This (likely) loss comes at a time when anti-Hillary Democrats may want to think twice about Obama, whose buddy Tony Rezko is the target of a federal corruption case:
Obama is not named in the Dec. 21 court document. But a source familiar with the case confirmed that Obama is the unnamed "political candidate" referred to in a section of the document that accuses Rezko of orchestrating a scheme in which a firm hired to handle state teacher pension investments first had to pay $250,000 in "sham" finder’s fees. From that money, $10,000 was donated to Obama’s successful run for the Senate in the name of a Rezko business associate, according to the court filing and the source.Small potatoes? Yeah. But still a potato. And you can trust the Republicans to make a mountain out of a spud-hill.
Rezko, who was part of Obama’s senatorial finance committee, also is accused of directing "at least one other individual" to donate money to Obama and then reimbursing that individual — in possible violation of federal election law.
(I think I've stretched that metaphor beyond the snapping point...)
And Bill Clinton, of all people, claims to have personally witnessed voter suppression tactics in Nevada:
Today when my daughter and I were wandering through the hotel, and all these culinary workers were mobbing us telling us they didn’t care what the union told them to do, they were gonna caucus for Hillary.
There was a representative of the organization following along behind us going up to everybody who said that, saying 'if you’re not gonna vote for our guy were gonna give you a schedule tomorrow so you can’t be there.' So, is this the new politics?
2 comments:
It's a pretty rotton spud.
No, it's not a corrupt deal at all, unless and until somebody can connect some kind of quid pro quo on Obama's part.
All kinds of unsavory players have donated to almost any or all campaigns, most probably. Usually, they don't bother with a cut out, and instead give money directly themselves, under their own name.
International drug trafficking personages have been photographed with the Clintons, for example, attending a Clinton fundraising function to which they'd given a substantial contribution.
And guess what? It is no crime for a campaign to accept such a donation, even if it was criminally given by a straw man third party who was illegally reimbursed by some criminal figure.
The legal onus on any campaign to vet their contributors is minor, at best. They are supposed to use their best efforts to get... wait for it... the name of the contributor, their employer, if any, and a phone number. (It's what you see on the back of contribution solicitation mailings.) That's the sum of the legal obligations of a campaign with regard to contributors, period.
Now, when it comes to bad appearances, it is routine to return any contributions that raise appearances of possible corruption. Obama may very well be best advised to return this minimal contribution. Since he's raised some $100 million, returning $10 THOUSAND, a tenth of one thousandth of the total raised, is both easily affordable, but moreover, shows how little influence such a contribution would likely buy the contributor.
But those who favor other candidates than Obama should not throw stones when their candidates may live in glass houses. Maybe an Edwards or a Kucinich is immune from any such parallel claim, but maybe they're not, as it is almost impossible for campaigns to know for sure if any given contribution, solicited or not, is legitimate. That impossibility is why no campaign is held liable for such an illicit contribution.
Back in '96, Bob Dole's own campaign finance chairman or co-chairman, Mr. Firestone (iirc), was convicted of or pled guilty to having some of his employees donate the maximum amount allowed under law to the Dole campaign, for which he reimbursed them. Even though this was Dole's own campaign official, no blame for his actions devolved to Dole, nor should it have, necessarily (unless evidence of Dole's knowledge or involvement was brought forward).
...sofla
Post a Comment