Buried in the coverage of last week’s federal court case which struck down a ban on corporate campaign contributions is the role Hillary Clinton played in the story. While the NY Times news story didn’t mention her, a subsequent editorial did:
“Judge Cacheris’s ruling struck down part of an indictment accusing two businessmen of illegally reimbursing employees for their donations to Hillary Clinton’s campaigns for president and the Senate. They are charged with paying more than $180,000 to 43 fake donors in an effort to evade donation limits. Most of the indictment still stands, with a trial scheduled in July.”
Politico expanded on the story:
“The ruling came in a criminal case brought by the U.S. government against two men – William Danielczyk, Jr. and Eugene Biagi – alleging they skirted campaign contribution limits by reimbursing their employees for $186,600 in contributions to Hillary Clinton’s campaigns for Senate in 2006 and president in 2008. The two men were charged with two counts of reimbursing contributions, as well as conspiracy, obstruction of justice and using corporate funds to reimburse contributions. Cacheris dismissed one of the seven counts, and also ruled the ban on corporate giving unconstitutional.”
The handling of campaign contributions has been a consistent part of the Clinton saga and one that has been consistently played down by the conventional media.