In case you haven't been following the case, a gent named David Rosen is currently on trial in Los Angeles, accused of misleading the Federal Election Commission about the cost of a campaign gala held in Hollywood back in 2000. Rosen was a fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton, and a lot of right-wing folks are hoping that a conviction of Rosen will somehow harm Ms. Clinton's future electoral prospects…and I guess there are left-wing folks who also would not be unhappy if she did not get the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, as well. I suspect both these groups will be disappointed. The prosecutor in the case is after Rosen, not Clinton, and even told the jury in his opening statement, "You will hear no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved [in the alleged crimes] in any way, shape or form." The other day, the judge in the case indicated he would probably dismiss one of the three remaining charges next Tuesday, and some think he might throw the entire case out of court.
Even if Rosen is convicted of something, I doubt it will impact the future of Hillary Clinton. I don't think very many people in this country desert the candidate of their choice because of fund-raising violations. Most, I'm guessing, believe that everyone who runs for office is at least a little dirty in that regard, and that if you let that influence your ballot, you'll wind up with no one to vote for. People lose elections because their opponents define them as politically extreme, liars, cowards or on the wrong side of issues like abortion, guns or defense. But because one of their aides played fast and loose with campaign finance laws? I don't think so. That's the kind of reason you give for not voting for the person you weren't going to vote for, anyway.
What interests me about the trial is that the fund-raiser in question was arranged by Peter Paul, who was then the head of Stan Lee Media, a firm for which I was working at the time. I never really heard anything about the event while I was there, so I'm following the case as a spectator, albeit one who knew some of the folks involved. Peter has spent a lot of time lately behind bars and may soon be sentenced to his third spell in prison, this time for stock manipulation.
Stan Lee has pretty much avoided any of the legal nastiness that has lately surrounded Mr. Paul. But yesterday, Stan testified in the trial and said that he loaned Peter $225,000 to help put on the event and that he has yet to be repaid a dime of it. If I'd known he was that soft a touch, I'd have hit him up for a couple hundred grand.
Also of possible interest is that it would appear that the whole fund-raising gala cost $1.2 million instead of the $400,000 that was originally reported, and that it netted a whopping $57,820 for Ms. Clinton and another million or so for other Democratic causes — in other words, it brought in a little less than it cost. If so, that makes it a great example of what's wrong with politics in this country. And it kind of gives you a hint as to why Stan Lee Media didn't make any money, either.