Blue Crab Boulevard

How Dirty Is Hillary’s Money?

The Los Angeles Times explores a whole new – and massive – funding center for Hillary Clinton's campaign. This one is, to put it mildly, somewhat unlikely: the very poorest sections of New York's Chinatown.

NEW YORK — Something remarkable happened at 44 Henry St., a grimy Chinatown tenement with peeling walls. It also happened nearby at a dimly lighted apartment building with trash bins clustered by the front door.

And again not too far away, at 88 E. Broadway beneath the Manhattan bridge, where vendors chatter in Mandarin and Fujianese as they hawk rubber sandals and bargain-basement clothes.

All three locations, along with scores of others scattered throughout some of the poorest Chinese neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx, have been swept by an extraordinary impulse to shower money on one particular presidential candidate — Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.

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.

At this point in the presidential campaign cycle, Clinton has raised more money than any candidate in history. Those dishwashers, waiters and street stall hawkers are part of the reason. And Clinton's success in gathering money from Chinatown's least-affluent residents stems from a two-pronged strategy: mutually beneficial alliances with powerful groups, and appeals to the hopes and dreams of people now consigned to the margins.

Then the LA Times gets to looking at the money and the people who gave it – if they exist. Or if they were legally allowed to donate. Or if they were not strongarmed into the donation.

The Times examined the cases of more than 150 donors who provided checks to Clinton after fundraising events geared to the Chinese community. One-third of those donors could not be found using property, telephone or business records. Most have not registered to vote, according to public records.

And several dozen were described in financial reports as holding jobs — including dishwasher, server or chef — that would normally make it difficult to donate amounts ranging from $500 to the legal maximum of $2,300 per election.

Of 74 residents of New York's Chinatown, Flushing, the Bronx or Brooklyn that The Times called or visited, only 24 could be reached for comment.

Many said they gave to Clinton because they were instructed to do so by local association leaders. Some said they wanted help on immigration concerns. And several spoke of the pride they felt by being associated with a powerful figure such as Clinton.

There are a lot more fishy details in this story.

The tenement at 44 Henry St. was listed in Clinton's campaign reports as the home of Shu Fang Li, who reportedly gave $1,000.

In a recent visit, a man, apparently drunk, was asleep near the entrance to the neighboring beauty parlor, the Nice Hair Salon.

A tenant living in the apartment listed as Li's address said through a translator that she had not heard of him, although she had lived there for the last 10 years.

A man named Liang Zheng was listed as having contributed $1,000. The address given was a large apartment building on East 194th Street in the Bronx, but no one by that name could be located there.

Census figures for 2000 show the median family income for the area was less than $21,000. About 45% of the population was living below the poverty line, more than double the city average.

Sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it? How dirty is all of this money? And if many of the supposed donors don't actually exist, who is the money really coming from? These are the questions smart reporters would be asking right now. Because this could be a blockbuster.

Politics | Gaius October 19, 2007

By feeblemind, October 19, 2007 @ 9:58 am

The American Spectator had a good piece on this as well. The point of AS piece was that the Clintons have done this since they were in the Governor’s Mansion. If you never get caught or punished by the voters for it, why change tactics? The law does not apply to the Clintons. It gives them a huge advantage.
By Chris Andersen, October 19, 2007 @ 10:40 am

It certainly looks like some of these organizations may be shaking down their members. But there is, as of yet, no evidence that Clinton herself is a knowing participant in these shakedowns.

Still, this kind of thing is distasteful, counter-productive and unnecessary. Obama, Dean and others have demonstrated that you can raise considerable campaign cash without having to rely on shady operators. I wish more politicians would figure this out. Maybe then our system wouldn’t be so corrupt.
By Icepick, October 19, 2007 @ 10:48 am

I don’t see where this is a blockbuster. It’s not like we haven’t known that the Clintons were less than squeeky clean. But this does have to be infuriating to Obama. Being able to raise more money than Hillary was not only helpful to his campaign, but also showed that he DID have more grassroots support. Then Hil went out and out-fund-raised him last quarter. To know it was done on the sly like this has to be galling. (I imagine Edwaards would be pretty put out by this, too.)

What I really want to see is for someone to ask McCain how he thinks McCain-Feingold is working out in the real world.

….

WILD SPECULATION SECTION

Suppose that Hillary manages to blast through the first few primaries and such, fatally wounding the campaigns of Obama and Edwards, but in the process those two raise such a stink that this finally becomes a scandal to bring the Clintons low. The Democratic Party may need a savior at that point. But with O & E already looking raggedy, the party won’t be able to turn to them. But waiting off-stage is Al Gore. I really think Al would love to be the nominee again, I just don’t think he wants to go through the hell of the nomination process. This could be how he finally gets another shot.
By Icepick, October 19, 2007 @ 10:49 am

CA wrote: Obama, Dean and others have demonstrated that you can raise considerable campaign cash without having to rely on shady operators.

But the Clintons are Obama, Dean or the others. The Clintons haven’t demostrated that THEY can raise this kind of cash without these shady operators.
By Icepick, October 19, 2007 @ 10:50 am

The Clintons AREN’T Obama, Dean, etc. Danged typo.
By _Jon, October 19, 2007 @ 12:59 pm

I am considering another angle here.
How did these donations occur?
- Cash?
- Certified check?
- Personal check?

If it is personal check, then that has to be traceable via a checking account.
That would be an interesting excursion.

Who does fund raisers where people bring thousands of dollars in cash?

I would be interesting to learn how the money at a fund raiser is actually transferred.
By Mwalimu Daudi, October 19, 2007 @ 3:50 pm

Ya know – I am soooooooooooooo glad that McCain-Feingold got rid of big money in politics. We lost a large chunk of the Constitution, but it was worth it.

It is good for democracy that a big money doner – let us hypothetically say Johnny Hsu – can no longer funnel large amounts of dirty money to a candidate – let us hypothetically say Hillary Clinton. Thank goodness something like this can never happen again! If it did, such an action would cause the media – our even-handed, non-partisan media – to expose the wrongdoers 24/7 until justice was done.