Hsunanigans: Virtually none of Hsu’s bundlees re-donate to Hillary

posted at 10:15 am on October 17, 2007 by Allahpundit

This came up in yesterday’s taste of Hsugar. Remember last month when she made a big show of refunding the donations bundled by Hsu lest there be any appearance of impropriety — before insisting that she’d ask the bundlees to re-donate the refunded money? As lame as that idea was, it did have the virtue of providing a rough gauge of how many of Hsu’s bundlees genuinely did want to donate to Hillary because they supported her versus those who only donated to her because Hsu, using his business leverage over them, insisted that they do so. Now that he’s in jail and his “businesses” have collapsed, those who chose to re-donate the refunded money could reasonably be assumed to be in the former category; those who didn’t, the latter.

How’d that shake out?

When Sen. Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign last month mailed 250 checks to refund contributions to donors associated with jailed fund-raiser Norman Hsu, the campaign said it was open to having them contribute again directly. As of the end of September, only 10 had decided to do so, according to the campaign’s most recent campaign-finance filings…

Mr. Hsu “bundled” more than $800,000 in donations for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, from 248 individuals. Only $34,200 was again donated to the campaign after it was returned.

Not quite 5%, in other words. Meanwhile, having now learned the hard way that Hsu’s bundlees aren’t real “core” Hillary fans, the campaign faces a new dilemma: what to do about the hundreds of thousands of dollars given by those same people to her Senate campaign? Should the campaign presume, quite logically and ethically, that those donations were also the product of pressure by Hsu — knowing now that the money is unlikely to be re-donated if it’s refunded?

Of course not, silly. They’re holding on to it with both hands:

Hillary Rodham Clinton returned more than $800,000 in contributions donated to her presidential campaign that were arranged by alleged swindler Norman Hsu. But campaign officials said Tuesday they had no plans to return more than $260,000 that many of the same donors gave to her Senate political accounts.

Officials said they would return those contributions only if requested to do so by individual contributors.

A Los Angeles Times analysis found that 77 donors whose contributions to the presidential campaign were returned last month also gave to Clinton’s two Senate-related political funds.

Her Senate campaign committee, Friends of Hillary, received $235,000 in donations from the 77 donors later linked to Hsu. Ten of those contributors gave an additional $28,000 to Clinton’s leadership political fund, HillPac…

“Because we did not keep track of contributions in the same way during the Senate campaign we have no basis for knowing that these individuals were solicited by Norman Hsu,” said Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson. He said the Clinton campaign had gone beyond what it was legally or ethically bound to do when it gave back the presidential contributions.

Exit question: If they’re unsure whether the Senate donors were solicited by Hsu, why don’t they call them up and ask them?

Update: A good point by Flip. How many of those 77 Senate campaign donors being stiffed by Hillary were also defrauded by Hsu and looking to recoup some of their money?

In choosing to keep the $250,000 in Hsu-connected money that came in through the PAC and Senate committees, simply because the official bundler of such donations wasn’t recorded, the Clinton campaign seems to signal it’s forgetting (or dismissing) the fact that these funds aren’t tainted only because they were solicited by a career criminal and serial fugitive. The funds are tainted because that criminal is accused of reimbursing some of the nominal “contributors”. Further, the criminal complaints against Hsu allege that he financed his massive and fraudulent contributions with money he swindled out of more than a hundred investors. The FBI, the SEC, the FEC, and at least one U.S. Attorney’s office are investigating and the alleged victims are hoping to recover the $60 million they say Hsu stole from them.

For Clinton to be winkingly holding on to hundreds of thousands of dollars that can be quite readily linked to Hsu (as easily as referencing her own refund roster) shows an abundance of something, but it’s not caution.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

This smells to high heaven and the MSM twiddles it thumb.

The Clintons are well-greased teflon.

fogw on October 17, 2007 at 10:25 AM

The campaign is talking out both sides of their mouth on this issue.

When they announced the refunds initially they stated there were 260 Hsu related donors, now there are some papers claiming they say 249.

