On Thursday, all the Presidential candidates had to file their campaign finance disclosures for the fourth quarter of 2007. I gave the frontrunners’ reports a quick scour both to get an updated read on the money race (summary statistics here) and to hunt for any fresh instances of the irregularities that have made this cycle so engaging in the past.
So far, one schedule has made a special impression: Senator Clinton’s Itemized Receipts, Line 21.
Excerpted from the filing:
Line 21 is typically very boring, generally nothing more than interest income on bank deposits. But it’s also where candidates report income they’ve generated by selling, renting, or trading their contributor lists. The practice is compliant with FEC rules - you just don’t see it too often because it’s liable to anger the tens of thousands of people who parted with their hard earned cash to support a candidate they probably didn’t expect to (literally) sell them out.
But the problem here is not that the Clinton campaign decided (for the first time) to engage in the practice. The problem is the customer.
Walter Karl, Inc. is your typical list broker/junk mail company, with the exception of the identity of its parent company, infoUSA.
Alert readers will recall that the founder, chairman, CEO, and controlling shareholder of this public company is Vinod Gupta, a man with an impressive record of alleged improprieties involving funneling shareholders’ money to the Clintons.
When former President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton took a family vacation in January 2002 to Acapulco, Mexico, one of their longtime supporters, Vinod Gupta, provided his company’s private jet to fly them there.
The company, infoUSA, one of the nation’s largest brokers of information on consumers, paid $146,866 to ferry the Clintons, Mr. Gupta and others to Acapulco and back, court records show. During the next four years, infoUSA paid Mr. Clinton more than $2 million for consulting services, and spent almost $900,000 to fly him around the world for his presidential foundation work and to fly Mrs. Clinton to campaign events.
Top 10 Reasons Why the Media Want Clinton, Part Deux
Several months ago, Hillary Clinton’s campaign website ran a banner story called, “The Top 10 Reasons to Support Hillary for President and Help Make History.” That list is now gone from the site, undoubtedly because her own team is having a hard time scraping up one reason to support her.
In honor of their delightful love of listmaking, I offer the Clinton Ladies Intervention Team a substitute list, one that I hope will bring them hope in this joyous season.
The Top Ten Reasons Why the Media Want a Third Clinton Co-Presidency:
1. Norman Hsu-Gate. This is a wonderful catch-all category for the illegal or unethical fundraising done by the Clinton campaign over the past year (please note this only applies to Hillary’s fundraising irregularities and not the phone-book-sized dossier of improper fundraising done during their first co-presidency.) Mr. Hsu, a businessman who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the campaign before it was revealed he’d been charged in California with fraud, has been accused of illegally bundling donations to her to get around campaign finance rules. In totally predictable fashion for a Clintonista, he went on the lam, eventually having a nervous breakdown and was then arrested. In addition, a December 15 fundraising event for Hillary at the home of Mississippi trial lawyer Richard Scruggs was called off, after Scruggs was indicted twp weeks ago for bribery. And the money keeps rollin’ in from every side.
2. Green Paint-Gate. Related to Norman Hsu-Gate, but with its own distinct characteristics. The Paw family’s address is a tiny house in California with peeling green paint and an overgrown lawn. It looks like a crack den, but somehow they managed to come up with $45,000 for Hillary’s campaign. This amazing feat of financial wizardry was repeated many times throughout New York City’s Chinatown, with dishwashers and seamstresses donating tens of thousands of their hard-earned dollars to support Hillary. They must have taken her advice and played the cattle futures by reading the Wall Street Journal.
3. Alcee Hastings-Gate. Pop quiz: How many presidential candidates have made the head of their Florida campaign a judge who was impeached for corruption? Answer: None of them, except Hillary Clinton.
4. Iraq-Gate. Former president Bill Clinton had a sudden lapse of memory about his past position on Iraq. He’d supported the invasion in 2003 and the removal of Saddam Hussein — as president, he’d signed the Iraq Liberation Act. But three weeks ago, he skated right past the truth and said he was opposed to Iraq “from the beginning.” I guess he thinks he’s invisible to YouTube.
