Right Wing Nut House

1/5/2006

WHAT’S $665,000 BETWEEN FRIENDS?

Filed under: Ethics, Government, Politics — Rick Moran @ 9:52 am

I guess if your name is Clinton, violating the law means never having to say you’re sorry…just make sure you’ve got a good enough lawyer:

A fund-raising committee for Senator Clinton’s 2000 campaign has agreed to pay a $35,000 civil penalty and to concede that reports it made to the federal government understated by more than $700,000 donations to a California celebrity gala held to benefit her Senate bid.

The agreement between the committee, New York Senate 2000, and the Federal Election Commission ends the campaign finance regulation agency’s inquiry into a complaint filed in 2001 by an entrepreneur who financed the fund-raising concert, Peter Paul.

“The civil payment assessed to New York Senate 2000 resolves the question of underreported in-kind contributions, and there will be no further action on this matter,” an attorney for the fundraising committee, Marc Elias, said.

If you’re interested, the Hollywood gala took in $721,000 and Hillary’s campaign reported that she realized $57,000. That’s not so bad. Just hope that when she’s President, she doesn’t name her Finance Chairman David Rosen Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

That won’t be likely since Mr. Rosen is under indictment for misleading the FEC on what was taken in on that star studded night. Another organizer of that same fundraiser, Aaron Tonkin, has already pled guilty to fraud in connection to other charity events unrelated to the Clinton fundraiser.

That’s some crew. Given the number of crooks, scofflaws, leches, loons, and galoots who were in her husband’s Administration, I suppose we shouldn’t be so surprised.

What’s surprising is that Hillary herself has escaped with nary a scrape on her sparkling reputation. This is strange, since Hillary apparently knew all about the effort to flim-flam the FEC:

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton personally negotiated some of the fees for a star-studded Aug. 12, 2000 Hollywood fundraiser, the event’s producer, Peter Paul, said in an interview aired on Sunday - as the event comes under increasing scrutiny by a Los Angeles grand jury and the Justice Department.

And in another sign of potential legal trouble for the top Democrat, a spokesman for the law firm championing Paul’s case said his client informed Mrs. Clinton that her finance director, David Rosen, had failed to accurately report costs for the event to the Federal Election Commission.

“Hillary Clinton personally called the producer of the concert part of this event,” Mr. Paul told Fox News Channel’s Eric Shawn. “She asked him to lower the fee that he was charging of $850,000 at my request. So I don’t understand how she could possibly say that she didn’t know.”

Poor Mr. Paul. He evidently isn’t familiar with the Clinton SOP: Deny, deny, deny. And if that doesn’t work, blame the Republicans.

Ed Morrissey believes that there are lessons to be learned from Hillary’s great escape:

In the end, this probably doesn’t hurt anyone too much, but it should remind voters of two important issues. One: the Clinton’s always seem to trod through the outer fringes of election law when it comes to raising money. Two: These Byzantine rules for designating cash in elections only delight attorneys and accountants, and in that order.

Yep. Which means that the next round of campaign finance “reform” that will most surely be pushed as a result of the Abramoff fiasco will have the shysters and pencil necks licking their chops in anticipation.

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin links to Peter Paul’s blog for a more lengthy rundown on Hillary’s complicity in hoodwinking the FEC.

4 Comments

  1. I think this campaign finance should be of great interest for the American people. They are the ones who vote for these photogenic slobs we call politicians. Politicians have split loyalty between those who contribute to their campaign and those who voted them into office. I think those in office should have a greater sense of loyalty to their constituency above everyone else. Thats just this voters oppinion.

    Comment by Svenghouli — 1/5/2006 @ 10:36 am

  2. Can we demand the Barrett Report be released under the freedom of information act? After all, the taxpayers did pay for it.

    Comment by nikko — 1/5/2006 @ 1:11 pm

  3. A Clinton Fund-Raising Group Is Fined for Understating Gifts By JOSH GERSTEIN

    The math here just don’t make sense, you pay a $ 35,000.00 fine to pocket $ 700,000.00, who wouldn’t? Why does the Bush Administration Justice Department seem to go soft on Clintonites ala Sandy Berger and now this?

    Trackback by The Absurd Report — 2/8/2006 @ 2:38 am

  4. A Clinton Fund-Raising Group Is Fined for Understating Gifts By JOSH GERSTEIN

    The math here just don’t make sense, you pay a $ 35,000.00 fine to pocket $ 700,000.00, who wouldn’t? Why does the Bush Administration Justice Department seem to go soft on Clintonites ala Sandy Berger and now this?

    Trackback by The Absurd Report — 2/8/2006 @ 2:38 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress