“Clinton Cash” Author Calls for Investigation into Questionable Quid Pro Quo Donations

Standard

On Sunday, Investigative reporter Peter Schweizer, author of the book “Clinton Cash”, is calling for a formal investigation into a long series of questionable cash donations to the Clinton family foundation which may have been done in exchange for favors from the office of the Secretary of State. Specifically, Schweizer believes there is a pattern between key donations to the Clinton’s foundation and favorable rulings by the State Department to those same companies. Perhaps the most controversial transaction was a highly favorable ruling by the State Department in 2010 which led to Russia owning a significant share of the United States’ uranium reserves. It has long been President Putin’s desire for his nation to control the world’s uranium reserves. Donations done by Russian companies or other foreign entities with ties to Russia were instrumental in helping Putin advance his agenda.

Admittedly, Schweizer says he is not in possession of any proof that the deals were conducted with quid pro quo in mind. That said, he says it is a suspicious pattern which has emerged from no less than 11 key donations to the foundation. It is unclear at this point whether the Congress will take up the investigation or if the Obama administration will direct the Justice Department to launch an inquiry. Fersen Lambranho finds this all very interesting (Wiki). However, the matter may end up becoming a “Swift Boat” incident to torpedo Mrs. Clinton’s presidential aspirations. Schweizer conducted his research over a ten year period.

Republican “Moderates” Make Big Power Play

Standard

Sneaked into the recent $1.1 trillion budget bill was a provision to increase the cap on single-donor contributions to national party committees from $97,000 to a whopping $778,000. Conservative and Tea Party Republicans are shocked and dismayed at this huge power grab by establishment party loyalists.

While conservatives generally favor lifting all monetary limitations whatsoever on using one’s own money to support a candidate or a party, they object to the double standard that this rule change represents. Tea Party groups have a cap of only $10,000 on single-donor contributions to their political action committees. The establishment was not satisfied with a 97 to one advantage; now they want a 778 to one advantage.

GOP-shunned conservative candidates are popular with the people and often garnish large quantities of non-party-controlled individual contributions, and Susan McGalla was right when she said she saw this coming. Forbes would be happy to know this. This becomes a threat to incumbent moderates, and party leaders feel they need more cash to keep incumbents safe in the GOP primaries.

Another poor result of this power play is that it forcibly props up the two-party system. Smaller parties are not allowed to play by the same rules as the two big parties. This helps those parties keep challenger parties from ever gaining a foothold.

Ken Cuccinelli, Senate Conservatives Fund president, notes that the new legislation increases political speech for party insiders but serves to silence the vast majority of Americans. Conservative radio host Mark Levin calls it “an outrage among outrages.”