Talk:1996 United States campaign finance controversy

Clinton and Jiang Zemin Picture

Why is it used? It's not relevant to the article. Mastgrr 12:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've heard that complaint before and I am confused by it. First, let me say I am not attached to the picture and don't care if it is replaced with something else. I had originally had the U.S. and Chinese flags and someone complained about that. With that said, Jiang was the leader of the country being accused of engaging in donating the illegal funds and the Clinton administration was directly involved in the controversial coffee meetings with fundraisers, Justice department investigators stated both Clinton and the First Lady were aware of foreign funds coming into the campaign, and personal friends and political appointees of the president were convicted of illegal fundraising. How is that not relevent? With that said, if you can find a better or more appropriate picture, feel free to replace it. However, I would request the pic remain until a replacement is found. Regards, --Jayzel 02:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes you heard it from me, when I removed it. See talk above. The lack of an appropriate pic is no excuse for an inappropriate one. I generally stay away from this propaganda cesspool, because I do not need the personal aggravation, and I just don't care enough to fix it. But it does irritate me to see that one of the very few abuses I took the effort to curtail was reverted. Removing yet again. Derex 01:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal argument continued here.

Unless Jiang was personally involved in the contributions his picture doesn't belong in the article. We don't need a picture for every article. -Will Beback · † · 01:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

See above. The PRC government was accused of making illegal contributions. Jiang was the head of the Communist dictatoship. --Jayzel 02:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. As you can see, I've changed the pic to one of Clinton with trie. Not that that'll stop the bitching...--Jayzel 02:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed from article

I removed:

Six weeks before attending the event, Gore met with Temple Master Hsing Yun at the White House with fundraisers Maria Hsia and John Huang. Later that day, Gore sent an e-mail saying that he could not be in New York on [[1996-04-28]]: "If we have already booked the fundraiser [in California], then we have to decline". According to commentator [[Joseph Farah]], the Temple admitted shredding documents about the luncheon and shipping videotapes off to Taiwan.<ref name=farah>Farah, Joseph, [<nowiki>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14437 "Impeach Al Gore"] (Opinion), WorldNetDaily, March 3, 1998</ref> During the investigtion, Gore claimed ignorance, saying he "drank a lot of iced tea" at the function and, as a result, had made several trips to the bathroom. It was during these bathroom breaks, he claimed, that he missed the illegal activity.</nowiki>

"WorldNetDaily" and "Crossfire" are not reliable sources. Because this deals with information dealing with a biography of a living person, and possible illegal activities, we need to have rock solid sources for this content. Per WP:BLP and WP:RS.-Andrew c 06:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your biased slur against WorldNetDaily aside, I too had questions about the added information so I did a search and, sure enough, the iced tea defense was not related to the Temple meeting, but toward a different fund raising meeting at the White House in 1995. See "A Gore scandal guide for dummies" Salon.com and "Slumping Gore hit by inquiry body-blow" The Guardian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayzel68 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

I found another source for the info about destruction of evidence so I will be readding that portion to the article. "Buddhist Nuns Admit Destroying Documents", CNN.com, Sep. 4, 1997 --Jayzel 17:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Why no mention of Chinese billionaire Wang Wenliang, who is listed as "one of 45 lawmakers from China’s Liaoning province who attained positions in the National People’s Congress by paying for votes."MaynardClark (talk) 08:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Iced-tea defense

I removed the following from the article:

During an interview with the FBI, Gore said he "drank a lot of iced tea" at the function and, as a result, had made several trips to the bathroom. It was during these bathroom breaks, he claimed, that he missed the illegal activity.[1] [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17413]

