Allah writes:

Because a $2,000 donation to Habitat for Humanity looks a lot better on a campaign’s tax return than an escrow account filled with boatloads of cash bilked out of innocent people by one of your most trusted bundlers.

What’s he talking about? Well, instead of returning Hsu’s dirty money to the victims of his Ponzi schemes, as it’s their money, Democrats have decided to give it to the charities of their choices.

A lawyer for the biggest victim of Hsu’s alleged Ponzi scheme asked Democratic campaigns to hold Hsu’s contributions in escrow for his client, he told Politico.

“Most of them are either ignoring us or telling us they gave the money back or gave it to charity,” said Ronald Minkoff, a lawyer for Source Financing Investors. Source invested $40 million with Hsu in what its backers believed to be an apparel industry venture…

Minkoff said it was “particularly problematic” to give to a charity money that was stolen, in part, from his client.

He thinks his client “theoretically” has legal grounds to recover the money from campaigns or charities, he said, but the litigation may be too expensive to pursue.

So did Democrats decide that these people had enough money, so they’d give it to charity? Did they just want to get it off their hands ASAP, with the easiest path being charities? Who knows. Allah’s recommending the legal path:

Sue the campaigns. Sue fast, sue long, sue as hard as you can. There’s got to be a tort that’ll cover it. Then ask for punitive damages so they’ll do these background checks the way they’re supposed to, not by weighing the guy’s wallet first.