Skip to comments.For Clinton, 2000 Fund-Raising Controversy Lingers
Posted on 09/14/2007 2:12:37 PM PDT by no dems
As Sen. Hillary Clinton grapples with the burgeoning scandal surrounding disgraced fund-raiser Norman Hsu, she can't quite shake a fund-raising controversy from her 2000 Senate campaign.
Mrs. Clinton's entanglement with a thrice-convicted felon named Peter Paul is proof of how long campaign-finance problems can haunt a public official. Mr. Paul became a problem for Mrs. Clinton when his criminal past became public shortly after he helped organize and finance a gala Hollywood fund-raiser for her in August 2000.
The Clintons have denied any wrongdoing. Their attorney, David Kendall, says there was never any business arrangement discussed or contemplated between Mr. Paul and Mr. Clinton. As for his other allegations, "Mr. Paul, as a three-time convicted felon, has no credibility," Mr. Kendall says. "He is the Picasso of con artists."
Mr. Paul continues to produce evidence. His attorneys have submitted a recently obtained tape recording of a 2000 conversation involving Mr. Paul and Mrs. Clinton discussing plans for the fund-raiser, which they contend bolsters the argument she was involved in campaign misdeeds. A state appeals court panel held a hearing Sept. 7 on Mr. Paul's motion to re-include Mrs. Clinton as a defendant. A decision on that matter is pending.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Truly the giver that keeps on grifting.
“The Clintons have denied any wrongdoing.”
They spend an incredible amount of time doing that, don’t they?
How does the smartest woman in the world handle Iran,Russia
North Korean regimes when she keeps being taken in by con artists (paul,hsu,President bush,Sink Emperor hubby .etc) ?
They are all on the same team............
Much as I like to see the attention Clinton is getting from this — all bad — it really makes me question whether private money should be allowed in politics at all.
I can’t see politicians accepting money from individuals or groups and not feeling beholden to them. I don’t want my politicians beholden to anyone but me. How much of government spending is payback for campaign contributions ? Eliminating campaign contributions might be key to cutting government spending.
I think I’d rather the federal government set aside a billion dollars each year for political campaigns and make it illegal to accept private money. To qualify to run, you would just need to announce your candidacy and get signatures from some percentage of the registered voters. Getting those signatures would be the only phase where private money was allowed.
What an excellent idea. More of our tax dollars wasted. More government involvement in elections. Sheesh!
God Bless you Doug.
Here’s the thread where we’ve been discussing this since last night - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1896307/posts
Sorry Kellis, I disagree strongly.
When you say “the federal government set aside” I see “my tax money given to people I may not agree with”.
Is the current system faulty? Absolutely! The fact that the Clintons have grifted their way from in his case, a backwater, second rate horse racing town and, in her case, a hard line socialist college education to the most prominent positions in the free world, lead me to think that if “the federal government” controlled the dispersion of those funds , those funds would be given only to those “the federal government” deemed “worthy” of those monies.
I don’t trust them to spend MY money. It is my right, as an extension of the first amendment to support who I choose. That is why the McCain-Feingold reforms should have been vetoed.
Sorry for the wordy sentence in the previous paragraph.
So how do you prevent politicians from from being bought by special interests via campaign contributions ?
You dismissed my solution. What is your solution ?
Perhaps private money should be allowed, and those contributions should be vetted and identified — as now — to the FEC, but the candidates must remain ignorant of who gave them the money ? That doesn’t seem workable, as groups would announce themselves who they’d given money to.
” “Mr. Paul, as a three-time convicted felon, has no credibility,” Mr. Kendall says. “
Mrs. Clinton, who habitually hires convicted felons to raise her campaign funds, has no credibility, no integrity, and no shame whatsoever.
She does, however, have balls the size of watermelons.
Oops! I did a search under “Peter Paul” and this did not show up. Sorry.
Post # 8: Great idea.
That’s okay. Some people probably saw this and missed the other one. :)
It really is amazing that the story by the WSJ is the only one. Anything there is a story about any issue, there are always multiple stories. It is like there is a media embargo.
We really appreciate you taking up the cause on this. Hopefully this will be her “Swift Boat” demise.
If men have integrity, they will stick to their principles and act on them - regardless of campaign contributions. Government financing of elections is something I do not support. The government that governs least governs best.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.