Michelle Malkin » Another Chinese-American straw donor probe Plus: Charting Hsu & Associates nationwide (state and federal) campaign contributions

Another Chinese-American straw donor probe Plus: Charting Hsu & Associates nationwide (state and federal) campaign contributions

By Michelle Malkin • August 31, 2007 09:38 PM

Same m.o., different Clinton campaign. The WSJ reports in an online article dated Sept. 1 that the Justice Department is now looking into Norman Hsu’s possible straw campaign donations as a result of the paper’s investigation published earlier this week:

The U.S. Justice Department is investigating possible campaign-finance violations by top Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu, according to people familiar with the probe.

Ready for the complaints from Asian-American groups about being “profiled?” They’re coming, I promise you.

What say you, Hillary? Nothing:

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign declined to comment yesterday. The New York senator, along with other Democrats, has said she would turn over donations received from Mr. Hsu to charity.

But Mr. Hsu’s legal woes are a political blow to the many prominent Democrats who accepted his funds, in particular Mrs. Clinton. While there is no sign any of them were aware of Mr. Hsu’s actions and prior record, they could be embarrassed by the probe of his fundraising.

The probe will chase the Paw family’s fingerprints, along with other Hsu associates:

The investigation began following a Wall Street Journal story this past week about donations by these people — mail carrier William Paw and the five other members of his family who list their Daly City address as 41 Shelbourne Ave., a small house near San Francisco airport.

Mr. Hsu has denied reimbursing any associates for their donations, which would be a felony, or other wrongdoing in his fund-raising activities. “I’ve asked friends and colleagues of mine to give money out of their own pockets, and sometimes they have agreed,” he said in an email to the Journal this past week. A member of the Paw family also has said the family’s donations were their own.

The amounts and dates of the Paws’ donations were similar to those of Mr. Hsu, who once listed the Paw’s address as his own. The Paws, Mr. Hsu and other associates collectively donated nearly $1 million to an array of candidates the past few years, including the presidential campaign of Mrs. Clinton.

Flip Pidot has done yeomen’s work compiling summary results of a nationwide scour of all state and federal campaign finance disclosure documents published since the 2004 cycle for donations from Hsu and his associates identified by the WSJ. He’s found “65 Democratic candidates (even one Republican(!), though he lost…) running for everything from State Assembly to President. You’ll find them running in 32 states. You’ll find 9 Democratic campaign committees and 10 Democratic state parties in the mix…With the state-level data added, we’ve now shot past $1.3 million. The municipal data looks to drive the total significantly higher. So stay tuned.”

Here’s one of Flip’s graphs charting top recipients of Hsu funny money:

Check Flip’s blog to see which state and federal recipients in your neck of the woods might have received Hsu funds.

***
How about a Top 10 list about this story? David? Hillary?

Posted in: Hillary Clinton, Norman Hsu

Send to a Friend
Printer Friendly

comments (21)

trackbacks (14)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

#1

On August 31st, 2007 at 9:55 pm, zorro said:

Wow, Mrs. Clinton never learns.
#2

On August 31st, 2007 at 9:56 pm, Speakup said:

This is a twopeat from my post over at Townhall but I think it’s apropos here too.

Why Liberals Always Protect Perverts?
By Kevin McCullough

A big, BIG tent.

Professional courtesy.
It’s also why perverts always vote for liberals.

Democrats have cultivated the ‘crook’ vote.

A fairly sizable segment of the American populace have learned to enjoy and expect the largess of ’slightly’ bad behavior and the sneaky pleasure of getting away with it, this is the (yea we bad) glorifying grassroots foundation that helps spawn much worse criminal behavior.

From parking ticket absconders to illegal aliens to outright felons (what’s a little identity theft?), the liberal tent is all welcoming.

Whether it’s rights for the dependent indolent or if the term serial killer is what appears before your prefix (Sir, Ms. Mr. Mrs.) or any amount or level of illegal or immoral behavior in between, don’t worry, you have the liberal accredited right to vote, for them; vote for a sweet soft criminal activity loving Democrat, hey, it’s all good, if not immoral.

Don’t sweat the naughty details, just vote, liberal, crooks.
#3

On August 31st, 2007 at 10:09 pm, planetgeo said:

Michele,

Follow the money. The ChiComs are brilliant at laundering the money they use to pull the strings on our politicians. Hsu isn’t just some low-level thug. He’s a conduit. Follow the trail.
#4

On August 31st, 2007 at 10:32 pm, Dandapani said:

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/6959/freepassdo8mg2.gif

Same ol’, same ol’…
#5

On August 31st, 2007 at 10:37 pm, DesertLover said:

planetgeo

I agree … I posted on the initial story that we need to know what the “charities” are that this money is supposedly being donated to now …

At the time I said:

I suspect they will send the money to another Chinese Charity which will then run it through the Chinese Money Laundry and send it back to them all nicely folded and repackaged in nice plain brown wrappers.

