Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (1672)	5/1/2005 11:53:28 AM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224708

The "ethical" Hillary: Rosen's actions did help elect Hillary By DICK MORRIS Syndicated Columnist David Rosen, the national finance director for Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign, goes on trial May 3 on charges of breaking federal campaign law. The senator's spokespeople insist that she didn't gain from the alleged crime ? that the campaign realized no financial benefit from Rosen's understating the costs of a gala Clinton Holly-wood fund-raiser. Not true. Hillary's campaign realized not just a huge benefit, but one critical to her election chances. Under the arcane rules of the Federal Election Commission at the time, campaigns could use soft money to pay for fund-raising events ? provided the gathering's costs came to 40 percent or less of the total of hard money raised. (Soft money was far easier to raise: Donors could give as much as $25,000 of soft money, but only $1,000 of hard money). Hillary's Hollywood gala raised $1 million in hard money that August. This meant that the campaign could use soft money to pay for all costs to a maximum of $400,000. David Rosen conveniently reported to the campaign treasurer that the event did, indeed, cost $400,000, avoiding the necessity of spending any hard money on the affair. But the federal indictment of Rosen, FBI affidavits and the testimony of the event organizers ‹ Peter Paul and Aaron Tonkin ‹ all confirm that the extravaganza's true cost was at least $1.2 million. Press leaks suggest that the feds may have Rosen on tape acknowledging that he understated the cost of the event on purpose. 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 paying for 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 money the most. David Rosen is a young man in his late 30s, with a life ahead of him. He would be a fool to go to jail to protect Hillary. If he did, she wouldn't even visit him. prescottdailycourier.com