Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu, whose many large contributions to Democratic coffers, including Hillary Clinton came from an apparently non-existent source, has jumped bail yet again. As reported by the Associated Press,

Hsu, a Hong Kong native, was also supposed to turn over his passport Wednesday. Hsu's prominent Silicon Valley criminal defense attorney Jim Brosnahan said Hsu failed to give the passport to the legal team on Monday. "Mr. Hsu is not here and we do not know where Mr. Hsu is," Brosnahan said outside court. Brosnahan said that "there was some contact" with Hsu a few hours before the scheduled 9 a.m. court appearance, but he declined to say how and who talked to Hsu. Hsu pleaded no contest in 1991 to a felony count of grand theft, admitting he'd defrauded investors of $1 million after falsely claiming to have contracts to purchase and sell Latex gloves. He was facing up to three years in prison when he skipped town before his 1992 sentencing date.

This raises a number of questions- primarily why anyone would even think that a man who jumped bail once would be trustworthy of being allowed to post bail a second time. However, the questions that should really be asked are where Hsu got his money, as it appears that he had no real source of income- certainly not enough to finance contributions on the scale that he made. So far it appears that not a single major news source has been interested enough to dig into Hsu's finances, just as they have neglected to report on the fact that most of his donations bear strong signs of beeing fronted through others. The story run by the New York Times is typical, wherein the reporters simply identify Hsu as a 'Democratic fundraiser', although the Times does at least mention that his listed addresses do not seem to be true business or personal addresses.

On campaign finance reports, he has listed his occupation as an executive at an assortment of companies that appear to be connected to the apparel trade, although efforts to verify his involvement with them have proven fruitless. An address he has given as his office in New York’s garment district seems to be little more than a mail drop, and people who work nearby have said they rarely see him.

This is far more than CNN, which as of this post has nothing on their websiteregarding Hsu at all. MSNBC's headline says that Hsu "missed a bail hearing", without letting its readers know that this equates to jumping bail, though at least the story itself does explain the significance. But they say nothing of the mysterious source of Hsu's contributions. As for ABC, their front page does not even mention Hsu or his bail jumping. To my surprise, CBS did the best job of the three networks, placing the story among their 'Top Stories', though the story itself was taken directly from the AP; there was no attempt by CBS to dig any deeper.

Contrast this hit--or-miss approach with the constant front-page treatment that the media gave John Abramoff and the K Street campaign finance scandals. Illegal though Abramoff's dealings were, he was at least a registered lobbyist with real sources of income, and whose gifts weere easily traceable. It would seem that Hsu should merit at least that level of interest. But at this time, not a single MSM news organization has shown any interest in investigating Hsu's finances, with a few exceptions. In the same AP report that announced Hsu's flight, the reporter wrote merely of Hsu,

But a few years ago, Hsu re-emerged in New York as an apparel executive and a wealthy benefactor of Democratic causes and candidates.

The fact that the money is difficult to trace to any source, appears to trouble no journalists who work for any of these supposedly professional media outlets. Is the threat of foreign corruption of the United States election process not worrying to any of these so-called reporters? They still find the troubles of Idaho Senator Larry Craig newsworthy enough to be on the front page. And most of them had front-page stories about the sudden death of Republican congressman- newsworthy stories both of them. thus we know that these news outlets do have reporters and staff available. Why is a convicted criminal fundraiser, with no known source of income, who is wanted for skipping bail on fraud charges and who may be linked to foreign money for all we know, not receiving more in-depth scrutiny?