Friday, May 27, 2005

The real reason that campaign finance reform will never work - David Rosen [Hillary Clinton] acquittal

Hillary Clinton's fundraiser, David Rosen, was acquitted today. H/T Drudge and Michelle Malkin. MSM/DNC's article on the story fails to note the nature of the charges and grossly understates the amount of money raised at the fundraising event in question.

Dick Morris provides the context:
Here's why he would have done it: If the real cost of the event were $1.2 million instead of $400,000, the campaign would have had to use hard money to make up the difference. The Hillary Clinton campaign would have had $800,000 less of hard money to spend running TV ads and funding get-out-the-vote operations.

And, at the time of that fund-raiser, Rick Lazio, the GOP candidate, had challenged Hillary to refuse to accept soft money. He found himself awash in hard money — small checks from Hillary haters across the country. But First Lady Hillary Clinton was heavily dependent on large checks from fat-cat donors whom she and the president wined, dined, photographed, and hosted at the White House. And these folks gave a lot more than $1,000 each.

Hillary temporized and delayed, but the handwriting was on the wall. On Sept. 24, the candidates agreed on a soft-money ban. Now she had to pay for it all with hard money. And she was hard up for hard money.

So if Rosen had owned up to the full cost of the fundraiser, the campaign would have had to cough up $800,000 of hard money at exactly the time that it needed the funds the most.

Did Hillary know? Paul and Tonken say she did, and it seems obvious that she must have: Hillary followed every dime in her campaign, personally calling donors for most of it. How could she possibly not have known of a decision that saved her $800,000?
emphasis added

MSM/DNC's article made no mention of this context, but vaguely stated that conservatives had hoped to use the prosecution as a weapon against Hillary. From reading only MSM/DNC's version, one could not help but conclude that the "Clinton-haters" were at it again. Is it any wonder that Hillary has gotten away with so much illegality when her cohort at the MSM/DNC has done so much to protect her? MSM/DNC's article also left out this evidence:
The federal brief says that Rosen "became increasingly panicked as the costs began to spiral out of control. On some occasions, when news of yet another cost was revealed to him, the defendant literally threw up his hands and announced that 'I did not just hear that,' 'Don't tell me that again' and that he did not want the subject discussed around him again."

The feds also say Rosen directed one witness to "take thousands of dollars of line items" off a campaign report about the event's costs and told a "confidante" that there was "no way" he could accurately report the cost of the fund-raiser."

Had Republicans committed these acts in violation of federal election laws, they would receive the "Delay" treatment at the hands of the MSM/DNC. Democrats, or at least Hillary, can violate campaign laws with impunity because she believes no jury will ever touch her or her allies. So far, she has been right. This particular violation allowed Hillary to make a meaningless deal with Rick Lazio that hamstrung Lazio's campaign without affecting Hillary's at all. Because Hillary need not report contributions or expenses accurately (like everyone else), any campaign finance reform will create a giant loophole for Hillary to walk through. Hillary is like the "Survivor" competitor that wins immunity, while everyone else must compete to avoid being thrown off the island. She is free to raise funds however she pleases, while everyone else must obey the law or face prosecution and MSM/DNC retribution. There will be no limit to the amounts that Hillary can raise and conceal. There will be no limit to the election violations that Hillary can commit.

If we could at least repeal the campaign finance laws and their (1) silly distinctions between "hard" and "soft" money and (2) the ridiculous contribution limits that apply only to those that might get convicted for lying [instead of Hillary], the playing field would be level. But John McCain is not about to let that happen.

If you thought election 2004 was nasty, wait until you see election 2008.

  • People's Pottage - permalink
  • Economics in One Lesson - permalink
  • Why Johnny Can't Read- permalink
  • Locations of visitors to this page