Hillary Clinton raised $380,000 in April at a fundraiser in...Chinatown.
DONORS WHOSE addresses turn out to be tenements. Dishwashers and waiters who write $1,000 checks. Immigrants who ante up because they have been instructed to by powerful neighborhood associations, or, as one said, "They informed us to go, so I went." Others who say they never made the contributions listed in their names or who were not eligible to give because they are not legal residents of the United States. This is the disturbingly familiar picture of Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign presented last week in a report by the Los Angeles Times about questionable fundraising by the New York senator in New York City's Chinese community. Out of 150 donors examined, one-third "could not be found using property, telephone or business records," the Times reported. "Most have not registered to vote, according to public records."
She learned from the master:
This appears to be another instance in which a Clinton campaign's zeal for campaign cash overwhelms its judgment. After the fundraising scandals of President Bill Clinton's 1996 reelection campaign, the dangers of vacuuming cash from a politically inexperienced immigrant community should have been obvious. But Ms. Clinton's money machine seized on a new source of cash in Chinatown and environs. As the Times reported, a single Chinatown fundraiser in April brought in $380,000. By contrast, 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry raised $24,000 from Chinatown in the course of his entire campaign.
Maybe Kerry should have hired Bill as his campaign manager.
There is a definite pattern here, where are the feds? Bill Clinton got away with it so I guess history does repeat itself. The Post editorial chides Hillary's campaign for not vetting the donations more thoroughly, stating: "As with the warnings it dismissed about the mega-bundles being brought in by fundraiser Norman Hsu, the Clinton campaign saw the red flags here". I disagree with that characterization, Hillary Clinton knows exactly what she's doing. She's not really ignoring the red flags, she gives back a little (in this case a whopping $7,000) after her campaign does its own "investigation" and if she's forced to give back more later, well it's the cost of doing business.