Clinton Crime Family Leads in Donor Refunds

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071017/NATION/110170092/1002

Hillary leads in donor refunds

October 17, 2007

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign has cut nearly $1.3

million in refund checks to hundreds of donors since July 1 - more than

triple what the rest of the Democratic field returned to supporters

combined, new campaign filings show.

Mrs. Clinton returned nearly 700 contributions to individual donors,

including $804,850 to 249 donors linked to disgraced Democratic fundraiser

Norman Hsu.

Several donors contacted yesterday declined to discuss why they received

refunds. A woman who answered the phone number registered to San Francisco

donor Wai King Yeung, to whom the Clinton campaign reimbursed $4,600, said

she did not speak English.

Mr. Hsu was charged last month in federal court in New York with running a

massive Ponzi scheme. A major Democratic fundraiser, the New York

businessman also faces charges he contributed to various campaigns using

straw donors as a front, threatening investors if they did not support his

favored candidates.

Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, yesterday said the campaign

"acted out of an abundance of caution" in returning the money.

"We had no knowledge that these individuals made donations using Mr. Hsu's

or anybody else's money," Mr. Wolfson said. "But we decided to return the

money."

Campaigns return donations for a host of reasons, from correcting accounting

mistakes to trying to control potential political fallout, said Bradley

Smith, a former commissioner for the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

"There are many reasons why a campaign would return money, the most obvious

being that the funds are illegal," Mr. Smith said.

"Most of these Hsu contributions were perfectly legal bundling," Mr. Smith

said. "So why would you return those? The answer is the scandal element. The

campaign wants to stop revelations coming out."

Mrs. Clinton's campaign refunds reported to the FEC on Monday dwarfed the

contributions returned by her Democratic rivals.

Campaign officials for former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and Sen.

Barack Obama of Illinois yesterday declined to comment on Mrs. Clinton's

refunds.

Mr. Obama listed sending back $193,599 in refunds to individual donors; Mr.

Edwards, $75,706; and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, $29,285.

Refunds by Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Christopher J. Dodd of

Connecticut, and Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio totaled less than $10,000

combined.

On the Republican side, former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani

returned $221,959 to individual donors, while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt

Romney issued $267,709 in refund checks to supporters. Former Sen. Fred

Thompson of Tennessee returned $97,480.

The Clinton campaign sent refund checks on Sept. 14. The campaign also paid

the Treasury Department $23,000 in funds that Mr. Hsu donated to the

campaign directly.

Mrs. Clinton of New York still dominates her rivals for the Democratic

primary nod. She has $50 million cash on hand, of which $35 million can be

spent on the primary election; $15 million cannot be touched until and if

she becomes the party nominee.

Mr. Obama sent out a direct fundraising appeal to supporters yesterday,

urging them to help him "close that gap" and accusing Mrs. Clinton of

funding her campaign through special interests.

"Washington lobbyists and special interests rallied to help Hillary Clinton

out-raise us for the first time," Mr. Obama wrote. "Hillary Clinton

aggressively seeks money from Washington lobbyists and special interest

PACs. She's even said that these lobbyists represent real Americans. She's

wrong."

Mr. Obama has $36 million cash on hand, of which $33 million is for the

primary.

Mr. Giuliani has $16.6 million cash on hand, more than his Republican rivals

but far less than Mrs. Clinton. All but $5 million of his total is for the

primary election.

Patriot Games wrote:

Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that

link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of

power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in

some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of

similarity.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the

prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins,

the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime

itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious.

Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common

themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a

suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves

viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the

objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the

population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by

marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was

egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most

significant common thread among these regimes was the use of

scapegoating as a means to divert the people