CommentGuy on October 17, 2007 at 10:26 AM

The quarterly refunds also show some weird stuff, like the Paw family had two donors who did not get refunds and some refunds went to a different address than the Paw family listed on the contributions.

I have seen refunds for some donors larger than the total donations by them according to the FEC database.

Also Flip has pointed out that there are major discrepancies with the zipcodes on the listed returns. They have checks for people in Hawaii being mailed to NYC.

There are a lot of likely Hsu donors who were refunded less than their full donations, even taking the senate campaign money into account.

Then there is still HillPac to be looked at and such entities as the DSCC , Starlight Fund and the Hope Fund.

Lots more coming down the line.

CommentGuy on October 17, 2007 at 10:33 AM

Exit question: If they’re unsure whether the Senate donors were solicited by Hsu, why don’t they call them up and ask them?

Ummm… their bosses didn’t give them iPhones either?

*ducking*

Kowboy on October 17, 2007 at 10:38 AM

The funny (in a weird sort of way) thing is, if (big if) Hsu was funneling money through those donors (i.e. Hsu provided the cash) then those “donors” are sitting on a cash windfall when Hillary returns the donation. Is Hsu going to suddenly claim that money is his?

I think the donors are planning their next vaction.

taznar on October 17, 2007 at 10:40 AM

DOJ only has a couple who say money was funneled through them via Hsu.

Most are saying they were pressured (extorted) by Hsu to donate to stay in is good graces in the alleged pyramid schemes.

CommentGuy on October 17, 2007 at 10:48 AM

There is also a lot of questionable donation patterns around Hillary earmarks for the Woodstock Museum and another for the New School in NYC.

CommentGuy on October 17, 2007 at 10:51 AM

Wishing on a star, folks…waste of time and energy.

Hillary’s illegal phone-tap story – now _that_ might have some legs

Ochlan on October 17, 2007 at 11:14 AM

And just where is the Justice Dept and the FEC in all this???

Romeo13 on October 17, 2007 at 11:24 AM

If we only had a photo of hsugardaddy in a black trenchcoat and hat looking like a cartoon spy, ala abramoff, maybe the msm would pay attention then?

Pft… I know, I know, wishful thinking.

techno_barbarian on October 17, 2007 at 11:47 AM

The reality of getting shafted coming to light. Oh, how the masses have seen the audacity of Clintonian politics.

madmonkphotog on October 17, 2007 at 11:56 AM

I’m surprised the Republican candidates aren’t squeezing more juice out of this.

I’m afraid it’s going to be like Whitewater–too complicated for soundbites.

see-dubya on October 17, 2007 at 2:40 PM

If we only had a photo of hsugardaddy in a black trenchcoat and hat looking like a cartoon spy, ala abramoff, maybe the msm would pay attention then?

techno_barbarian on October 17, 2007 at 11:47 AM

He’d be Secret Asian Man.

(H/T DaVinci’s Notebook)

James on October 17, 2007 at 2:59 PM

The ads write themselves.

I’m looking forward to financial solicitations from the Republican Nominee that tell us straight, dollar by dollar, how the money will be spent to reveal the real Hillary.

Anil Petra on October 17, 2007 at 3:07 PM

I’m looking forward to financial solicitations from the Republican Nominee that tell us straight, dollar by dollar, how the money will be spent to reveal the real Hillary

You made me fart and poop at the same time. What are you trying to say?

Ochlan on October 17, 2007 at 4:03 PM

IF hillary ever gets to become POTUS she will pardon Hsu anyways. That is typical clinton politic payback……..right???

bones47 on October 17, 2007 at 5:16 PM

So ENRON collapses and it’s all the fault of Republicans, ignoring their more substantial history with defeatocrats.

Now, the Seahag’s favorite bundler swindles 60M out of investors, and the drive-by media just ignores who got swindled and who is keeping the money.

91Veteran on October 18, 2007 at 2:16 AM

Wishing on a star, folks…waste of time and energy.

Hillary’s illegal phone-tap story – now _that_ might have some legs

Ochlan on October 17, 2007 at 11:14 AM

I’d like to see more of both.

91Veteran on October 18, 2007 at 2:18 AM