SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (9280)4/12/2005 4:56:40 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Oh well, there's always Christopher Shays

Power Line

Robert Novak reports on the extraordinary campaign by the New York Times to aid its Democratic allies by drumming up support for their anti-Tom DeLay campaign. According to Novak, the Times asked former Representative Robert Livingston to write an op-ed piece on whether DeLay should step down. Livingston himself was set to become House Speaker back in 1998, but resigned his seat in the face of allegations of a sexual affair.

Livingston apparently responded to the Times, through an aide, that if he wrote a piece it would be favorable to DeLay. The Times then lost interest. Its representative stated, "we are seeking those who would go on the record or state for the good of the party he [DeLay] should step aside
."

Novak speculates that the intensity of the Democrats' anti-DeLay campaign is working in favor of the Majority Leader. In his view, Republicans who secretly would like to dump DeLay are unwilling to "be the handmaiden of DeLay's Democratic detractors." Meanwhile, the Democrats, and the New York Times, are still looking for a major anti-DeLay Republican to go public.


Posted by Paul

powerlineblog.com

realclearpolitics.com



To: Sully- who wrote (9280)4/12/2005 5:52:34 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Very Strong Editorial from the National Review on Tom Delay
By Tom on Politics

Scared Monkeys

We forget what a different world it is on Capitol Hill.

The Tom DeLay drumbeat goes on. So desperate are the New York Times and Washington Post for DeLay copy that they have begun recycling old stories on their front pages. Michael Isikoff is reduced to reporting hearsay from Jack Abramoff’s lunches.

And Old Unreliable, Rep. Chris Shays, has predictably called for DeLay’s ouster, making him once again a harbinger for the media of “dissension in the GOP ranks.” There’s little sign that the Majority Leader’s agony will end soon.

Conservatives must be willing to make cold-blooded calculations about their leaders, since the cause is bigger than any one man. But DeLay has not committed any crimes or ethics violations that merit his ouster. Nor has his effectiveness been so diminished that the Republican caucus would be better off without him — even if he has sustained damage from the drip-drip of allegations against him.

The chief reason the Democrats and the press are ganging up on DeLay is obvious: He has been an effective leader of the House Republican majority, and they hope to do damage to the GOP caucus and agenda by taking him out, on the model of former Speaker Newt Gingrich.


Click Here to continue nationalreview.com

scaredmonkeys.com



To: Sully- who wrote (9280)4/13/2005 6:11:50 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Both Sides Feed At Congresses Trough

Wizbang
By Kevin Aylward on The Looney Left

Eric Pfeiffer's Beltway Buzz has been highlighting the tendency of members of Congress to employee family members as consultants. Democratic spin notwithstanding, employing family is a decidedly bipartisan (and perfectly legal) affair on the Hill.


The Buzz notes:

<<<

"In 2002, [Senator Barbara] Boxer paid her son $150,000 for professional services, more than any DeLay family member earned in a single year."
>>>

When it comes to cronyism in Congress, most everyone lives in a glass house.

Other Gravy Trains:

Howard Dean

nationalreview.com

Bernie Saunders

nationalreview.com

wizbangblog.com

nationalreview.com

nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (9280)4/14/2005 12:34:57 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
AFTER BASHING TOM DELAY, PRESS ADMITS MANY ELECTED
OFFICIALS HIRE THEIR OWN FAMILY MEMBERS:

LauraIngraham.com

The American left feels as if it has the GOP by the throat and is not letting go. Democrat-leaning groups like Moveon.org and others have hammered Tom "The Hammer" Delay on numerous issues, including on his hiring of his wife and daughter to run his PAC operation. They were paid $500,000 over a number of years. Well, it turns out the practice is not uncommon in Washington and not either illegal or unethical by itself.

For the AP story, click here.
story.news.yahoo.com

lauraingraham.com



To: Sully- who wrote (9280)4/14/2005 12:39:55 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Lawmakers Hire Spouses, Children Regularly

By LARRY MARGASAK and SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON - Dozens of lawmakers have hired their spouses and children to work for their campaigns and political groups, paying them with contributions they've collected from special interests and other donors.

