Thread: FOX News large financial contribution to Hillary

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/07/1 ... 56495.html

This is an older article but posting it so you guys realize what FOX News is up too. They do not provide fair and balanced news coverage... The goal I have always heard is to put Hillary in the White House and McCain is the republican who will most certainly lose to Hillary.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards may not want to participate in debates sponsored by FOX News, but they like taking cash from officials of the company considered an arm of the conservative movement by many liberal Democrats.

In April, Edwards led the charge in refusing to participate in a Fox-sponsored debate. His deputy campaign manager, Jonathan Prince, told AP: "We believe there's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they're objective."

Within days, Clinton followed suit. Unlike Edwards, Clinton did not directly attack Fox in announcing her decision.

"We're going to participate in the D.N.C. [Democratic National Committee]-sanctioned debates only. We've previously committed to participating in the South Carolina and Tavis Smiley debates," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said. The Fox debate was not DNC-approved.

Obama joined in with Clinton. Bill Burton, Obama's spokesman, said a CNN-sponsored debate would be a more "appropriate venue."

But in her most recent filing at the FEC, Hillary Clinton reported two large donations from the very top of the Fox corporate structure.

On June 5, Rupert Murdoch, chairman of the News Corporation, gave her presidential bid $2,300. A few weeks later, his son, James R. Murdoch, chief executive of British Sky Broadcasting in London, gave $3,400. Altogether, NewsCorp/Fox executives gave at least $40,000 to the Clinton campaign.

In July 2006, the elder Murdoch hosted a fundraiser for Clinton's Senate re-election campaign, raising many eyebrows among Democrats. The Financial Times, which first disclosed the event, noted that Murdoch was a part of the "vast right wing conspiracy" named by Hillary Clinton as determined to destroy her husband's presidency.

She explained her willingness then to accept Murdoch's support to the FT: "He's my constituent and I'm very gratified that he thinks I'm doing a good job."
Asked about the Murdoch contributions to Clinton's presidential bid, Howard Wolfson, director of communications, said he had no comment.

Obama has taken more $14,000 from NewsCorp/Fox executives, although none came from the Murdochs themselves. In the broad network of NewsCorp/Fox holdings, with many Hollywood and entertainment entities, there are a substantial number of Democrats on the payroll.

Obama's contributions from NewsCorp/Fox executives included $2,300 each from Daniel Fawcett and Donna Isaacson; $1,000 each from Carla Hacken and Jospeh Hartwick; and a number of donations from other NewsCorp/Fox officials and employees. No comment from the campaign was immediately available.

Edwards received substantially less than Clinton or Obama. His contributions from NewsCorp/Fox executives Louis Supowitz, Jonathan Sarrow, Sean A. Riley, and Jonathan Sarrow total just under $1,000. There was no immediate comment from the Edwards campaign

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/mur ... 21263.html

Murdoch Inc digging deep for Hillary
Email Printer friendly version Normal font Large font Anne Davies, Washington
December 1, 2007

Page 1 of 2 | Single page

Rupert Murdoch: Clinton backer.
Photo: Timothy A. Clary

Advertisement
RUPERT Murdoch's Fox News network might lean to the right and its commentators are harsh critics of Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, but it seems the boss has backed her campaign, along with many of his News Corporation executives.

The Federal Election Commission's donor disclosures reveal that Mr Murdoch and his son James, chief executive of BSkyB in Britain, have contributed generously to Senator Clinton's presidential campaign.

US companies are restricted in donating to political parties, so the vast bulk of donations come either from individuals, who are limited to $US4600 ($A5190) per candidate, or via political action committees, established by companies or non-profit organisations such as unions or interest groups. These bodies have to be registered with the Federal Election Commission and are limited to donating $US5000 a candidate. All donations are disclosed on the internet.

But it seems that no sooner are the rules set than people find a legitimate way around them. With presidential candidates needing to raise huge sums — the frontrunners are expected to spend well over $US200 million each — the latest tactic is "bundling".

It works like this: a bundler asks employees, board members, wives, children and friends to donate to a particular candidate. It is illegal for a person to reimburse employees but some make donations to a charity of the person's choice if the employee makes the political donation.

According to the Centre for Responsive Politics, a non-profit organisation in Washington that researches the donor lists, News Corporation is now Senator Clinton's 20th largest supporter, having contributed more than $US93,000 to her presidential campaign so far.
Rupert Murdoch contributed $US2300 to her primary campaign on June 5, while son James gave $US3450 on June 30.

Around the same time, several News Corporation board members also made donations: Arthur Siskind contributed $US2300 on June 19; David De Voe contributed $US2300 in May; and Peter Chernin, the chief operating officer, contributed the maximum permitted, $US4600, around the same time, but in February he and his wife, Megan, also contributed $US2100 each to the campaign of her rival, Barak Obama.

John Thornton, an academic on the board, has opted for Senator Obama, contributing $US2300 to his campaign.

But other News corporation executives are also stumping up for Senator Clinton: Michelle Francis, a News Corporation lawyer, has chipped in $US1500; and Lawrence Jacobs, group general counsel, put in $US2300.

Over at Fox there has been generosity as well. Thomas Rothman, head of Fox Filmed Entertainment, chipped in $US4300 to Senator Clinton's campaign in late May, but just days earlier he had donated $US4600 to Senator Obama, $US2300 to Joe Biden and $US1000 to Bill Richardson.

But even these figures do not really reveal the extent of News' largesse to Senator Clinton. During 2006, as she prepared to run again for the Senate, News held a fund-raiser for her in New York. This came as a surprise, given that Fox News and the Murdoch-owned tabloid the New York Post had attacked her presidential ambitions. A spokesman for Mr Murdoch said the decision reflected his opinion of her as a New York senator and not as a presidential candidate. Senator Clinton said: "He's my constituent and I am very gratified he thinks I'm doing a good job."

The records reveal that dozens of executives at News and Fox contributed between $US1000 and the maximum $US4200 then permitted to her campaign. Any money not spent by Senate candidates — Senator Clinton had $10 million left over — can then be used in a future presidential run.

News is not Senator Clinton's largest donor — that honour goes to law firm DLA Piper — nor is it doing anything wrong.

But the practice of bundling is causing significant concern among organisations that campaign for transparency in the big-money world of US politics.

"Bundlers are raising hundreds of thousands of dollars and they are doing it in the dark," says Massie Ritsch, communications director of the Centre for Responsive Politics. "We don't know who they are and how much the candidate owes them. These are the people who get ambassadorships to places like Australia, as well as access to the president, once the candidate wins."

Senator Clinton got into hot water recently when it was revealed that one of her "HillRaisers", Norman Hsu, was wanted over a 1992 fraud conviction. She decided to hand back the money associated with his donors.

The dangers inherent in "bundling" and the use of political action committees are magnified when it comes to congressional and Senate races, where one bundler can make a big difference. An analysis of News' PAC shows it has funded the campaigns of roughly a third of the members who serve on the House and Senate committees that deal with communications issues.

In September, Wendi Murdoch contributed $US4600, the maximum permitted, to the campaign to re-elect Senator Ted Stevens, the chairman of the Senate committee dealing with communications. Two months earlier he had been raided by the FBI on suspicion of taking bribes from developers in his home state of Alaska.

At this stage it seems that no presidential candidate is prepared to criticise bundling.

Most of the debate in this presidential race has been about the dangers of taking money from lobbyists — that is, professionals who lobby politicians for a living and who bundle for the candidates. Both Senator Edwards and Senator Obama have said they will not take money from these professional influence peddlers, but they still accept funds from their clients.

I've said this before

Thats why they are really trying to skew the race for
McCain , they know Hillery can beat him

This is the false "Left/Right" paradigm in action. It isn't so much about beliefs for these parties as it is about power and control.

Originally Posted by apropos

This is the false "Left/Right" paradigm in action. It isn't so much about beliefs for these parties as it is about power and control.

Exactly