May 29, 2011

Hillary Clinton's role in the case that ended the ban on direct corporate campaign contributions

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.

7 comments:

Caro said...

And what role did Hillary Clinton "play" in this decision, other than being the object of the donations?

Is it your position that she helped the donors plan the contributions?

That's what it sounds like you're implying, and I want to know if you have proof.

If you don't, then you're just like Fox News, spreading disinformation about people you don't like.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

just curious, though not very said...

Carolyn, do you really want to go down w/ the Clinton ship of state or do you maybe, wanna get a life?

laughing said...

Or if you were locked in one of those INS indefinite detention prisons that seem to have been the Walmart lossleader for the Patriot Act, would you love Hillary so much?

dunmpthedems said...

Maybe Caro, there should be an investigation of your fearless leader to determine what you ask.

Dumpthedems said...

Oh, how about her ok for the tar sands pipeline from Canada and her former Campaign manager now lobbyist for the project, maybe another investigation should be deemed necessary. Unfortunately this corrupt administration only goes after those who tell the truth.

Caro said...

Seems to me it's the person who makes the unsubstantiated charge who has the responsibility to prove it.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

Big Arkie said...

Gee Caro, you should be a lawya. Then it could be Clinton, Clinton, and Caro. Clinton's a mobbed up little piece of shit who'd feed you or anybody else to the gators for mere convenience.