If you can't beat 'em - LIE!!!
Haley Barbour 
Friday, July 25th 1996: Taking his cues from Newt Gingrich, former GOP chairman Haley Barbour used more bravado than truth to knock Democrats for a loop yesterday as he twisted the truth about loan guarantees for his "Policy Forum" obtained from the Young brothers of Taiwan -- money used later to rescue the Republican National Committee (RNC) in 1994.
Democrats charge that Barbour's National Policy Forum (NPF) existed to attract illegal foreign campaign contributions, launder them, and gie them to the RNC. A former official NPF resigned from NPF because he feared his reputation would be damaged by this Republican fishing expedition in alien waters.
But Barbour, who saw how Newt Gingrich just muscled his way out of a tight situations time and again, took the low road and just plain prevaricated to make his case. You had to be there.
Barbour began by acting like an angry dog embittered by his masters kick. He snapped about personal attacks on his own credibility and whipped up fake emotion decrying his attackers saying he wanted to correct "infuriating," baseless accusations about the forum and the loan guarantee. It was unbelievably effective. His "testimony" -- more an indictment of anyone who dared question his motives -- made even Chairman Fred Thompson uncomfortable -- who found it necessary to remind Barbour that "in retrospect" he might have considered how these loan guarantees might look.
Baseless accusations?
Just ask yourself these questions:
2. Why did Barbour effectively borrow $2.1 million from a Taiwanese businessman who loaned it in good faith - turn around and give $1.6 million to the RNC (ostensibly to pay back a loan) and then stiff the Young Brothers for a million?
3. Why did Barbour write a letter saying the Policy Forum was a way to obtain foreign money?
4. Why did Barbour out and out lie that the RNC had nearly $5 million in its accounts at the time he chose to pay them $1.6 of the Young Brother's money?
5. Why did a letter from Barbour describe the Policy Forum as a "subsidiary" of the Republican National Committee?
2. Barbour knew there was an untapped source of money in Asia and Europe that current US law effectively blocked from political coffers. He knew the Young Brothers and others had an interest in US foreign and trade policy which might affect their business. Mr. Fireman, a vice-chair of the party, and an indicted campaign money launderer had access to Barbour. Did he "train" him? But even Barbour did not care whether the Young Brothers ever received a quid pro quo for their millions and he proved it by stiffing them later for the benefit of the RNC and its last minute push for votes in key states.
3. Barbour needed to raise millions from any source possible. He was unwilling to overtly break the law. By creating a non-profit "think tank" he was able to take money from all comers and still offer them the "access" to high elected officials these type of contributors demand. Barbour purposely linked the Policy Forum to the RNC to underscore that money given the Forum would be rewarded as if it had been given directly to Republican candidates. He counted on foreign contributors naievete regarding US campaign laws -- and it paid off.
4. Barbour lied about the fiscal condition of the RNC because it helped make his case that the Party did not need additional money to fully execute its 1994 campaign plan. When caught in the lie (the RNC had only a little more that $700 thousand at the time he repaid it with Young Brothers money) Barbour quickly lied again saying he meant that the RNC had a $5 million line of credit. If this is true, and it may be, why didn't they use it? -- Because the laundered foreign money was already figured into the RNC budget.
5. Barbour purposely linked the Policy Forum to the RNC to underscore that money given the Forum would be rewarded as if it had been given directly to Republican candidates. He counted on foreign contributors naivete regarding US campaign laws -- and it paid off. Policy forum donors knew they'd be received as RNC mega-donors with all the due fanfare even though their money was "non-political."
He "forgot" that fund raiser Fred Volansek told him the loan originated in Hong Kong even though Barbour himself met with Ambrose Young on a yacht in Kowloon Harbour. 'He screwed up," Barbour said.
"My nephew "w rote the letter which described the Policy Forum as a subsidiary of the RNC - "but he screwed it up."
Freshman Senator Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.) had it right when he said that by guaranteeing the loan and allowing the Policy Forum to repay money to the Republican National Committee, Ambrose Young had more impact on the 1994 elections than American citizens who gave legally. "Our national debate was changed," Torricelli said. "The point is, it wasn't right."Torricelli and Barbour clashed over just how much money the Republicans had on hand in the fall of 1994, including cash and an existing line of credit.
When Torricelli insinuated the repayment let the Republicans pump money into races in 21 states, Barbour snapped back, "I know that's your testimony, Senator Torricelli, but it is not accurate."
"Let's deal with each other honestly," Torricelli retorted.
Dream on Bob.
Whether or not the Committee allows Barbour to get away with his outrageous defense is unimportant. What is important is that Americans are beginning to appreciate the fact that perhaps our own political parties are taking advantage of all-too-eager foreign millionaires and leading them to believe they can influence US trade and foreign policy merely by passing around some cash. If the Chairman of the Republican Party can get away with running out on a $2.1 million loan and flaunt it, what's next?
Barbour's "pride" in his campaign fundraising schemes is a disgusting display of arrogance. But, after all, he has no choice but to brave it out because his future as a highly paid flack for big business is at risk.
And so it is.
© 1998, 1997, American Politics Journal Publications Inc.