A few family members earn enough to make a living. Many come cheap. They manage the books, give speeches, raise money and run the daily operations, according to an Associated Press review of records.

Such hirings are legal, but the practice became an issue this month when it was reported that the wife and daughter of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay had been paid more than $500,000 since 2001. They worked for DeLay's political action and campaign committees.

Congressional bosses express no regrets about their family arrangements.

"My wife raised $250,000 more than I ever raised with all the expensive consultants," Rep. Ron Lewis, R-Ky., told the AP.

Lewis hired his wife, Kayi, to be his campaign director and campaign manager about a year ago, and he pays her $50,000 a year. He estimated the hiring saved him more than $40,000 a year in salary and consulting fees.

Mary Hayworth, wife of Republican Rep. J.D. Hayworth (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona, earns $20,000 a year as the director and only employee of his political action committee.

"The minimal salary she's paid is far less than if you hired somebody in from outside," spokesman Larry VanHoose said.

AP's review identified roughly four-dozen lawmakers who hired family members for their campaign or political groups, from Connecticut Sen. and former presidential candidate Joe Lieberman to a House member from Utah who paid three of his seven children for campaign work.


"I think anytime someone does it they have to be ready and willing to explain what the relative does and justify the salary," said Larry Noble, head of the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based campaign finance watchdog group.

"I think when you start putting a whole family on the payroll and start putting kids on the payroll, the scrutiny may increase," Noble added. "It's a form of self-dealing and anytime you're involved with self-dealing, questions are going to be raised."

A smaller number of lawmakers hire relatives for their congressional staffs. The wife of Rep. Jerry Lewis, a 14-term lawmaker from California, serves as his chief of staff at a salary of nearly $111,000. Before they were married, Arlene Willis was her husband's top aide when he came to Washington in 1979.

Lieberman's presidential campaign paid the senator's wife, Hadassah, at least $22,000, records show. His son Matthew received about $34,000 and his daughter Rebecca about $36,000.

Sherry Brown, who was the presidential campaign's chief of staff, said the Lieberman children were paid on par with other staff members doing fund-raising work. Payments to Hadassah Lieberman were for reimbursement of expenses, Brown said.

Lieberman wasn't the only one in the presidential race with a relative on the campaign payroll. Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter Mary was paid about $81,000 by the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign.

Laurie Stupak, wife of Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., said she has earned about $36,000 annually during the past two years as the finance director for her husband's campaign.

She said she was paid slightly more — nearly $3,900 a month — for part of last year because she served as both campaign manager and finance director. She also received an election bonus of $2,500 last November.

The money was earned by working more than 40 hours a week and traveling long hours on weekends in a sprawling district, she said.

California Republican Rep. Elton Gallegly's wife, Janice, has run his campaigns since he was a mayor, continuing in that role since he first ran successfully for Congress in 1986.

She did the work for free until last year, when she began taking payment of about $2,600 a month after deciding she'd like more financial independence, Gallegly said in an interview.

"I think that it's important that she have a little more independence and not feel like she has to depend on me if she needs a couple hundred dollars or if she wants to buy something," he said.

Other spouses got raises, too.

For instance, Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark's wife, Deborah, received a monthly increase from $650 to $2,400 as a campaign consultant three years ago — around the time the couple had twins.

At the time, Stark, D-Calif., said his wife filled the roles of campaign manager, office manager and bookkeeper. "My position is, she's a bargain," he said.

Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, had three college age children working on his campaign last year. They organized events, distributed literature and spoke to state convention delegates. Emily was paid $5,425, Jane earned $9,508 and Laura — still employed by the campaign — received $17,766.

"It surprised me they didn't make more," Cannon chief of staff Joe Hunter said.

Freshman Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, employs his wife, Kathy, as his campaign manager, the campaign's sole worker at present. Campaign records show she was paid $21,791 over four months, including a $7,500 bonus last November.

