Al Gore's 1996 fundraiser at Buddhist Temple leads to campaign reform?

high trajectory: The new legislation is successful in reducing the influence of big money in politics.

low trajectory: The law mucks up and further complicates an already confused situation and it's even harder to tell which big money donors are influencing which politicians.

And I personally don't mind if we work both potential threads at the same time! :)
 
http://prospect.org/article/al-gore-and-temple-doom

' . . . In April 1996, Gore attended a fundraising luncheon at the Hsi Lai Buddhist temple in Hacienda Heights, California. This event, which was organized by Maria Hsia and John Huang, raised $166,750 for the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Much of this money was raised illegally; the laws broken were far from being trivial or outdated. There were $55,000 in contributions laundered through monks and nuns, who made the contributions in their own names and were then reimbursed by the temple from its general funds. At least three of the contributors were foreign nationals. In addition the temple, which enjoys tax-exempt status as a religious institution, was used illegally for partisan politics. Insofar as the monks were reimbursed with temple funds that came from tax-free donations, American taxpayers indirectly subsidized Gore's fundraising effort.

'There are two separate issues: whether Gore knew he was attending a fundraising lunch, and whether he knew that Hsia and Huang were raising some of the funds illegally. Afterward, Gore said the lunch was for "community outreach," then later that it was "finance related," and then later that it was devoted to "donor maintenance." . . . '
Big Al did mess up.

What if the Republicans in the new Congress following the '96 election decide to push for their version of campaign reform?
 
Last edited:

Wallet

Banned
Big Al did mess up.

What if the Republicans in the new Congress following the '96 election decide to push for their version of campaign reform?
I doubt it, considering that the GOP have several well known big donors. Probably at most strengthening current laws.

More importantly is how this impacts Gore 2000 campaign
 
I had a college poli sci professor in Summer '91 who said Republicans do better with $100 donors because straightup many of the lower-income voters who prefer Democrats cannot comfortably afford this amount.

a measly $100 check (in relative terms!) and the Republicans do better
 
Top