effects of political donations and criminal recidivism, i've not a clue, i've not seen any studies that might address that issue.

Saying (none / 0) (#8)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 03:55:55 PM EST

money has always influenced politics should not be mistaken with thinking: money controlling politics is therefore a good thing or thinking more money is now having a greater negative influence.

Your point seems to boils down to: I accept corruption if it is on behalf of the candidate I like best. ONE of the problems with that line of thinking is that many other people think the same thing and support different candidates, including the ones you dislike.

I've said before the race to the bottom has many fans. Too many are willing only to back their horse and seemingly indifferent to the direction of tyhe course down which the contestants run.

[ Parent ]

What a champ you are! (none / 0) (#9)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 04:17:48 PM EST

with romney you get, um, uh............special underwear!

Do you also make fun of Jews wearing yarmulkes? Muslims wearing burkahs, etc? Sikhs wearing turbins? etc.

[ Parent ]

You're probably right.... (none / 0) (#10)
by kdog on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 09:37:25 AM EST

Rogers is older than Palast.

As for what I want for my buck....a candidate who won't accept my buck in exchange for influence would be a great start. Ya know...anybody uncorrupted.

A man can dream...

[ Parent ]

But What If (none / 0) (#11)
by squeaky on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 10:18:29 AM EST

What if you felt that a candidate was sympathetic to your political positions so you gave them $$. Your $$ gained the ear of a current or future legislator and they were willing to listen to your position about ending the WOD and jailing drug users.

Seems like a good thing to me.

[ Parent ]

I know I'm dreaming but.... (none / 0) (#12)
by kdog on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 10:27:55 AM EST

my ideal candidate would listen to anybody's ideas or views, consider them, and make their own judgement....no contribution necessary.

I feel like our current way of doing political business is basicall "write a check, get me ear". No check...to hell with ya.

[ Parent ]

: But (none / 0) (#13)
by squeaky on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 10:57:49 AM EST

Candidates have to have some positions to start with otherwise why would you give them a dime. If Giuliani promised to take my money and listen to my ideas and make his own judgement I still would not give him a cent because he is a protofascist.
I guess that what I am suggesting is not relevant anyway. I am talking about giving money to what is on the label already, you are talking about getting some to write the label in exchange for cash.

[ Parent ]

Full disclosure (none / 0) (#14)
by Jack Okie on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 11:45:45 AM EST

it seems to me, is the best remedy. No limits, post the name of the individual donor on the web within 24 hrs, let folks draw their own conclusions. But no corporate contributions.

I've also considered the idea that if you can't vote for a candidate you can't donate to the candidate, but that's probably too restrictive.

BTW, the last I heard Hillary was not going to disclose the identities of those 260 donors. Given the circumstances of the bundle, it gives the impression, fairly or not, of having something to hide. Felons aside, why should anyone be able to make anonymous donations? The opportunity for mischief would seem to outweigh any privacy concerns. Or am I missing something (wouldn't be the first time)?