The reason I removed it was because it is not quite accurate. The iced-tea defense, while real, did not relate to the Temple fund raiser. It had to do with a meeting at the White House discussing "hard" and "soft" money contributions in November 1995. Therefore, while I have no problem with the info being included in the article, I do have a problem with it being included in the "Maria Hsia and the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple" section. Perhaps it should be added somewhere in the "Department of Justice investigation" section. Regards, --Jayzel 18:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I have tagged this article, as we clearly have a dispute about POV. There is an odd attempt in not only this article, but a great many of the affiliated articles, to imply a connection between nuclear espionage and these campaign finance violations. There are dozens of examples, many of which I have removed. So, while a one-off allusion might be nothing to worry about, there is a consistent pattern of making the link. So far as I have seen, there is no documented connection between nuclear espionage and these campaign donations. It's not even clear what the exactly the implied connection is supposed to be; but that there is one is made clear by the overwhelming pattern of juxtaposition. The proximate cause for this tag is the repeated re-insertion of 1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy#Taiwan_and_nuclear_designs, with no attempt to explain what on earth nuclear espionage has to do with these campaign finance irregularities. So, I dispute the neutrality of this article on the general grounds that it purposely conflates two contemporaneous issues: campaign finance & nuclear espionage, that have no documented comprehensive connection besides they involve China. AllanBColson 18:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As I agree there is no known direct connection between nuclear espionage and the illegal contributions, there is no NPOV dispute. Therefore, I will be removing the tag. However, as both the nuclear espionage and the political espionage campaigns were conducted at the same time and by the same country against the United States they are very relevant to each other. As for your statement there was "no attempt to explain what on earth nuclear espionage has to do with these campaign finance irregularities": That is hogwash. As the header of the section clearly states it is background information on the state of relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China and the section was added due to a specific request during the article's FAC. Lastly, as espionage is just a quiet, low-level form of warfare, I invite you to compare this article to all the other War-related FAs [2]. As you will see, everyone of them have sections (many substantial) entitled "background" of "prelude to" that incorporates background information that does not directly related to the article at hand. This is necessary in order to give what is known as "historical background". What you proposing is that historical information be viewed in a vacuum. Oh, one more thing: The bipartisian Cox Report committee was "authorized... to investigate PRC attempts to influence technology transfers through campaign contributions or other illegal means. In light of the fact that two other committees of the Congress have been engaged in the same inquiry and had begun their efforts long before the Select Committee's formation, the Select Committee did not undertake a duplicative review of these same issues. The Select Committee did, however, contact key witnesses who could have provided new evidence concerning such issues." Appendices Text, SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION, Cox Report —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayzel68 (talk • contribs).

As I agree there is no known direct connection between nuclear espionage and the illegal contributions, there is no NPOV dispute. - Jayzel Then there is no reason for that material in this article. Indeed, we do have a NPOV dispute, and this is the very basis of it. Why on earth would we devote such large territory in an article to something entirely unconnected? Any reasonable reader would infer that there is a connection. I respectfully request that you do not remove the tag until this very serious and extensive POV complaint is resolved.