"Kathy has her MBA and had been a fulltime teacher for a number of years until last year when she gave up teaching to work fulltime on our campaign," Gohmert said. He called her "the most important part of my campaign team."

Freshman Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., said he employed his retired cousin Ken as a co-campaign manager last year. Ken Costa, an accountant by training who was retired from the state teachers retirement system, made about $45,000 helping out with accounting and other duties.

"He didn't want to take the money. He was enjoying it," Rep. Costa said. But it was only fair to pay him, Costa said.

Some candidates pay themselves using campaign money.

Starting with the last election, hopefuls who quit their jobs to run for office could make up the lost wages using campaign funds, a move federal election officials said would help political newcomers of poor or moderate means.
___

Associated Press Writers Erica Werner, Hillary Roxe, Lolita Baldor, Suzanne Gamboa and Ken Thomas contributed to this report.

story.news.yahoo.com



To: Sully- who wrote (9280)4/14/2005 2:04:58 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
DeLay says foes seek to shut ethics panel

By Charles Hurtand Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay accused Democrats of shutting down the chamber's ethics committee to prevent him from being exonerated of the ethics accusations against him.


"The only way I can be cleared is through the ethics committee, so they don't want one," Mr. DeLay said yesterday in an interview with editors and reporters of The Washington Times in his office at the Capitol. He also offered a second reason why Democrats want the ethics committee to be hobbled.

"One of their best friends, [Rep.] Jim McDermott, is being investigated, and they don't want him to be kicked out of Congress," Mr. DeLay said. "I mean, this guy has been found guilty — guilty by a court of law — and they don't want an ethics committee."

Mr. McDermott was the top Democrat on the ethics committee in 1997 when he leaked to the New York Times an illegally recorded tape of a Republican congressman's cell-phone conversation.

Mr. DeLay was admonished by the House ethics committee last year for his fundraising tactics and use of government authority.

He said he has offered to provide the ethics committee complete documents related to recent accusations against him, but he suggested that the ranking Democrat on the committee — Rep. Alan B. Mollohan of West Virginia — was ignoring his offer.


The latest accusations involve Mr. DeLay's relationship with former casino lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is under federal investigation for payments he received from various American Indian casinos. Mr. Delay, Texas Republican, said he is innocent of any charges against him.

Questions about Mr. Delay also have been raised regarding an investigation into a Texas political action committee that has ensnared some of the congressman's associates.

"I know I have been watched and investigated probably more than even Bill Clinton," he said. "They can't find anything, so they're going back to my childhood, going to my family, going to things that happened eight years ago. There's nothing there."

Mr. DeLay also dismissed concerns that Republican support for him has softened this week, suggested by the call from Rep. Christopher Shays, Connecticut Republican, to step down and a statement by Sen. Rick Santorum, a high-level Pennsylvania Republican, that Mr. DeLay "should come forward" about his actions.

"Listen, if I didn't have any support, I'd have been gone a long time ago," he said. "You need to talk to the members, but my sense is they understand what this is. They're looking at the charges and they're just shaking their heads."

As for Mr. Santorum's comments, Mr. DeLay said the senator did the right thing.

"There is nothing wrong with what he said," he said. "He did not attack me, nor did he remove himself from me."

Asked if he had ever crossed the line of ethical behavior, Mr. DeLay said: " 'Ever' is a very strong word. Let me start out by saying, you can never find anything that I have done for personal gain. Period."

Mr. DeLay also lashed out at newspapers and magazines that have published what he said were "old news" stories about his foreign travel, the structure of his political action committee and his relationships to lobbyists. He criticized the New York Times in particular, whose op-ed page actively sought a major Republican to write a piece critical of Mr. DeLay.

"That's activist journalism," Mr. DeLay said. "Somebody ought to look at the organizations and ask the New York Times, The Washington Post, the L.A. Times, Time, Newsweek, AP, why they're spending all these resources they are. ... Are they collaborating with all these organizations that are funded by George Soros?"


For weeks, Democrats have hammered Mr. DeLay, arguing that he has caused a shutdown of the ethics committee by trying to unilaterally change the committee's rules.

Mr. DeLay said yesterday he just wants to fix a "quirk" in the committee that allows the accused member to be "held in limbo" even if the committee hasn't voted him or her guilty. He said he also wants to allow members to be warned if they are a target of investigation and be allowed to bring along their own lawyer instead of the one appointed by the committee.

The leader said the charges against him have been orchestrated by Democrats in search of an agenda and outside interest groups that are heavily bankrolled by famous liberals such as Mr. Soros, a billionaire investor who spent millions trying to get President Bush defeated last year.

Asked if the attacks on him are undermining his agenda, Mr. DeLay said the Democrats are "solidifying and unifying the Republican conference."

"This is the Democrats' agenda," he said. "They don't have an agenda."

Regarding the admonishments by the ethics committee last year, Mr. DeLay maintained that he hadn't done anything wrong.

Mr. DeLay was "admonished" by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for attending a fundraiser held by energy companies in June 2002 just as the House took up action on a major energy bill. The committee also admonished him for ordering a staffer to call the Federal Aviation Administration to track the location of a plane carrying Democratic state legislators fleeing Texas during a redistricting dispute in which Mr. DeLay was closely involved.


"I accept their guidance," he said. "I don't accept their admonishment."

There "was nothing wrong with that fundraiser, any different than fundraisers all over this country," he said. "There is nothing wrong in having fundraisers or going on trips or meeting with the lobbyists or citizens of any ilk. They have a right to petition the government."

Mr. DeLay called the committee's fundraising admonishment of himself and Rep. Candice S. Miller, Michigan Republican, unconstitutional because "we didn't know we were the subject of the investigation, and ... we had no right to plead our case. They did not ask us, they just admonished us and turned out the stuff to the public."

He added: "I don't accept the way it was done, because I had no due process, and it was put out into the public. Now my admonishments are treated as if I was convicted of a felony in the press."

Asked if he'd altered the way he raises money since his admonishment, Mr. DeLay said, "Perception now is a new standard for me. ... That perception is incredibly important, and so we discuss it and we deal with it that way."

And there was nothing wrong, he said, with calling the FAA "for information I could get on the Internet."

"I was called by a constituent, as I see it — the speaker of the House of the Texas legislature — wanting me to find an airplane, and gave me the tail number," he said. "I asked a staffer to do it, called it up, there's nothing wrong with that. And there's nothing unethical about that. My job is to interface with the federal government."

Mr. DeLay named just one thing he would have done differently: "What I should have done is turned around to my Internet and looked it up."


Transcript:
Interview
washingtontimes.com

washtimes.com



To: Sully- who wrote (9280)4/14/2005 11:22:45 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Family Ties

It’s all in the family in D.C., for Dems, too.

NRO
By Eric Pfeiffer
April 14, 2005, 9:33 a.m.

By now, you’ve probably heard that Tom DeLay’s wife and daughter have been on his campaign reelection payroll for several years. What you may not have heard is that this is common practice in Congress, practiced by both parties, and perfectly legal.

When the New York Times splashed its front-page with a story chronicling the campaign employment history of DeLay’s family it alluded to other members with similar staffing, but left out any significant names or numbers. Through selective word exclusion the Times left the strong impression that this practice is somehow illegal or at least unethical.

While it’s true that over the past five years DeLay’s wife and daughter received approximately $500,000 in fees for their campaign labor contributions, the number was portrayed in a manner as to obscure the reality. Split between the two over the stated time period, DeLay’s wife and daughter received roughly $4,000 per month, or $50,000 per year, for their professional services, including management of his reelection campaign. In the world of political consulting that number is akin to a minimum wage. If anything, it shows that when it comes to paying their own families, most members of Congress are nothing if not frugal.

If paying families for campaign work is illegal, than prominent Democrats including Howard Dean, Barbara Boxer, Joe Lieberman, Jon Corzine, and Jesse Jackson Jr. should all be doing a Joe Wilson inspired “frog-march” from the halls of Congress
.

DNC Chair Howard Dean’s younger brother runs the website Democracy for America (DFA), which was created by Dean last year to help manage his presidential campaign. Dean’s younger brother Jim also worked for DFA in its earlier incarnation, Dean for America, during the 2004 presidential primaries. However, in a letter to supporters this week, DFA attacked Tom DeLay for having family members on his payroll
.

In 2003, Barbara Boxer directed $15,000 from her political-action committee, “PAC For a Change,” to a consulting firm run by her son. The year before, she funneled $115,000 to the same firm.

Last year, Joe Lieberman paid his son Matthew $34,000 and daughter Rebecca $36,000 to work on his presidential campaign.

Also last year, Jon Corzine paid his daughter about $15,000 to work on his upcoming 2006 reelection campaign.

In fact, in 2001 it was Jesse Jackson Jr. who sought clarification from the Federal Election Commission to ensure Jackson was in good legal graces before hiring his wife to provide fundraising and organizational support to his campaign.

Other Democrats with family members on the payroll include Pete Stark, Bart Stupak, Jim Costa, Lincoln Davis, and Tim Bishop, amongst others.

Vermont congressman Bernie Sanders has paid his wife and daughter more than $150,000 in campaign consulting fees in the past several years.

Democrat Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is well known for supporting his family with high-paid congressional pork projects. Firms associated with Reid’s son have taken in millions from bills authored and sponsored by Reid.

Many members of Congress from both parties have relatives who earn hundreds of thousands of dollars as lobbyists, even though most had zero prior experience or expertise in the field before cashing in on their relative’s names and connections.

All of this is not to say "everybody does it," so get off DeLay's back. What it says is that so many members of Congress make use of their families in a professional capacity because it is perfectly legal and ethical, approved by both House rules and the FEC
. The relevant binding rule concerning the employment of family members on election campaigns is that they must be paid for actual work, not simply for their relation to the candidate. In the examples cited above, all members, from both parties, have met with the regulation guidelines. Their family members are providing valuable work and probably being underpaid for their efforts.

So, why did the New York Times choose to single out DeLay in their coverage? As DeLay spokesman Dan Allen told NRO, “The fact that the New York Times singles out Tom DeLay on the front page shows how slanted they are.” And the Times is not alone. This week, the San Francisco Chronicle ran a list of congressional members who employ their relatives. The list naturally led with DeLay. It also excluded their home-state senator Barbara Boxer, who has risen in prominence this year to become one of the leading liberal voices of protest against the Bush administration
.

Conservatives know it would be unrealistic to expect fair coverage from the media when it comes to matters such as this. Imagined scandals provide the instant gratification that fair and dispassionate reporting denies. And while it’s true that Tom DeLay is one of the most powerful Republican lawmakers, the New York Times and other leading media outlets, either through lazy reporting or by conscious decision, chose to ignore the similar and legal practices of leading Democrats. His critics, meanwhile, should save the outrage for actual scandals.


— Eric Pfeiffer writes the daily "Beltway Buzz" column on NRO.

nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (9280)4/15/2005 5:20:27 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
THE NOTE

NEWS SUMMARY

By MARK HALPERIN, LISA TODOROVICH, MARC AMBINDER, and SARAH BAKER
WASHINGTON, April 14

Indisputable truths:

1. There is an iron triangle of liberal interest groups, Democratic congressional staffers, and media jackals (both investigatively minded and liberally oriented) who have never identified with or liked Tom DeLay (and what he stands for) and are enjoying every minute of their conspiring to bring him down.

2. Almost every accusation swirling around DeLay involves actions by him that have exact analogues among other members of Congress of both parties (See, for example, today's front-page Los Angeles Times page-turner about MOCs employing relatives to do campaign work.).

3. If having close ties to self-interested and restaurant-owning lobbyists disqualified someone from a leadership position on Capitol Hill, it would be a body of all Indians and no chiefs.
(Note Note: we refuse to indulge in the little boy game of being super excited about the return of the National Pastime to the Nation's Capital, but, yes, that "Indians" thing was for y'all and not meant to offend Native Americans. It was also an Abramoff reference.)

4. And/but without a functioning House ethics committee, there is no natural forum in which Leader DeLay can clear up the legit unanswered questions about some of his conduct. And/but his unwillingness to do it in the feeding frenzy of a packed press conference seems reasonable. May we suggest an interview with The Note, Dan Allen?


5. The Chicago Tribune's Jill Zuckman has an extraordinarily Sweet hold on the Office of the Speaker of the House. Check out her scooplet below with the thinking of a senior Hastert aide who is suggesting more DeLay DeSclosure.

6. Even people close to the White House (so close, in some cases, that they are actually INSIDE it) don't seem quite sure what the POTUS and DCoS/SA currently think about whether DeLay will survive or whether DeLay should survive. Trying to read Scott McClellan like he is a basket of tea leaves is — let's face it — silly as all get out.

7. DeLay's DeFenders will remain reasonably confident that their guy will survive, so long as the story stays largely inside the Beltway. The Richmond Times Dispatch ed board DeFection is not a good sign for them; nor was the USA Today cover story. And regularly making the late-night comedians' monologues ain't great either.

8. This is the Democrats favorite part of DeLay's interview with the Washington Times family:

Q. Have you ever crossed the line of ethical behavior in terms of dealing with lobbyists, your use of government authority or with fundraising?

Mr. DeLay: Ever is a very strong word.

9. The part the Democrats left out of DeLay's answer as he continued:

Let me start out by saying, you can never find anything that I have done for personal gain. Period. What I'm doing is what I believe in, I'm doing it the way I believe in it. Yes, I'm aggressive. I'm passionate about what I believe in, and I'm passionate about winning and accomplishing our agenda. I know since 1995 that everything that we have done has been checked by lawyers, double-checked by lawyers, triple-checked by lawyers, because I know I have been watched and investigated probably more than even Bill Clinton. They can't find anything, so they're going back to my childhood, going to my family, going to things that happened eight years ago. There's nothing there. And they can keep looking. There's nothing there. I have tried to act ethically, I have tried to act honestly. I have tried to keep my reputation — to fight for my reputation — while it's been besmirched, and I have tried to do it in a way that brings honor to the House.


10. We would love to have been a fly on the wall for two recent conversations: (a) when Team DeLay discussed whether he would apologize for his injudicious judicial remarks (and using what language); and (b) when the New York Times decided not to lead with the apology in today's DeLay story.

There are no events that will move the DeLay story forward one way or the other today, particularly since, as Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin told an audience in the LBJ room of the Capitol this morning, Hill business will grind to a halt by late afternoon, as members go see the Nationals play.

abcnews.go.com



To: Sully- who wrote (9280)4/15/2005 7:35:37 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Hat tip to moenmac

When asked.........Nancy Pelosi continues to deflect the issue of her serious violation of ethics. Of course the only media reporting this violation are conservative media. Where is the so called MSM? Why haven't they covered this story? And why have they focused their attack on Tom Delay when there are some real stories out there worth scrutiny? Is it because Tom Delay is a Christian? Is it because Tom Delay is a very effective fund raiser? Is it because they don't like Tom Delay?

Pelosi Fined for Illegal Contributions

April 13, 2005

rushlimbaugh.com

Nancy Pelosi's Ethics Questioned

newsmax.com

Message 21229034



To: Sully- who wrote (9280)4/15/2005 7:38:54 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Hat tip to moenmac

You think this is a big story wait until you see what comes out in the next few weeks regarding Harry Reid and what he did for his four lawyer sons. And the little issue of an Indian casino in the state of Calif and Nancy Pelosi and her son's role.

