JANUARY 31, 2000
Three Card Monte: Campaign finance finesse -- A work in progress
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

If you go to the Democratic National Committee Web page and bounce around, you will find a section that reads, "Federal election law requires political committees to report the name, mailing address occupation and name of employer for each individual whose contributions aggregate in excess of $200 in a calendar year. Your contribution may be used in connection with Federal elections and is subject to the limits and prohibitions of the Federal Election Campaign Act."

If you give money to the DNC, RNC, or any 501(c)-something, it has to be reported. In the cloudy haze of campaign finance obfuscation, "Your contribution may be used in connection with Federal elections and is subject to the limits and prohibitions of the Federal Election Campaign Act."

But wait a minute. What if you contribute money not to a 501(c)(3) or (4), but to a corporation? Hmmmmmm? What if a party (let's say the Democratic Party) were to form a corporation in one of the corporation-mill venues like Delaware or Nevada? Could they do that? Would they do that? Would such a simple procedural finesse sidestep the FEC and the limiting and prohibiting restraints of the Federal Election Act?

Reportedly, that is exactly what is commonplace. I confess only to being in the early stages of research on this scam; but if even half of what has been suggested is real, there is a potential litany of questions longer than Bill Clinton's Jane Doe file.

I have always had difficulty accepting the often-reported claim that Republicans have reported to the FEC that they have raised more campaign money than Democrats. The operative word apparently is "reported." I'll follow up next week with answers to the questions I am seeking from both Democrats and Republicans.

One source reports the DNC Services Corporation is no longer registered in Delaware, but they were as recently as 1992. (Gee, they moved in '92. Bill Clinton ... nah ... it has to be a coincidence.)

Here is the short list of opening questions:

  1. Is it legal (letter of the law and spirit of the law) for a political party to create a for-profit corporation that launders money into political campaigns?
  2. If it is legal (or even if not), how does a party funnel the corporate money to the closely monitored campaigns?
  3. Is there a DNC Inc.? Was it established in Delaware? Where is it located now?
  4. Is there a GOP Inc.? If not, why?
  5. Who are the corporate officers and stockholders of such corporations if the corporations exist?
  6. How much money has been received by these corporations?
  7. How much money has been dispersed by the corporations for political purposes?
  8. What is the compensation of corporate officers?
  9. What is the profitability of the corporations?
  10. If there is nothing inappropriate about such a corporate entity, why has it been such a closely guarded secret?



So much of the political process is form over substance and perception versus reality that it is very easy to anticipate the worst intentions. We have been led to believe there is a deep, visceral and very personal antipathy between Al Gore and Bill Bradley. However, Bradley has been routinely missing obvious and juicy targets of opportunity to destroy (not just challenge or undermine, but destroy) the credibility, veracity and foundation of Al. G.W. Bush and John McCain each have their own baggage, which neither seems inclined to address. Alan Keyes seems to be the only candidate with the brass and brains to address significant, salient issues, but he is being marginalized by establishment co-conspirators in virtually every estate (especially the once-vaunted fourth estate).

Check out what Madison said in "The Federalist" essay No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people."

"Few and defined ..." Gosh, it seems none of the candidates, or elected officials ever got the memo or read that essay.

The president's recent State of the Union message was less that, than a socialist wish list. Notwithstanding rhetoric to the contrary, Clinton's vision for your gubmint would precipitate legions of new, yet-to-be-created government bureaucracies. Yeah, that means more, and more, and more taxpayer money to fund those new "necessary" government agencies.

I am constantly and consistently intrigued with the unbridled hypocrisy of politicians. They all take an oath to "preserve and protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic," then inevitably rush to establish themselves as the very domestic enemies of the Constitution they have sworn to protect us from.

As I was watching Clinton perform, I tried to scribble notes of his lies, hypocrisy, duplicity and fraud. Before writer's cramp reminded me it would be less painful to take a highlighter to the transcript after the fact, he actually surprised me. He was waxing on how he and his co-conspirators had stood up to the powerful gun lobby (which by the way ain't that powerful) when he must have slipped on his own glibness. While bragging about how he had gotten gun control passed (to the benefit of criminals and bane of law abiding citizens) he actually said, for God and everyone to hear, that they had "stood up to the American people." WHAT?!?! Yeah, further proof that your government not only knows better than the poor slobs who elect them, but that the government will jam whatever they want down your throat or some other bodily orifice whether you like it or not.

The State of the Union Wish List was classic in both form and substance to the dialectic model. Create a problem, exacerbate the problem, and offer the manufactured state solution. William Pitt once observed, "Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." And he didn't even know Billy-Jeff or Democrat/Socialist/Sleazoids.

Meanwhile, I still want to know what the DNC Services Corporation is doing internationally, and why neither the FEC or the GOP seem to care.