A "Hillraiser" for Hsu
So Democratic fundraiser (and "Hillraiser," who has pledged at least $100,000 to the Clinton campaign through "bundled" donations from others) Norman Hsu (pronounced "shoo") has disappeared. It's hard not to wonder when the MSM is going to ask Hillary's campaign why it has chosen to return only the direct donations this man made, while keeping the bundled donations.
Then again, it's been well known for some time that the Clintons can be "snug with a buck" (when it's "their" money, that is, rather than the taxpayers') . . . remember all those old stories about them claiming tax deductions for used underwear?
Then again, it's been well known for some time that the Clintons can be "snug with a buck" (when it's "their" money, that is, rather than the taxpayers') . . . remember all those old stories about them claiming tax deductions for used underwear?
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:35 AM
1 Comments:
I have read the news story to which you linked and the situation with respect to the bundled donors confuses me. Federal law prohibits anonymous donations. The Clinton campaign knows the names of the bundled donors.
You seem to assume that it is obvious that bundled donations should be returned. I don't see any basis for that belief. If keeping the money is a violation of the law, then surely it must be returned. But if it is not a violation of the law (and I gather from the news story that it is not), then what exactly is the justification for the claim that the bundled money should be returned?
Post a Comment
<< Home