FBI looks into disgraced donor's business

[AlGore-08.com]

Source: Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON — The FBI has begun examining a murky business venture run by disgraced Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu that paid out hefty profits over the last several years to investors, some of whom were pressed to make contributions to Hillary Rodham Clinton and other political candidates.

(snip)

One associate, Irvine businessman Jack Cassidy, said he had tried to warn authorities and the Clinton campaign as early as June that he feared Hsu was running an illicit enterprise, but had gotten no response.

(snip)

Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson declined to respond to Cassidy's claim, saying only that the campaign had conducted a background check of Hsu, who has emerged in the last three years as one of the Democratic Party's biggest fundraisers.

(snip)

Since Hsu's arrest, there has been much speculation about the source of his wealth and how he was able to put together a broad network of donors, many of whom had never given to political campaigns. Investigators are looking into whether several of the donors who appeared to be of modest means contributed their own money to the candidates or were reimbursed, which would violate federal campaign law.

(more... )

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-na-hsu10sep10,0,4412655.story?coll=la-home-center

[democrat2thecore]

1. Two words to halt this kind of thing: **Public Financing!** -nt

-

[rmgarrette64]

2. Three from me - Repeal McCain-Feingold

Seriously, let people spend what they want campaigning. Then you won't need all these front-men to get the money into the system.

At the moment, we say that spending your own money for your own campaign is protected political speech, but spending that same money campaigning for some one else is not. No big surprise the rich dominate the political scene. It also seems odd that a millionaire can spend all he wants to say he's the best candidate for an office, but would be restricted from that spending if he thinks some one else would do it better.

We've been trying the campaign finance rules for years now, and we're finding they don't work. When you're in a hole, first rule is to stop digging. No, public financing is NOT the way to go, that just digs us in deeper. End it all, let people spend what they will. I could have sworn I remember a quote from some where, something about "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech..." Ah, not important, I guess...

And yes, I know there are rich Republicans. There are rich Democrats too. I don't know what the whole deal is with Hsu, but I know George Soros wants to spend more on our folks, and I wish we could just let him.

R. Garrett

[spirald]

3. If money is speech...

So if money is speech, and protected under the first amendment, how can bribery be illegal? Just wonderin'...

[rmgarrette64]

4. Strawman much?

Please.

There is a bit of a difference between trying to buy a vote, and buying air time or advertising to make a case. The one is rightly illegal, the other is core political speech. Do you really want me to make this argument, or were you just trying to make a really dumb point?

R. Garrett

[CriesInTheStreets]

5. Watch and see if...

...BushCo & the Neocons use this as an angle to undermine Hillary and any other Progressives who did not know about this guys shady dealings.

They want revenge for Abramoff....and they'll do their level best to get it.

[high density]

6. It won't come up until the general election

Until then they'll probably ignore it.

[fedupfisherman]

7. More Hillary smearing?

This is just an attempt to smear Hillary