Hillary's Not So Ancient Chinese Secret

There’s a lot of controversy over financial contributions to the campaign of Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton allegedly being funneled from the People’s Republic of China through Johnny Hsu, who was accused of doing he same thing during the re-election campaign for President Bill Clinton in 1996.

It’s easy to see why. Bill Clinton, after all, pushed through Congress an agreement for certain American companies to sell their technology to China, in a move that benefited the Asia behemoth in myriads of ways-scientifically, economically, and what is perhaps most ominous of all, militarily.

Does it necessarily follow, however, that Clinton was “on the take”, or that Hillary Clinton has similarly compromised her principles? Well, no, not really. On the other hand, while there is an alternative explanation, it isn’t really any better.

Bear in mind that, when a PAC donates money to a political candidate, that candidate doesn’t necessarily always approach the potential donor for campaign donations (although in a good many cases it is safe and reasonable to assume they do). In a great many cases, if not the vast majority of them, such a PAC seeks the candidate out, not the other way around. Therefore, if the national Rifle Association, to use one example, makes a campaign donation to the coffers of a candidate-in this case it will usually be a Republican-they do so based on that candidates history-not only his spoken words and campaign promises, but on his or her past performance. They know they have a friend, and they want to do their part to help their friend maintain their seat. It is, of course, to their benefit to do this.

So it is with the Clintons and the Chinese. The Chinese know they have a friend in the Clintons, and so they wish to help Hillary achieve her goal of becoming President. It is just as illegal, no more or no less, than if she had sought them out, but they will do it regardless. The fact that they got caught this one time they doubtless view as an unfortunate occurrence, but not an insurmountable difficulty.

The fact that Hillary turned the money over to some charity is also viewed no doubt as a misfortune, but not a tragedy. Nor is it viewed by either side as a revocation of an agreement. Technically speaking, there probably was never any such agreement between the two parties. After all, there was never any need for such an agreement. Just like the NRA donating money to a candidate with a history of support for the Second Amendment rights of private citizens to bear arms, no agreement is necessary. In the case of Hillary and the Chinese, it might not even be desirable. What is most pertinent is the recognition of a common, or at least a mutually beneficial philosophy.

That’s what’s so troubling about this story.