The Art of Fundraising to get around the law

Absolute Zero · October 19th, 2007, 05:04 PM

I think the intent of the laws requiring full disclosure of donors to Presidential candidates is to show us all where the influence is coming from. It assumes that the donations will be reported accurately.

But at least one candidate has apparently found a way around that by showing donations of $1,000 a pop in the name of poor people who don't have that kind of money. One poor neighborhood even managed pull together $384,000 for this candidate supposedly.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...la-home-center

My question is, assuming this candidate does the right thing and disgorges itself from these phony donations, where is the money returned to if these "donors" never really gave the donation?

lvgentleman · October 19th, 2007, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absolute Zero

I think the intent of the laws requiring full disclosure of donors to Presidential candidates is to show us all where the influence is coming from. It assumes that the donations will be reported accurately.

But at least one candidate has apparently found a way around that by showing donations of $1,000 a pop in the name of poor people who don't have that kind of money. One poor neighborhood even managed pull together $384,000 for this candidate supposedly.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...la-home-center

My question is, assuming this candidate does the right thing and disgorges itself from these phony donations, where is the money returned to if these "donors" never really gave the donation?

Since someone probably made the donation in their name without their knowledge - either give it back to them (karma in action), or give it to charity.

Absolute Zero · October 20th, 2007, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lvgentleman

Since someone probably made the donation in their name without their knowledge - either give it back to them (karma in action), or give it to charity.

So far, no announcement that they'll do anything.

Though when Hsu donated his $850,000 grand to her, they said they'd pay that back. I don't know if they ever did.

Absolute Zero · October 20th, 2007, 07:45 AM

First the LA Times reports yesterday that she reported receiving $1,000 donations from many poor people who could not even be found in the addressess provided. http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/10/19/hillarys-chinatown-donors-all-are-poor-immigrants-some-cant-be-located.php

Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown.

Now there is a lawsuit going forward against her in Calfornia claiming election fraud arising out of her 2000 Senate election.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B191066.PDF

Absolute Zero · October 20th, 2007, 07:49 AM

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/pol....donations.cnn

GreenCard · October 20th, 2007, 12:03 PM

Maybe Obama should check Hillary's freezer.

Russ Smith · October 21st, 2007, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absolute Zero

So far, no announcement that they'll do anything.

Though when Hsu donated his $850,000 grand to her, they said they'd pay that back. I don't know if they ever did.

She said she was going to donate the money from Hsu to charity, if she really did I don't know but that's what she said.

Great for the charities but somehow donating money only because you got caught breaking rules doesn't impress me. that she is now apparently guilty of doing it again and again sort of throws new light on her comments about the Hsu case where she claimed to have no knowledge of it.

Absolute Zero · October 22nd, 2007, 12:25 PM

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202007...hinese_lau.htm

A search of Chinatown donors yesterday by The Post found several bogus addresses and some contributions that raised eyebrows.
Shin K. Cheng is listed twice in federal records for giving $1,000 donations to Clinton's campaign on April 17.

But the address recorded on campaign reports is a clinic for sexually transmitted diseases, hemorrhoids and skin disease.
No one at the address knew of a Shin K. Cheng.

Another donation came from a Shih Kan Chang on Canal Street. But the address listed is a shop that sells knock-off watches and other pirated goods. The sales clerk there did not know the donor.

Hsiao Yen Wang, a cook in Chinatown, is listed as giving Clinton $1,000 on April 13. Contacted yesterday, she told The Post she had written a check.
But it was on behalf of a man named David Guo, president of the Fujian American Cuisine Council, and Wang told The Post that Guo had repaid her for the $1,000 contribution.

Such "straw donations" are strictly prohibited by federal law.

In addition, yesterday's search by The Post also turned up several $1,000 donations from Chinatown that were made by cooks, dishwashers, a cashier and a college student.

The findings closely match a report yesterday by the Los Angeles Times that found a huge number of Chinatown donations from donors listing bogus addresses or in amounts unlikely, given the donor's occupation.”