Handing It Back
Hillary Clinton has announced that she will return all $850,000 bundled by the now notorious Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu.
It's often been said that character is how one acts when no one is looking. Does anyone believe that Hillary would have returned the money if there had been no press or blog scrutiny of her behavior?
It's often been said that character is how one acts when no one is looking. Does anyone believe that Hillary would have returned the money if there had been no press or blog scrutiny of her behavior?
posted by LadybugUSA at 6:47 AM
4 Comments:
We're still waiting for Bush to donate Kenny Boy Lay's $ 550,000 in contributions to charity.
The complaints against Ms. Clinton are without merit. Consider: Joe gives Hsu $100 to give to Ms. Clinton, which Hsu does. Hsu turns out to be a crook. How does this affect the moral assessment of Joe's contribution? So long as the accounting is proper (that is, the money is reported to the government along with Joe's name), there's nothing untoward happening here. My guess is that the Clinton people decided that, given the irrationality of the public, it was better to return the money than to fight the mudslinging.
Why would "Joe" give the money to Hsu instead of giving it directly to the campaign itself?
While we're being hypothetical, what's to stop Hsu from collecting large sums of money from any organization and then dividing the contribution credits up among as many people as necessary to make it appear as though lots of individuals contributed to the campaign? You know, "so long as the accounting is proper".
Chepe,
In another thread you said:
"Yes, Hsu was corrupt and all his money is tainted."
How did you get from that to "there's nothing untoward happening here."?
Post a Comment
<< Home