I would also note that many of the people related to these events are living. Therefore, we must rise to the very high standards of WP:BLP. Suggestions of espionage, which carries the death penalty, would I believe have to rise to a very high level of encyclopedic rigor. AllanBColson 19:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You may also wish to peruse PP 21-25, PP 38-57, PRC ACQUISITION OF U.S. TECHNOLOGY, Cox Report and The Walk-In, Cox Report which also discusses the campaign contributions at the same time as it discusses they nuclear and missile technology espionage. Are you suggesting bipartisian government reports widely reported in the media cannot be used as material for articles at Wikipedia? Curious. Your last complaint about "living people" holds no water. Any comments regarding any specific individual is backed up with verifiable and reliable references. --Jayzel 20:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the Cox Report an encyclopedia article on campaign finance? AllanBColson 20:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion ended, Derex. --Jayzel 20:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayzel, I've clearly stated a legitimate POV dispute. I've asked you not to remove the tag until this is resolved. You have done so, regardless. If you remove the tag again, I will have no alternative but to seek administrative relief. I would prefer to avoid that, and I can't understand why you object so strongly to the notion that there is a serious disagreement here. Thank you. AllanBColson 20:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also ask you to be mindful of WP:3RR which applies to total reverts to an article, not necessarily to the same revert. You have already made 3 such reverts against well-justified edits. Another one could place you in peril of a preventive block. AllanBColson 20:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, from my perspective, you appear to be antagonizing and discussing nothing. You come across as having a very rigid POV. Government documents and articles from the Washingotn Post and CNN make up most of Wikipedia. They are invaluable and your complaints has very little if any merit. --Jayzel 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you see it that way; it's not my intent. I'll not remind you of 3RR again. I had hoped to prevent the need for an unexpected block, given your recent unpleasant experiences with that. AllanBColson 20:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You've clearly stated nothing. You talk in circles. This is a content dispute and not a POV dispute. I suggest you go to dispute resolution. Later, --Jayzel 20:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have difficulty understanding my position. At any rate, I'd like to keep the tag there, as I do see a very serious POV problem. It serves to advise the reader not to judge the standards of Wikipedia by this rather problematic article. It also serves to invite broader scrutiny from Wikipedia editors, who may be able to help neutralize the article in ways acceptable to all. Cheers, AllanBColson 20:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove material that is under discussion. And tags are not to be used by individuals simply to express their personal displeasure with an article. --Usernamealreadyinuse 20:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't find this antagonistic, Jayzel. However, using multiple alternate accounts to simultaneously edit an article in an effort to evade WP:3RR or to create false appearance of wider support for a position will also get you blocked. WP:SOCK discusses Wikipedia policy on this. Please desist and edit in good spirit. As a show of good faith myself, I'll not pursue your sockified 3RR violation this time. Thank you, AllanBColson 20:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayzel, this was ungentlemanly, unfair, and untrue. However, I'm not one to hold a grudge. I suggest we work together in the spirit of improving the article. To this end, you call my POV complaint "circular". I don't understand what you mean by that. If you clarify, perhaps we can come to a common understanding to remove some of the innuendo in the article and maybe even make it worthy of the ill-placed Featured tag. AllanBColson 00:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Text moved from main article

Background

Taiwan and nuclear designs

Main articles: Third Taiwan Strait Crisis and Cox Report

In early 1995, President of the Republic of China Lee Teng-hui requested a visa to enter the United States to attend events associated with his graduate school reunion at Cornell University scheduled to be held in June 1995. By May of that year, Congress passed a resolution calling on President Clinton to grant a visa to President Lee. After the State Department granted Lee's visa, the PRC government immediately protested the decision and, working through traditional diplomatic channels, suspended ongoing treaty negotiations and recalled its ambassador to the United States. The PRC government considers Taiwan a rogue province of the country. On May 15, 1995, China conducted the first in a series of underground nuclear tests. Around the same time, PRC intelligence services had a walk-in agent approach the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) office in Taiwan. The "walk-in" provided an official PRC document classified "Secret" that contained information relating to a number of advanced U.S. nuclear warhead designs. The People's Liberation Army (PLA) then began conducting a series of missile tests in the waters near Taiwan in July of that year.

Bernard Schwartz and Loral

Some of the trade missions to Asia were attended by Bernard Schwartz, then CEO of Loral Space and Communications (an American maker of satellites). Schwartz donated over $600,000 to the DNC and President Clinton's 1996 reelection effort, making Schwartz the largest cash donor to the DNC during the 1996 election cycle. Schwartz said he "did not need, expect or receive any special treatment" from the Clinton administration in exchange for his donations. Loral was later fined $14 million in 2002 for its involvement in illegally transferring missile technology to China. The transfer of classified secrets occurred in February 1996 during an investigation into the failed launch and explosion of a Long March rocket that was to carry a Loral satellite into space.

