Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Lower Income Asian Americans Reach Deep into Their Pockets for Hillary

The LA Times has the goods. Hillary has raised $380,000 from a lower income Asian neighborhood that John Kerry raised only $24,000 from in 2004. I am sure everything is above board though.

4 comments:

archduke f. f. said...

I am no big fan of Clinton--her foreign policy stance is too aggressive and I just don't particularly like the woman--but even the article can't come to any conclusions. They found a few inconsistencies, which is probably the way it would be no matter who was donating, but immigrant populations tend to hoard cash to send home, which means that they may have had 1000 dollars to send to the campaign. Again, it sounds a little fishy, but there was really only one BIG problem that the LA Times found, and that was in regards to the donor who didn't have a green card.

xtrachromosomeconservative said...

I think the LA Times makes quite a few problems, namely that these folks have no prior engagement with political process, no money to speak of, in some cases it is not clear that they even exist as a lot of the addresses and names of contributors were phony, oh and wait.. what was that bit about this neighborhood recently being dominated by a gang that ran human trafficking and gambling rackets. It doesn't smell a little fishy, but a very fishy, like a canning factory fishy. Couple this with the out and out fraud that was the Hsu bundling scandal and it looks like we might have a pattern. I don't find this surprising, it is just worth noting.

xtrachromosomeconservative said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
xtrachromosomeconservative said...

I should clarify, the LA Times article does not establish any direct links. They present a bunch of little data points that appear shady and allow the reader to infer what they want. But I think where there is a prior history of this type of shenanigans, and the same symptoms are present, our default judgement should not be that things are above board. It may be that the enthusiasm for Clinton is such in this neighborhood that she was able to get a nearly 20 fold increase in contributions over what Kerry did in '04 (that in and of itself seems absolutely fishy). But more likely is that there are other explanations, like phony donors or people are getting muscled. I think that is why the LA Times was making the gang reference, though, they did not have a substantiated linkage to explicilty draw such a conclusion.