I haven’t changed my mind … the Clinton devious mentality is rampant when there is money involved … they will find a way to get that money back in the coffers if we don’t stop them …
#6

On August 31st, 2007 at 11:09 pm, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

Maintream Media Preportions:

Story Importance -

* Old-ish Senator may or may not have been trying to get it on in a men’s room stall: 97%

* Democratic Presidential frontrunner involved in another in a long line of illegal donation situations including potential felonious activity from people with offshore interests: 3%

Can you imagine what the coverage would be if the scandal had involved Romney or Guiliani? Of course you can. Gross and awful.
#7

On August 31st, 2007 at 11:48 pm, purplepeep said:

Mr_Conservative_Cat said:
Maintream Media Preportions:

Story Importance -

* Old-ish Senator may or may not have been trying to get it on in a men’s room stall: 97%

* Democratic Presidential frontrunner involved in another in a long line of illegal donation situations including potential felonious activity from people with offshore interests: 3%

Not to be fair to the liberal media (lol) or anything, MrCC, but on the Craig story account Republicans insist on making it an end-of-the-world thing as just much as the MSM.

Also, in general, just about any sex story is more “juicy” than a money story. Or , in this case, it’s more like a “tapdancing, but no sex story”, heh.

Democrats, especially the Clintons, getting money from murky Chinese donors isn’t a shocker. Hasn’t it been the status quo since at least the first Clinton term?
#8

On September 1st, 2007 at 8:51 am, ajmontana said:

After this Holiday weekend I expect the “dirty laundry”and “mud slinging” for all the candidates to start piling up, this is just the tip of the sword. Dress accordingly you dont want to get any of it on you. ew.
#9

On September 1st, 2007 at 9:16 am, jrlingreenbay said:

Come September 6th - 5 more days - this story will wisp into thin air, thanks to Fred Thompson.

The MSM will be all over his entry and they will breathe a sigh of relief that they don’t have to dig further into this story.

( Although it will be interesting if, even after his resignation, how long they hang on to Larry Craig )
#10

On September 1st, 2007 at 10:15 am, TheCityTroll said:

Here are some additional reminders of the ChiCom owned Clinton Family and the damage they have caused.

http://thecitytroll.blogspot.com/2007/09/reminder-of-who-clintons-are-owned-by.html
#11

On September 1st, 2007 at 10:34 am, Bad Candy said:

Oh, surprise surprise, Fast Eddie Rendell was getting funny money.
#12

On September 1st, 2007 at 10:55 am, lionheart said:

Not very funny on Letterman. Of course, that doesn’t disqualify her as a legitimate candidate. What disqualifies her is her history of financial corruption, her socialist agenda, a very average intellect, pathetic fawning for votes from the poor, basing her positions on what she thinks will get her elected, staying in a sham marriage for political gain, .. I could go on, but you get the point.
#13

On September 1st, 2007 at 11:00 am, geminicontender said:

The whole party is a bunch of cheating, power hungry imbeciles. I hope they go down and go down hard.
#14

On September 1st, 2007 at 11:16 am, Boomer said:

The only way a Democrat wins is by cheating. It’s amazing how many districts won during their elections exceed the population of registered voters. Now they are being openly funded by overseas interests and will sell our security out in a second to stay in power.
#15

On September 1st, 2007 at 11:32 am, Bill DeFelice said:

What better way to establish a Chi-Com connection,in our White House?Remember Slick Willy’s buddy from red china,shipped a load of full auto AK47 assault rifles,to Chicago.The bullbous nosed one kept all Federal agensies tied up,but he forgot about the U.S.Cutoms Service.They caught the container,detined for Gangbangers,in the Chicago area.
#16

On September 1st, 2007 at 11:40 am, greenfairie said:

Exactly…it’s quite likely the ChiComs are ultimately behind all of this. Papa needs some new missile secrets!
#17

On September 1st, 2007 at 11:45 am, Rick Moran said:

From that same WSJ article linked above:

In 1990, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that a group of Chinatown gang leaders had been arrested for kidnapping Mr. Hsu. The article said the alleged kidnappers were stopped after speeding through a red light, and Mr. Hsu took the opportunity to tell police he was being kidnapped. The article said he owned a restaurant and clothing businesses throughout the San Francisco Bay Area.

Chinatown gang “leaders?” Isn’t that a little strange for gang leaders to be doing their own dirty work such as killing or kidnapping? And by gang leaders, does that mean they were from separate gangs? What on earth would leaders from different gangs be cooperating in the kidnapping of a supposedly nobody businessman?

Coud Hsu have been on of those “gang leaders” rather than a victim of a kidnapping?

More at my blog.
#18

On September 1st, 2007 at 12:05 pm, ajmontana said:

#17 rick
AJ scratching head… ya think
#19

On September 1st, 2007 at 12:12 pm, citizen said:

no controlling legal authority.

they’re all crooks by now.

where’s the law enforcement when we need it?

America appears to be in a dead heat tie with ancient Rome for senate terpitude..,
#20

On September 1st, 2007 at 11:01 pm, CommentGuy said:

Ready for the complaints from Asian-American groups about being “profiled?” They’re coming, I promise you.

It was already out there even before you posted this Michelle

But the executive director of the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund in New York, Margaret Fung, sharply criticized the RNC document, after being shown it by a reporter.

“It links Norman Hsu and the Paw family to other Asian-American donors in previous campaigns, solely because of their race. It insinuates that Asian-Americans are more prone to making improper donations and have been doing this for years. What is this obsession with Asian-American donors?” she asked, adding that she had no information on Hsu’s specific guilt or innocence. “Does this fit into a broader political strategy of stirring up anti-immigrant sentiments?”
#21

On September 2nd, 2007 at 2:37 am, T J Green said:

Last time we’ll see Hill in a chair… that’s one wide beam boat.