In February 1998, Loral requested a waiver from President Clinton that would allow the shipment to China of a satellite when it was then under investigation for the illegal missile technology transfer to the PRC. The State Department supported the waiver, arguing that it would promote trade with China and enhance America's position as the world telecommunications leader. The Justice Department warned President Clinton in a memo that they believed that if the Loral investigation ever went to trial, "a jury likely would not convict" the company if it received another presidential waiver. Clinton eventually decided to sign the waiver.

References

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Broughton (talk • contribs) 14:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Time for a discussion

Let's have that discussion and settle this once and for all. I will leave this info here to wait for comment from people that come by for one month. If the issue is not resoved by then, I will then begin the dispute resolution process. I am willing to go all the way to the end (ARBCOM) if needed. No rush. I don't expect to die any time soon (knock on wood). --Jayzel 04:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Rfc historical context in a history-related featured article

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• There is an odd attempt in... this article... to imply a connection between nuclear espionage and these campaign finance violations. So far as I have seen, there is no documented connection between nuclear espionage and these campaign donations. The proximate cause for this tag is the repeated re-insertion of 1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy#Taiwan_and_nuclear_designs, with no attempt to explain what on earth nuclear espionage has to do with these campaign finance irregularities. So, I dispute the neutrality of this article on the general grounds that it purposely conflates two contemporaneous issues: campaign finance & nuclear espionage, that have no documented comprehensive connection besides they involve China. AllanBColson 18:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• both the nuclear espionage and the political espionage campaigns were conducted at the same time and by the same country against the United States they are very relevant to each other... As the header of the section clearly states it is background information on the state of relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China and the section was added due to a specific request during the article's FAC. Lastly, as espionage is just a quiet, low-level form of warfare, I invite you to compare this article to all the other War-related FAs [3]. As you will see, everyone of them have sections (many substantial) entitled "background" of "prelude to" that incorporates background information that does not directly related to the article at hand. This is necessary in order to give what is known as "historical background". What you proposing is that historical information be viewed in a vacuum. Oh, one more thing: The bipartisian Cox Report committee was "authorized... to investigate PRC attempts to influence technology transfers through campaign contributions or other illegal means." Appendices Text, SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION, Cox Report —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayzel68 (talk • contribs).

Comments

• History should never be viewed in a vacuum. --Jayzel 00:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• The disputed sections are listed directly above this section. --Jayzel 01:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the relevant context? You seem to think the relevant context involves the theft of nuclear secrets. Why is that? You answer because they both involve China. Well, there are quite a few things that involve China, and yet they don't get placed here. By placing that there, you create the perception of a specific connection, which even you admit does not exist. If you want stuff about nuclear espionage in here, the answer is simple. Go back and find the newspaper articles of the time which made the connection. Quote the connection they make. But to simply begin an article on some campaign finance violations with a random discussion of nuclear tensions in the Taiwan Strait, and nuclear espionage is absolutely ridiculous. It, quite intentionally from your history, creates the perception of one gigantic conspiracy theory with no basis in the documentation. Before you go there, if you want an article about the Cox report, you'll be pleased to know we already have one for you to edit. This is not an article about the Cox report, and it should not mimic a political document, though it may usefully cite it at points. Bottom line, if we're free to add whatever random stuff we personally think provides context, then anyone can go stuff the introduction full of Republican campaign violations, Iran Contra, whatever POV spin they feel like pushing as "context". A look through the history of the article and Talk makes it amply clear that's what happened here. AllanBColson 02:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you've actually been very direct about why you believe nuclear espionage relevant context in a recent edit. "China allegedly attempted to funnel campaign funds to the Democratic Party of the United States during the 1996 elections in exchange for atomic bomb plans." (emphasis added). [4] However, as you know, there is no link proven, nor indeed even suggested in reliable sources. You know this because you redacted the emphasized part soon after. I'd ask you not to let conspiracy theory color a discussion of an otherwise very serious breach of campaign finance law. One can breach NPOV and verifiability policy by innuendo as effectively as with a direct statement. AllanBColson (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

POV v. FA...

