Time: Tue Jul 22 11:58:16 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA12876 for [address in tool bar]; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 11:52:30 -0700 (MST) by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA05507; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 11:39:00 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 11:38:17 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Op-Ed by Jim Nicholson on Democrat Finance Scandal (fwd) <snip> > >Questions begging to be asked > >Op-Ed in July 18th edition of the Clevland Plain Dealer >by Jim Nicholson >************************************ > Let's see if we have this straight: A Senate committee is >investigating whether the government of communist China attempted >to corrupt the American election. > > Among other things, the committee is trying to determine >whether a U.S. government official who later became a leading >fund-raiser for the Democrat Party may have passed secrets to >foreigners closely associated with Beijing, and whether he >received cash in return. > > They have learned that John Huang: 1) laundered foreign money >through a shell corporation to the Democrat Party just after >Bill Clinton won the presidential nomination in 1992; 2) was >placed in a sensitive, high-level government position as a >political payback, even though a higher-up considered him >"unqualified;" 3) was given hundreds of classified intelligence >reports on China, even though his superior "walled him off" from >China issues; 4) frequently visited the Chinese embassy and called >his former employer, the Lippo Group, virtually daily while he was >receiving these briefings; and 5) that Lippo has a partnership >with a company owned by the communist Chinese government and >connected with espionage. > > Since John Huang was close to the President and Vice >President of the United States -- indeed, the President was >instrumental in getting him hired -- investigators also want to >know how much they and others in their administration may have >known about what he was up to. > > And, let's see if we also have this straight: The Washington >press corps says that all this is a bore, old news, irrelevant -- >nobody's interested. > > Really? > > Since the scandal over the many questionable fund-raising >practices of the Clinton-Gore campaign began to unfold, Democrats >have pursued a clear strategy. That strategy can be summarized as >follows: "Say we did nothing wrong, but say that everybody does >it. Say that the real issue is campaign finance reform." > > None of that is surprising. But what does have to be counted >as perplexing is the willingness -- no, the eagerness -- of so >much of the Washington press corps to buy the Democrat pitch and >to repeat it as gospel truth. > > All of which raises a few obvious questions that the >establishment media ought to be asking but for the most part is >not: > >* If Democrat operatives did nothing wrong, why are Democrats on >the Senate investigative committee unwilling to conduct a serious >investigation that would establish their innocence? > > Instead, with the notable exception of Sen. Joe Lieberman of >Connecticut, Democrat members of the committee have been >attempting to turn the hearings into a circus that the public >would dismiss as just partisan politics as usual. > >* If both sides have been involved in similar campaign finance >law-breaking, why is it that only Democrats have fled the country >and gone into hiding in communist China? Why is it that only >Democrats have invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self- >incrimination? Why is it that only Democrats have asked for >immunity from prosecution? > >* If Bill Clinton and Albert Gore did nothing wrong, where is >their outrage and sense of betrayal? Why have they not demanded >that their friends and supporters, John Huang, Charlie Trie, James >Riady, Johnny Chung and Pauline Kanchanalak come out of hiding >and tell the American people what they know? > >* Finally, how could the real issue be campaign finance reform if >what the investigations are meant to discover is who knowingly >sought and accepted foreign money? That's already against the >law. Presumably it would continue to be against the law under any >"reformed" system of campaign financing. > > Having said that, let me add that I don't think the current >campaign finance system -- a system designed largely by Democrats >-- is perfect. Far from it. > > For that reason, some months ago I convened a Republican >National Committee task force on the issue. That task force will >report its findings at our meeting here in Cleveland today. > > From those recommendations, I plan to develop a formal >Republican campaign finance reform package. It will be built on >these principles: > > Government rationing of free speech has no place in our >democracy. As the RNC task force report correctly concludes: >"Let us not give the government the power to tell us how, and how >often we can criticize those who govern us and our governing >institutions." > > Second, there should be full and prompt disclosure of all >contributions and expenditures. Given that information, the >voters are capable of drawing their own conclusions and making >their own decisions. > > Third, no one should be compelled to contribute money to a >campaign or a candidate; all contributions must be strictly >voluntary. This principle would outlaw the current practice of >Washington labor bosses, who extract millions of dollars in >compulsory union dues from working men and women and spend it for >partisan political activities without the workers' permission and >often against the workers' political views. (Roughly 40% of union >workers vote Republican for Congress, yet union bosses spend their >dues money almost 100% in support of Democrats.) > > And, oh yes, it should continue to be against the law to >solicit foreign contributions. Any serious evidence or >allegations that this law has been broken should be thoroughly >investigated, and violators should be held accountable. > > Is it really too much to expect that such investigations be >taken seriously by Democrats? Is it really too much to expect the >establishment Washington media to exercise a little skepticisim >and not act as an echo chamber for the Democrat Party line? > >(Visit http://www.rnc.org for the latest news and information) >------- > <snip> ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail