I’ve seen several examples of a double-standard this campaign season, particularly when it comes to the battle between Senators Clinton and Obama. There’s yet another example out today.
On the same day that Mark Penn complained about the media not covering the Rezko "scandal" anymore, the Clinton campaign has refused to return contributions made by a firm that is under investigation for sexual harassment, and is run by a disbarred CEO with a criminal record.
As stated on MSNBC’s "First Read."
Sen. Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show.
More below the fold--
So, let me get this straight... Obama returned all monies contributed by Rezko, admitted that having anything to do with him when buying his home was a "bone-headed mistake" and answered questions at length about all of his dealings with him. This, apparently, is unacceptable to the Clinton campaign and yet they will not even consider returning money from International Profit Associates, who are currently under investigation:
The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including "sexual assaults," "degrading anti-female language" and "obscene suggestions."
"This is by far, hands down, the worst case I've ever experienced," said Diane Smason, one of the EEOC lawyers handling the lawsuit. "Every woman there experienced sex harassment, they were part of a hostile work environment of sex harassment. And this occurred from the top down."
Even though the Rezko thing has been investigated to death, and the reason the "biased" press isn't covering it is because there is no "there" there, the Clinton's want to make it a page one story. However, when it comes to Hillary's shady dealings we are supposed to look the other way because no one has been convicted yet. Oh wait... except someone has...
When asked about whether they would return the contributions:
Sen. Clinton’s spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told NBC News in a statement that the senator decided to keep the funds because the lawsuit is "ongoing" and because none of the sexual harassment allegations has been proven in court. "With regard to the pending harassment suit, as a general matter, the campaign assesses findings of fact in deciding whether to return contributions," Wolfson said.
This is their official stance even though:
Burgess [the CEO] has a criminal record, too. The former lawyer pleaded guilty to attempted grand larceny in 1987 and was disbarred in New York, court documents show. Burgess also pleaded guilty to "patronizing a prostitute" in 1984, according to Erie County, N.Y., court records.
So... There’s much more to the story, but I’ll stop quoting it and just link the rest here. Beyond that, I’ll let anyone who reads this come to their own conclusions about this, but I will leave you with one more lovely bit about how the Clinton campaign feels:
Wolfson dismissed the notion that keeping IPA money reflected a lack of concern about sexual harassment. "Sen. Clinton is proud of her long record of championing women's causes," he said. "When the EEOC rules on the allegations involving Burgess, we will consider that outcome in assessing if there is any reason to return his contribution."
Of the $170,000 total in donations from all IPA officials and employees, Burgess and his family members personally contributed $16,000 to Sen. Clinton, campaign records show.
I hope I didn't use too much of other people's words here... This is my first diary and I'm not sure what exactly constitutes "fair use." I am absolutely certain that you good folks will set me straight if I've gone too far though. :) Please let me know if I should remove some of these blocs.
UPDATE: Yea, it has been a really really long day... I should not have made the analogy try to match up with Rezko, but rather with the flack Obama is taking from the pseudo endorsement by Farrakhan. If Obama has to renounce and denounce him, then she shouldn't have a problem giving money back to a thieving, prostitute soliciting, sexually harassing CEO regardless of whether the final guilty verdict about his company has come in. That's all I was trying to say.... I just wish there were a little less hypocrisy coming from the Clintons....
UPDATE II To address some valid concerns in the comments. I would like to clarify that I do not think anyone who hasn't done anything wrong should not be allowed to contribute to a campaign. I have no problem with them going through the donor list and selecting the contributions made by the people who are guilty of sexual harassment, particularly the CEO. Tell you what, if Hillary gives back his $16,000, I will delete this diary. I think that's only fair.
LAST UPDATE I got off work a while ago and so I'm going home now. Anyone who wishes to misinterpret what I've tried to say here, or lambast my contention that there is actually some hypocricy happening regardless of who you support, or question my intentions may continue to do so unimpeded. Everyone have a good night, and good luck..