WSJ seems to have done a thorough research job. This is the type of story that politicians hate, but it exemplifies the reasons the nation's founders created the First Amendment.

Interesting speculation but no hard facts to back up the implications. Worth consideration but not yet belief.

If you bother to check the CORRECT story on the Media Matters for America website (posted 08/28/07), you will find the the WSJ article has failed to report key information regarding the Paw family. WSJ depicts the Paw family as middle class and an unlikely source of large donations, and includes a false statement about their suspected "collaboration" with Mr. Hsu. According to Media Matters, the Paws have, in fact, contributed $45,000 in earlier donations to Clinton as well as to other candidates TO WHOM MR. HSU DID NOT. So much for a suspected conspiracy. I would pass this off as the usual smear piece if this were a WSJ editorial, but this is written by a reporter, not Paul Gigot. Is the WSJ already bending its reporting to ... More »

This sounds very thin. The purported sources are quite vague and it appears that the author did no actual research. I find it odd that the author assumes a certain level of income for the Paws based on an address - could they not just live beneath their means? I know that's hardly a WSJ-type position, but lots of people do it and have actual savings. All in all, I'd say this is an attempt to create a tempest in a teapot.