5. The Estrogen Card-Gate. Vote for me because I’m a woman! But don’t pick on me because I’m a delicate flower that can’t handle it! But I can handle it because I’m experienced! But I can’t handle it because I’m a woman! Which brings us back to why you should vote for me! But don’t pile on me!
6. “Yes/No”-Gate. “Senator Clinton, are you for a withdrawal from Iraq?” “Yes/No! I’ve moved on!” “Senator Clinton, are you for driver’s licenses for illegals?” “Yes/No! I’ve moved on!” “Senator Clinton, are you still taking money from shady characters?”
“Yes/No! I’ve moved on!” “Senator, did you know that your brothers were selling pardons out of the back door of the White House?” “Yes/No! I’ve moved on!”
7. Vin Gupta-Gate. He’s Hillary’s buddy, whose company, InfoUSA, is under investigation for many things, including selling the names of Alzheimer’s and dementia patients to sleazeballs so they could clean out their bank accounts. Meanwhile, Gupta was flying Hillary around America on his private jet.
8. Sandy Berger-Gate. Convicted liar, thief, and obstructer of justice joined Hillary’s Team as an informal foreign policy adviser (because he was such an inspired choice as their National Security Adviser.) Are those top secret documents in your pants or are you just happy to see me?
9. Playboy-Gate. A few months ago, Bill Clinton was photographed with his “bosom buddies:” Los Angeles billionaires and fellow swingers, Ron Burkle and Steve Bing. They were in the City of Love, Paris, whooping it up during a “boys’ trip.” It doesn’t get better than Bill on the loose with a refill for Viagra.
10. Bill-Gate. Melting down on Charlie Rose. Trying to out-Oprah Oprah. Schlepping through the snows of Iowa in a $6000 bespoke suit. Screaming at her that he’s giving up his “play date” with Burkle and Bing for a losing campaign. Taking over the reins like we always knew he would, destroying any pretense that she’s running “on her own.”
For all of these reasons (and myriad more!), the media want to see a third Clinton co-presidency. They can’t imagine anything more horrible than a Romney presidency. A Mormon? Boring!
The media cannot spend four years — forget about eight! — covering a dull guy. It would be like covering Dwight Eisenhower. They’ll curl up and die with a president who never has any scandal, doesn’t chase skirts, doesn’t eat meat, and raises money legally. The media need the Clintons. They need the outrageousness. Scandal sells. And nobody does scandal like the Clintons.
Source: Human Events
und Firm Names Hsu in Suit
A New York fund manager has filed a lawsuit seeking about $40 million he invested with Norman Hsu, crimping efforts by politicians to rid themselves of the Democratic donor’s money.
A New York State Supreme Court judge in Manhattan Tuesday essentially froze some of Mr. Hsu’s assets at the request of the firm that filed the suit, Source Financing Investors. That includes money that Mr. Hsu, now in jail on grand-theft charges, donated to some campaigns, along with bank accounts.
Source Financing invested tens of millions of dollars in a menswear business that it now believes never existed. The lawsuit claims Mr. Hsu engaged in fraud, "arising out of an alleged Ponzi scheme" created by him and operated through two of his companies, Components Ltd. and Next Components.
The judge, Shirley Werner Kornreich, scheduled a hearing for Sept. 26, at which Norman Hsu or a representative of his companies could "show cause" as to why Source Financing shouldn’t attach a claim to his assets. Mr. Hsu’s attorney couldn’t be reached for comment yesterday.
Judge Kornreich is ordering four campaigns to hang onto Mr. Hsu’s money. They include those of Sen. Hillary Clinton, which received $23,000; New York State Gov. Eliot Spitzer, with $62,000; New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who received $50,000; and Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, who got $25,000. The order is set to be delivered to the candidates by today.