It can't be both... 68.39.174.238 20:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

unexplained blanket reverts

Recently an editor has twice reverted numerous edits back to an old version, which he/she seems to prefer. While I haven't reviewed every edit in the interim, a great many of them seemed to me quite productive. For example there were some factual errors corrected and some plainly relevant facts added, which were removed without any justification offered. I would ask that, in the future, blanket reverts of a large number of edits be avoided. Wikipedia works best through dialogue and through building on each other's contributions. If you have problems with one or two edits, please simply improve those without reverting all edits that have been done in the interim. WP:OWN is worth reviewing here. The most recent edit was given the misleading summary of "reverse destruction of lead paragraph". While I actually thought the newer version was a great improvement, and written consistently with the guidelines in WP:LEAD, I can understand that others might prefer something closer to the old version. In that case, the answer is to edit and improve the lead paragraph, not to simply revert the whole article back to an ancient and error-ridden version. Thank you. AllanBColson (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seems to have happened again a month or so back. This time by a new editor, who unfortunately appears to have left us after just 3 edits. If you've got changes you want to make, reverting to an ancient version which loses a few hundred mostly high quality edits is just not the right way to go about it. Instead, please target the few items you would like to see change and build on those. Thanks. AllanBColson (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that accurately explains the sudden loss of 20kb? What was so extraneous about all that stuff that got cut out? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This article as it sits is wholly useless and nothing like the factually written versions which appeared several years ago. Are you people seriously thinking that Loral Space Systems and Bernard Schwartz is irrelevant to this matter? Or that the Cox report was solely limited to nuclear espionage, (which Clinton was not directly responsible for) not a plethera of technology leaks that Clinton directly controlled through policy changes? Might as well reduce the whole article to "Clinton Misdeeds? Nothing to see here..." There ought to be a CHINAGATE page BTW. Batvette (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Focus on Chinese

The content of this well written article seems to focus entirely on misdeeds of Clinton fund raisers with a Chinese connection. But the 1997 Senate report itemizes other Clinton fund raising scandals that year.

• Roger Tamraz and the Caspian Sea pipeline
• Shakedowns of Indian tribes with gaming interests - Hudson, Wisconsin casino, and the Cheyenne/Arapaho tribes, ...
• Coffees and overnight visits at the White House and Admiral's House
• Strange money transfers with Teamsters

The minority report raises charges against

• Grover Norquist's ATR
• Tobacco

--AndersW (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Image tagged for deletion

This image is being targeted for deletion. I am not sure if the image uploader has been contacted, but it would appear that the article discussion has not. the IfD discussion is occurring here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~johnston/GOV2880/ross3.pdf
  • In 1996 United States campaign finance controversy on 2011-05-25 06:22:40, 403 Forbidden
  • In 1996 United States campaign finance controversy on 2011-06-08 04:18:07, 403 Forbidden

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/3.pdf
  • In 1996 United States campaign finance controversy on 2011-05-25 06:22:40, 404 Not Found
  • In 1996 United States campaign finance controversy on 2011-06-08 04:18:16, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/20.pdf
  • In 1996 United States campaign finance controversy on 2011-05-25 06:22:40, 404 Not Found
  • In 1996 United States campaign finance controversy on 2011-06-08 04:18:30, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/21/trie/
  • In 1996 United States campaign finance controversy on 2011-05-25 06:22:41, 404 Not Found
  • In 1996 United States campaign finance controversy on 2011-06-08 04:18:50, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4121890
  • In 1996 United States campaign finance controversy on 2011-05-25 06:22:40, 404 Not Found
  • In 1996 United States campaign finance controversy on 2011-06-08 04:18:51, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 6

