Jimmy Leeds Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 (edited) Nary a word is said in the press when their is a deviant Republican to go after from the "play it straight" media. The Democrat Abramoff Edited September 7, 2007 by Jimmy Leeds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentonDevils Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Nary a word is said in the press when their is a deviant Republican to go after from the "play it straight" media.The Democrat Abramoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 (edited) I don't think we know for sure his fundraising is totally clean. There was a picture of some really wful looking rundown house where a family of 5 lived and they all made donations solely to democrats in amounts that were well above what you might expect a family at their income to be able to afford? They started doing this in 2002 after not giving money before and also they rarely vote. This doesn't seem a normal pattern, does it? The interesting link is that Hsu has listed this bungalow as his address in the past. Does this look like the home of someone who gives around 200k in campaign donations in 5 years? Edited September 7, 2007 by Devils731 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentonDevils Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 I don't think we know for sure his fundraising is totally clean. There was a picture of some really wful looking rundown house where a family of 5 lived and they all made donations solely to democrats in amounts that were well above what you might expect a family at their income to be able to afford? They started doing this in 2002 after not giving money before and also they rarely vote. This doesn't seem a normal pattern, does it? The interesting link is that Hsu has listed this bungalow as his address in the past. Does this look like the home of someone who gives around 200k in campaign donations in 5 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Leeds Posted September 7, 2007 Author Share Posted September 7, 2007 If it was Giuliani's big fundraiser it would be top story all day every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentonDevils Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 If it was Giuliani's big fundraiser it would be top story all day every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 First of all, where did you find all of that information?Second of all, like I said, its not that big of a story no matter how you slice it. Both parties have long histories of unscrupulous fund raising efforts. I give this an official 'mehh'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteyNice Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Jimmy just has it backwards. This has certainly been a bigger story than when a co-chair of Romney's finance committee got indicted for money laundering: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...ter_indictment/ Or that his Utah finance chair is also a criminal: http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695207951,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 The reason this story would be bigger is the fact it appears likely he was raising money illegally and was a big donor for many campaigns, not just one. The fact that he is a criminal in his personal life, for me, isn't as important as funneling money illegaly into campaigns would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentonDevils Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 The reason this story would be bigger is the fact it appears likely he was raising money illegally and was a big donor for many campaigns, not just one. The fact that he is a criminal in his personal life, for me, isn't as important as funneling money illegaly into campaigns would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Exactly. This just isnt a major story at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentonDevils Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 But it looks like HSU was getting money into at least 1 campaign, and that being the case probably into many of the campagins he supported. That is a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentonDevils Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Because it means campaigns were accepting funds that were given to them outside the acceptable boundaries and those funds need to be stripped from the campaigns and possibly penalties levied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eltab213 Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 To condemn an entire group of people because of the disparate actions of a few, is one of the most idiotic things a person can do. Whether it be republicans are homosexual bathroom molestors, democrats are communist theives, black people eat watermelon and fried chicken, or all muslims are brainwashed murderfiend terrorists. It shows a lack of intellegence/understanding and is completly asinine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 (edited) What entire group was condemned? Unless you're talking about the media which got bashed(fairly or unfairly) for being biased. Edited September 7, 2007 by Devils731 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eltab213 Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 What entire group was condemned? Unless you're talking about the media which got bashed(fairly or unfairly) for being biased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 It does, but that I don't really see how that happened in this thread. For the most part it stayed on the topic of either HSU and his fundraising or the sideshoot topic of media coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghdi Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Nary a word is said in the press when their is a deviant Republican to go after from the "play it straight" media.The Democrat Abramoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eltab213 Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 It does, but that I don't really see how that happened in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOULAM1 Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 Come on now......you know thats not true. If it was the same exact story, it wouldnt matter what party it was associated with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HelenaHandbasket Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 731, I'm not sure you understand how loose campaign finance laws are. The restrictions are that the donor must be an individual (no corporate money) and a US citizen. You can't make a donation in someone else's name (something that is hard to prove), and if you want to contribute in cash, it must be under $100. Overall, you can take $2,300 from anyone for each the primary and the general, and an individual is subject to aggregate limits (just under $60,000 per person, per cycle, to all candidates and parties). That's it. A campaign could take money from Hsu today if they wanted to, assuming he hasn't hit his aggregate limit; it would just be bad form. Campaigns vet their donors to some extent, but what this guy is in trouble for would have been hard to find. It seems like what he was doing is something big corporations do all the time since campaign finance reform was passed, but in a larger scale. Say a company would have written a $25,000 check to a campaign back in the heyday of soft money. Now, they'll spend that $25k to pay their employees a little more, then direct them to give that money to a campaign, and all of a sudden you've got secretaries who have never given before maxing out. Strictly speaking, this violates the spirit, but not the letter of the law. When you hear about someone bundling contributions (like Bush's Rangers and Pioneers), sometimes this is what is going on. If he was reimbursing these Paw people, that's a felony, but we can't prove it happened yet. Since it came to light, the campaigns that took his money have been falling over themselves to give it to charity, which is par for the course in these situations, not because it was illegal to take it, but because they don't want to be connected to Hsu. If it turns out the money had illicit origins, (which so far as we can prove right now, none of it was, though it looks plenty suspicious), but was not given illicitly (outside the boundaries outlined above), then it will be a very good day for the Boys and Girls Club, but no candidates will get in trouble. And he's not the Democratic Abramoff. Jack Abramoff is smack in the middle of the biggest Congressional corruption scandal of our time, which is why he's in jail with a dozen other people, including a Congressman. It is apples and oranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 (edited) Helena, I don't know why you directed that post at me when you didn't say anything that conflicted with what I said. I never said campaigns couldn't take money from Hsu. It appears pretty obvious to me that the money coming from the Paw's came from Hsu as the family has no history of caring for politics and doesn't seem to have the means to have given 200k in 5 years to different campaigns. It doesn't need to have been proven yet for me to believe it did happen, heck it was found OJ didn't kill anyone but most people still believe he did. Edited September 8, 2007 by Devils731 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentonDevils Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 BullSh^t! You're a dem on the take in Trenton probably double dipping while the rest of us taxpayers pay your salaries. Haha. Yeah this weekend I went on a golfing excursion on the taxpayers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts