on what it meant.
1996 United States campaign finance controversy
The 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.
While questions regarding the U.S. Democratic Party's fund-raising activities first arose over a Los Angeles Times article published on September 21, 1996,[1] China's alleged role in the affair first gained public attention when Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy of The Washington Post published a story stating that a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign. The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese Embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC[2] in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections. The Chinese government denied all accusations.
<snip>
Background
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
1997 Special Investigation in Connection with 1996 Federal Election Campaigns
According to the Senate report, Chinese officials eventually developed a set of proposals to promote their interests with the United States government and to improve China's image with the American people. The proposals, dubbed the "China Plan", were prompted by the United States Congress's successful lobbying of the president to grant a visa to Taiwan President Lee Teng-Hui. United States Secretary of State Warren Christopher had previously assured his Chinese counterpart Qian Qichen that granting a visa would be "inconsistent with [the United States'] unofficial relationship [with Taiwan]"[3] and the Clinton Administration's acquiescence to the Congressional resolutions led China to conclude that the influence of Congress over foreign policy was more significant than it had previously determined. When formulating the so-called plan, Chinese officials acknowledged that, compared to other countries, it had little knowledge of, or influence over, policy decisions made in Congress, which had a sizeable pro-Taiwan faction under the influence of a more established "China Lobby" run by the Kuomintang.[4]
The plan, according the Senate report, instructed Chinese officials in the U.S. to improve their knowledge about members of Congress and increase contacts with its members, the public, and the media. The plan also suggested ways to lobby United States officials.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy
China's main foreign policy interest seems to be about economics mainly -- don't know them to pick fights or start wars but whether there was any truth to Bob Woodward's reporting there was this (which I think is a result of China's lobbying efforts)
Permanent normal trade relations
<snip>
U.S. and China
In the last year of his presidency Bill Clinton called on Congress to help him change China’s normal trade relations status with the U.S. to permanent. This would amend the Trade Act of 1974 which had the trade status of China on an annually review to determine the best course of action. The piece of legislation was introduced to the house as H.R. number 4444 on May 15, 2000 by William Reynolds Archer, a Republican Representative from Texas (he had three cosponsors). Introduce to the house the legislation referred to the Ways and Means committee in the House of Representatives to be amended and written up.[6] The legislation was introduced by saying that the bill was a top priority for the rest of the year and it was vital to the U.S. agriculture market to have access to a market that accounts for one-fifth of the world’s population.[7]
The other crucial point made was the involvement the U.S. needed to help the workers of the People’s Republic of China to lead better lives.[8] Congress added some important points into the legislation to make sure that when China entered the World Trade Organization it could be reprimanded for crimes against the workers of the country, and certain markets would be mutually exclusive between the two countries. The People’s Republic of China’s businesses had to abide by human rights for their workers as stated in the internationally recognized worker rights. To monitor the workers’ rights Congress established the Congressional-Executive Commission on the People’s Republic of China. The commission was to monitor acts of China which reflect compliance or violation, compile lists of persons believed to be imprisoned, detained, or tortured due to pursuit of their human rights, monitor the development of the rule of law in China, and encourage the development of programs and activities of the U.S. government and private organizations with a goal of increasing the interchange of people and ideas. The committee formed, along with the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), and the International Trade Commission (ITC) was to give an annual report to the President.[6]
Congress believed that they needed to pass a bill that would help the economy stay stimulated if not have a higher growth than at the time.[9] The most productive and trouble-free way to keep the economy growing strong was to outsource and trade more with China. China was to help provide America with superior markets in industry, agriculture, and technology. Congress as whole thought that without these things America would fall behind economically and technologically to some enemies of America. If China did not get support from America they could go to another country that would not be so strict on their treatment of people, and they could use that country to gain access to the WTO. The down side to this was that no markets could provide and receive China’s goods like the United States markets could.[7]
<snip>
Since the passing of the bill there have been three attempts to repeal the PNTR with China. The best attempt was in 2005 when Representative Sanders and sixty one cosponsors introduced a legislation that would repeal the Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. [v]Rep. Sanders said to the house, “anyone who takes an objective look at our trade policy with China must conclude that is an absolute failure and needs to be fundamentally overhauled.” The Representative goes into numbers of the trade deficit increased and the number of American jobs being lost to our overseas competitors. One point that Sanders did not make was the because of Congress’s time constraints, and the legislation being passed so quickly nothing in the way China treats its workers changed.[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_normal_trade_relations
= new reply since forum marked as read
"