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/21/china.money/
  • In 1996 United States campaign finance controversy on 2011-05-25 06:22:40, 404 Not Found
  • In 1996 United States campaign finance controversy on 2011-06-08 04:19:01, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 7

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/18.pdf
  • In 1996 United States campaign finance controversy on 2011-05-25 06:22:41, 404 Not Found
  • In 1996 United States campaign finance controversy on 2011-06-08 04:19:10, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Bizarre article title

So I know this is an old news type article but I still can't help but be puzzled at the title. Is there a controversy over whether any of this happened? Where's the controversy? Is it over the straw man of whether or not the corruption which did occur was part of a plan for the Chinese to assert undue influence over our politics? What else would they be purchasing? I'm going to float this idea out for a few weeks for anyone watching the article and if no opposition, change it. Please comment as necessary. Batvette (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I learnt of it as "Asia fundraising scandal" - should this at least be an alternative title, with redirect? 84.210.46.118 (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The only controversy?

I read that Shieh Chung-liang and Yuen-Ying Chan won the CPJ International Press Freedom Awards in 1997 for exposing a Kuomintang-in-Taiwan donation offer of $15 million towards Bill Clinton's 1996 presidential campaign. Yet the only campaign finance controversy I saw linked on that page was this; from the PRC, and not the ROC. Considering that the China Lobby in the United States for the Republic of China (Taiwan) was always extremely well-organized (and it still is, although after Taiwanization, it could be called the "Taiwan lobby") and able to influence major candidates like Ronald Reagan and to pass legislation like the Taiwan Relations Act. Was this Taiwan controversy related to the PRC one? I suspect that it may be, since the KMT and PRC are engaged in diplomatic-pecuniary competition all over the world, and not just the United States. Otherwise, should we rename this page to finance "controversies"? Shrigley (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Work needed to retain FA status

This article has changed vastly since it attained Featured article status in 2006. I'm concerned that the article no longer meets the WP:Featured article criteria. To start, I see the following:

• Many deadlinks
• Most of the reference links are missing retrieval dates
• I am concerned about WP:BLP issues specifically regarding the Ted Sioeng section. I do not feel that the article text adequately reflects even the cited sources. Currently the article states that he "illegally donated money" without citing a source. The sources provided elsewhere in the section show that the investigation had strong intelligence tying him to the Chinese government but was unable to definitively trace the origin of the donated funds. It should also be more clear in our text that, in contrast with all the other donors described in the article, he was not convicted, nor even indicted.
• In places, the prose is extremely choppy, with many paragraphs comprised of a single sentence or two
• The lead does not summarize the full article's contents
• Confusing narrative (see for instance the Johnny Trie section, which lacks chronological order)

I will alter the Sioeng section so that it does not violate BLP. Are any of the article's editors willing to tackle the other issues, to bring the article up to current standards so we can avoid WP:Featured article review? Maralia (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 1996 United States campaign finance controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060516201550/http://www.pbs.org:80/newshour/bb/law/july-dec98/reno_8-4a.html to http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec98/reno_8-4a.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050914102054/http://www.worldnetdaily.com:80/news/documents/Labella_index.html to http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/documents/Labella_index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041012130742/http://www.pbs.org:80/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june00/gore_6-23.html to http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june00/gore_6-23.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 1996 United States campaign finance controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130403040001/http://transcripts.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/03/03/gore3_3.a.tm/index.html to http://transcripts.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/03/03/gore3_3.a.tm/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081119031208/http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/06/hubbell.tapes/ to http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/06/hubbell.tapes/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110722205840/http://hsgac.senate.gov/sireport.htm to http://hsgac.senate.gov/sireport.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1996 United States campaign finance controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060226161438/http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~johnston/GOV2880/ross3.pdf to http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~johnston/GOV2880/ross3.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1996 United States campaign finance controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051129095054/http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/January/017crm.htm to http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/January/017crm.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060127053227/http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20050124115157-73108.pdf to http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20050124115157-73108.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)