WASHINGTON -- For the last 15 years, California authorities have been trying to figure out what happened to a businessman named Norman Hsu, who pleaded no contest to grand theft, agreed to serve up to three years in prison and then seemed to vanish.

"He is a fugitive," Ronald Smetana, who handled the case for the state attorney general, said in an interview. "Do you know where he is?"

Hsu, it seems, has been hiding in plain sight, at least for the last three years.

Since 2004, one Norman Hsu has been carving out a prominent place of honor among Democratic fundraisers. He has funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions into party coffers, much of it earmarked for presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

In addition to making his own contributions, Hsu has honed the practice of assembling packets of checks from contributors who bear little resemblance to the usual Democratic deep pockets: A self-described apparel executive with a variety of business interests, Hsu has focused on delivering hefty contributions from citizens who live modest lives and are neophytes in the world of campaign giving.

On Tuesday, E. Lawrence Barcella Jr. -- a Washington lawyer who represents the Democratic fundraiser -- confirmed that Hsu was the same man who was involved in the California case. Barcella said his client did not remember pleading to a criminal charge and facing the prospect of jail time. Hsu remembers the episode as part of a settlement with creditors when he also went through bankruptcy, Barcella said.

Apparently dozens of Democrats have been recipients of this fugitive's largess, but the biggest one by far is Hillary Clinton who he is said to have raised $1 million for, earning him the vaunted title of "Hillraiser".

Here's just one example of Hsu's questionable fundraising tactics:

One example of the kind of first-time donors Hsu has worked with is the Paw family of Daly City, Calif., which is headed by William Paw, a mail carrier, and his wife, Alice, who is listed as a homemaker.

The Paws -- seven adults, most of whom live together in a small house near San Francisco International Airport -- apparently had never donated to national candidates until 2004. Over a three-year period, they gave $213,000, including $55,000 to Clinton and $14,000 to candidates for state-level offices in New York.

The "small house" in question:

which, as you can see is not much more than a shack, seems to indicate that these folks probably aren't capable of coughing up $213,000 in three years for a bunch of Democrats in New York all on their own.

The Clinton campaign issued this statement about Mr. Hsu:

Norman Hsu is a longtime and generous supporter of the Democratic Party and its candidates, including Sen. Clinton," Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for the campaign, said Tuesday.

"During Mr. Hsu's many years of active participation in the political process, there has been no question about his integrity or his commitment to playing by the rules, and we have absolutely no reason to call his contributions into question or to return them."

If The Missus and her campaign don't have any questions about Hsu's integrity they apparently haven't talked to California authorities about it. But then again, integrity is probably relative to people who we know to be intergrity-impaired in the first place.

Late word is that they are giving Hsu's contributions to charity, which is certainly an abrupt about-face considering Wolfy Wolfson's comments in today's LA Times. It indicates that this sudden attack of charity is something they didn't come up with on their own -- they're just doing it because they got caught taking money from a crook.

The obvious question here is, why aren't they just giving the money back? If The Missus had any integrity at all, that is what she would have instructed her campaign to do. After all, what self-respecting charity would take tainted money from a tainted donor?

Additionally one might ask that if this crook has been responsible for $1 million in contributions to The Missus' campaign, why is she only giving back $23,000? Isn't the "bundled" money collected from people who quite obviously don't have the means to give it just as tainted as the money that came directly from Hsu himself? But I forgot: Giving back ALL the money would show a tiny amount of integrity and we all know that Clintons and integrity are like oil and water -- they don't mix.

Another obvious question: How many other crooks are helping fund The Missus in her attempt to become the first ex-first lady elected president?