All four candidates have said they would give Mr. Hsu’s money to charity. Seth Rosenberg of Clayman & Rosenberg, an attorney for Source Financing, has argued that the contributions may belong to Mr. Hsu’s investors. "This is an important step in the process of recovering assets" he said.
A spokeswoman for Ms. Gillibrand said they haven’t yet received the judge’s order and that they donated the money already to a school for autistic children in upstate Staatsburg, N.Y. The other campaigns couldn’t be reached for comment.
Mr. Hsu was arrested earlier this month in Colorado on California grand-theft charges dating to 1991. He had pleaded no contest in that case, which involved an apparel-related Ponzi scheme, but vanished before his hearing. He is expected to be extradited today to California.
Mr. Hsu also is under federal investigation for the Source Financing matter, as well as similar claims by investors in California and elsewhere. Federal officials also are probing how he raised more than $1 million for Democratic candidates.
Hsu “intended” to appear in Court - he just took the wrong train!
Disgraced Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu intended to appear for a scheduled California court hearing but may have mistakenly boarded the wrong train because he was "sick and confused," his spokesman said.
The explanation was the first given for Hsu’s disappearance Sept. 5 as he was due in a Redwood City, Calif., courtroom over a 1991 grand theft conviction. He was arrested in Grand Junction the next day after he apparently fell ill on an eastbound Amtrak train and was hospitalized.
Hsu was expected to waive extradition at a hearing Wednesday in Grand Junction. After that, California officials would have 10 days to pick him up, said Mesa County sheriff’s spokeswoman Heather Benjamin.
At the California hearing, Hsu had been expected to turn over his passport and ask a judge to cut in half the $2 million bail he posted last month when he turned himself in after spending 15 years on the lam from the theft conviction.
Hsu meant to attend that hearing, but may have accidentally boarded the Amtrak train headed out of state rather than a Bay Area Rapid Transit train, his spokesman Jason Booth said late Tuesday.
"That’s what appears to be how it happened," Booth said. "He was disoriented at the time. … We believe he suffered a psychological, mental, or physical breakdown. How that was caused I don’t know. I’m not a doctor."
"Based on my communications with him … he had all intentions of being in court and now he wants to go in and deal with this," Booth added.
California Attorney General’s Office spokesman Gareth Lacy declined to comment on Booth’s statement.
Hsu boarded the Amtrak train about an hour and a half after arriving in California by charter plane. He was found in Grand Junction with a ticket for Denver.
Clinton Blasts Defrauding Seniors Despite Supporter’s Questionable Practices
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., expressed concern about older Americans being "scammed" in a Des Moines, Iowa, speech Wednesday morning, even though her campaign has benefited from the largesse of a Democratic donor whose company is being investigated by the Iowa attorney general for its role in the very same issue — defrauding seniors.
"Fraudsters prey on seniors," Clinton told more than 300 Iowans at Waukee High School. "They offer prizes and sweepstakes and lotteries that lure people into a web of deception."
Clinton warned the crowd, "We’ve got to send out the alarm: seniors should be extremely careful in buying anything that someone tries to sell you over the telephone."
One of Clinton’s biggest financial supporters, however, is the multimillionaire owner of a data-mining company currently being investigated for its role in selling data lists of vulnerable seniors in Iowa to criminals specifically preying on lottery-seekers.
Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller launched the investigation against telemarketers defrauding the elderly in 2005, including an exploration as to what role infoUSA and its subsidiary Walter Karl Inc. played in selling their telemarketing lists to the very same kinds of "fraudsters" Clinton lambasted Wednesday.
Clinton Supporter Investigated
Vinod Gupta, founder, chairman & chief executive officer of infoUSA, has contributed more than $14,000 to Clinton and her various campaign committees, federal election records show.
Clinton Blasts Defrauding Seniors Despite Supporter’s Questionable Practices
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., decries senior scammers in a speech but a wealthy supporter is under investigation for frauding senior citizens.
