The case of Norman Hsu, a political fund-raiser accused of large-scale fraud, has spotlighted again the extreme pressures and large sums already involved in the 2008 presidential campaign. At least three factors have combined to make political fund-raising particularly critical and competitive this time around.

First, there are some 20 Republicans and Democrats still out there competing for the nominations and the money, more than in previous races. Some of them clearly don't have a chance, but all of them nonetheless still have their hands out.

Second, the campaign for the two major parties' nominations started earlier this time than in past campaigns. Having to try to stay competitive for more months has upped the candidates' requirements for cash. They want money for television "buys," travel, staff, offices, halls, giveaways and communications.

Thirdly, all of the necessary elements for a successful political campaign inevitably cost more now than they did four years ago, or eight years ago. The fact that both parties' nominations are wide open means more candidates and, thus, more money.

The case of Norman Hsu is an extreme, ghastly example of campaign fund-raising gone berserk. If accusations and cases in Hong Kong, California and New York courts are an indication, Mr. Hsu had definitely larcenous inclinations well before he got into buying influence and cultivating his image through becoming a major campaign fund-raiser for Democratic candidates. He pleaded no contest to fraud charges in California in 1992, 15 years ago.

He is now charged with embezzling as much as $60 million from hundreds of investors, some of which was funneled back into the political campaigns of, among others, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. Ms. Clinton's campaign says it plans to return $850,000 it received from Mr. Hsu to donors. He is accused of having engaged in mail fraud, wire fraud and violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Mr. Hsu is a native of Hong Kong, which underlines another feature of campaign fund-raising by candidates this time. Former New York Mayor Rudolph Guiliani, Sen. Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama, D, Ill. and others have been fishing for money overseas, in London, Hong Kong, Beijing, Japan, France, and elsewhere. Since in principle they are asking for money only from American citizens, they are in principle doing nothing illegal.

At the same time, the almost total absence of verification and quality control of donors that the Hsu case has revealed raises the question of whether the race for campaign cash will not result in streams of foreign money pouring into the American political campaign. Just what we don't need.

Federal monitoring of such matters is by and large late and toothless. This is an area where voter forums need to ask candidates just exactly what controls they apply to those who give them money. How did Sen. Clinton's campaign manage to accept nearly a million dollars from Mr. Hsu without checking into his background, for example?

The whole battle to keep a rein on campaign financing is difficult. But it is not impossible and this is an area definitely susceptible to a sharp scrub-down, now overdue.