By Peter Nicholas and Tom Hamburger, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers NEW YORK -- Something remarkable happened at 44 Henry St., a grimy Chinatown tenement with peeling walls. It also happened nearby at a dimly lighted apartment building with trash bins clustered by the front door.
And again not too far away, at 88 E. Broadway beneath the Manhattan bridge, where vendors chatter in Mandarin and Fujianese as they hawk rubber sandals and bargain-basement clothes.
All three locations, along with scores of others scattered throughout some of the poorest Chinese neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx, have been swept by an extraordinary impulse to shower money on one particular presidential candidate -- Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown.
And Clinton's success in gathering money from Chinatown's least-affluent residents stems from a two-pronged strategy: mutually beneficial alliances with powerful groups, and appeals to the hopes and dreams of people now consigned to the margins.
Clinton has enlisted the aid of Chinese neighborhood associations, especially those representing recent immigrants from Fujian province. The organizations, at least one of which is a descendant of Chinatown criminal enterprises that engaged in gambling and human trafficking, exert enormous influence over immigrants. The associations help them with everything from protection against crime to obtaining green cards.
Many of Clinton's Chinatown donors said they had contributed because leaders in neighborhood associations told them to. In some cases, donors said they felt pressure to give.
The Times examined the cases of more than 150 donors who provided checks to Clinton after fundraising events geared to the Chinese community. One-third of those donors could not be found using property, telephone or business records. Most have not registered to vote, according to public records.
And several dozen were described in financial reports as holding jobs -- including dishwasher, server or chef -- that would normally make it difficult to donate amounts ranging from $500 to the legal maximum of $2,300 per election.
The tenement at 44 Henry St. was listed in Clinton's campaign reports as the home of Shu Fang Li, who reportedly gave $1,000.
In a recent visit, a man, apparently drunk, was asleep near the entrance to the neighboring beauty parlor, the Nice Hair Salon.
A tenant living in the apartment listed as Li's address said through a translator that she had not heard of him, although she had lived there for the last 10 years.
James: Peter Kwong, a professor at Hunter College in New York who studies Chinatown communities all over the country thinks Clinton may be "exploiting the vulnerabilities of recent immigrants." These Chinatown "associations" sound a lot like organized crime outfits to me.
Boy she just keeps flirting with those questionable donors. This is not the only problem that Clinton has had in relation to shady campaign donors. Remember fugitive businessman Norman Shue?
Now I know that all politicians have some shady donors but Hillary seems to have more then her share of questionable donations/donors.
---End of Transmission---
5 comments:
Chinese mafia, no doubt. I still don't trust her. This just gives me more reason not to.
Hillary has given every reason for us not to trust her, and yet our progressive brethren keep telling pollsters that she is the person that they would vote for. Why, I have no idea.
I don't care what label she wears, she is a conservative, corporate tool.
I'm voting for Kucinich even if I have to write him in.
T&A:
Same here. I don't trust her AT. ALL. She just gives me a feeling of distrust and unease. She seems shifty and an opportunist. A total politicians politician. The LAST thing that we need.
Brent:
I don't get it either Brent. I am disappointed with the Democrats and their support for Clinton. I just don't see it. What do they see in her?? Just because she is a strong personality doesn't mean that she would be a good leader, ya know?
And you know, the online community seems to be against her and I gotta wonder who her supporters are.
She's no Bill Clinton folks, so if you're supporting her because of that then wake up. She won't let him do much I don't think. She'll be keeping him on a short leash. She is too stubborn to share power with her husband who has already received the glory. She wants it all for herself.
She seems to be running out of greed and a power lust. I know that all politicians are power hungry but Hillary is to the point of justifying anything to get what she wants--the White House. I see her as someone who would act on her own and not listen to her advisers or the American people. Sound like anyone you know? Let's not make the mistake of voting in the Democratic version of Bush.
Bill was a visionary whereas Hillary is just your traditional manipulative bully politician.
Lynne:
(nods) You hit the nail square on the head and I'll be writing in Kucinich as well. Talk about a visionary will to tackle the tough problems that all the other politicians want to sweep under the rug and ignore.
Post a Comment