In a Des Moines, Iowa, speech Wednesday morning, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., expressed concern about older Americans being "scammed," even though her campaign has benefited from the largesse of a Democratic donor whose company is being investigated by the Iowa attorney general for its role in the very same issue — defrauding seniors.
"Fraudsters prey on seniors," Clinton told more than 300 Iowans at Waukee High School. "They offer prizes and sweepstakes and lotteries that lure people into a web of deception."
Clinton warned the crowd, "We’ve got to send out the alarm: Seniors should be extremely careful in buying anything that someone tries to sell you over the telephone."
One of Clinton’s biggest financial supporters, however, is the multimillionaire owner of a data-mining company currently under investigation for its role in selling data lists of vulnerable seniors in Iowa to criminals specifically preying on lottery-seekers.
Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller launched the investigation against telemarketers defrauding the elderly in 2005, including an exploration as to what role infoUSA and its subsidiary Walter Karl Inc. played in selling their telemarketing lists to the very same kinds of "fraudsters" Clinton lambasted Wednesday.
Clinton Supporter Investigated
Vinod Gupta, founder, chairman and chief executive officer of infoUSA, has contributed more than $14,000 to Clinton and her various campaign committees, federal election records show.
For her presidential race, Gupta has given the maximum allowable contribution, $2,300, and by serving as vice chair of a June Manhattan fundraiser for Clinton featuring Christina Aguilera, Gupta committed to raising $50,000 for her campaign.
InfoUSA has also paid former President Bill Clinton hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches, and more than $3 million for consulting.
Were CNN Poll Questions Weighted Against Surge Report?
CNN released a poll on the 16th that claims that 53% of Americans don’t trust the U.S. Military assessment of what is going on in Iraq and that 72% won’t have their mind changed on their view of the war no matter what General Petraeus says about the surge next month. But if one reviews the questions of the poll and its methodology is considered (at least the only hint of methodology released), it makes one suspicious that it was anywhere near a fair and balanced method. In fact, there are so many questions about how this poll was carried out that the results must be viewed with skepticism.
To start with, of course, the poll is conducted by Hillary Clinton supporter Vin Gupta’s Opinion Research Corporation, the organization CNN has hired to run their political polling — a convenient situation for the Clinton campaign, to be sure. This single fact alone is enough to inform that the poll could likely be weighted to skew toward the ideas that Hillary Clinton is propagating in her campaign.
According to the front page of the partial downloadable PDF file of the poll, it was compiled from "interviews with 1,029 adult Americans" by telephone between August 6th thru the 8th with a plus or minus 3 percentage points.
There is no indication what party the respondents claimed to be members of, there is no mention if they were voters, registered, or likely. No geographic region is identified, no age bracket and no gender info for the poll is offered. This also causes skepticism. After all, they could have asked all Democrats, or weighted the Democrats to be a higher percentage. Maybe more women than men were asked? Maybe all the respondents were in the environs of Washington D.C., or maybe they were all women in Austin, Texas!? We have no idea as no facts of the sample size are revealed.
Only half of sample asked certain questions?
Then we get to the odd choice of asking only half those interviewed some of the questions from the poll. What was the deal with this? At least questions 28 through 33 were only presented to half those interviewed. One of those questions pertained to how respondents viewed the report general Petraeus would be giving next month.
33. As you may know, in September the top U.S. commander in Iraq will report to the President and Congress about how the war is going. Do you trust him to report what’s really going on in Iraq without making the situation sound better than it actually is, or don’t you feel that way? (ASKED OF HALF SAMPLE)
The half of the 1,029 interviewed that were asked this question ended up giving the following results:
- Trust him to report what’s really going on 43%
- Do not trust him to report what’s really going on 53%
- No opinion 4%
But which half were asked this question? Was the question asked of women and not men? Was the question asked of Democrats and not Republicans? How do we know how this question was weighted so that we might assess the legitimacy of the results?