Sanders campaign paid family members

April 14, 2005
By David Gram Associated Press

MONTPELIER — Rep. Bernard Sanders' wife Jane was paid about $30,000 from 2002 to 2004 for work on his campaigns, while his stepdaughter Carina Driscoll got about $65,000 over a five-year period ending last year, a Sanders aide said Wednesday.

Jeff Weaver, chief of staff to the Vermont independent, provided those totals amid reports Tuesday that about four dozen members of Congress had hired family members to work on their campaigns or with political action committees.

The issue arose as questions were raised about the ethics of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whose wife and daughter had been paid more than $500,000 since 2001 for work on his political action and campaign committees.

Such payments are not illegal, but some watchdog groups say they raise questions about nepotism. "It's a form of self-dealing and anytime you're involved with self-dealing, questions are going to be raised," said Larry Noble, head of the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based campaign finance watchdog group.

Weaver argued that both Jane O'Meara Sanders and her daughter Carina were well qualified for the work they did. "Both Jane and Carina are widely respected for their work in politics and public service in Vermont," he said.

Mrs. Sanders worked as a media buyer — the person who places campaign ads on television and radio in 2002 and 2004 and did some other consulting for the campaign in 2002.

Media buyers typically earn a commission of about 15 percent of the cost of placing an ad. In 2004, Jane Sanders earned about $11,000 for about $70,000 in media buys, Weaver said. In 2002, Sanders took commissions of about $14,500 for media buys of about $98,000, Weaver said. She earned an additional $4,800 for other consulting to the campaign.

Driscoll worked in several capacities for Sanders' campaigns from 2000 through 2004, earning a total of about $65,000. She maintained mailing lists, prepared Federal Election Commission reports and performed other tasks. Her highest income for any of those years was about $20,400 in 2003, Weaver said.

Jane O'Meara Sanders worked in her husband's congressional office for about six years during the 1990s, four of them as chief of staff. She did not take a salary for that work. Chiefs of staff typically earn between $120,000 and $150,000 a year.

When the Bennington Banner and Brattleboro Reformer carried a story about the payments on Wednesday, Vermont Republican Party Chairman James Barnett said he smelled hypocrisy.

"I think Bernie Sanders needs to be held to the same standard that the left is holding Congressman DeLay to," he said. "If it's wrong when Congressman DeLay does it then it's wrong when Congressman Sanders does it."

Barnett said he could not identify any instances of Sanders criticizing DeLay over his campaign hiring family members. "I'm not sure if he has or not," Barnett said.

DeLay's ethics have been questioned more intensely on several other fronts.

His troubles began last fall, when three political fund-raisers with ties to him were indicted in his home state of Texas. Then the House ethics committee admonished him, not once but three times. Since then, questions have been raised about whether he knew about the dubious sources of money behind trips he took to Britain and South Korea.

timesargus.com



To: Sully- who wrote (9280)4/15/2005 7:55:54 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
DeLay: Innuendo and ideology vs. hard evidence

townhall.com
David Limbaugh
April 15, 2005

Democrats can choose their own path, but Republicans better not be too anxious to throw House Republican Leader Tom DeLay under the bus.

I am not saying DeLay should be exempt from scrutiny, House rules or the law. But he is certainly entitled to a presumption of innocence, which should remain until a credible case for his misconduct has been proven.

But that's not how certain Democratic leaders have things sized up. Congressman Charles Rangel said, essentially, that DeLay has the burden of demonstrating he did nothing wrong. Now, this is certainly an interesting standard to be invoked by a man who considers himself a champion of civil rights.

Some argue that DeLay should step down as Leader because allegations of unethical behavior against someone in such an important position set a bad example and poison the governmental waters.

I think DeLay's powerful position happens to cut the other way. That is, I think he has been so important to advancing the conservative agenda that he ought not bow out unless he has actually done something wrong. If the opposition party's miracle antidote for an effective majority agenda is to lodge allegations against a majority party's leader, the majority party should never hope to accomplish much of anything.

It is important that we separate the issue of DeLay's conduct from the conduct, motivations and hypocrisy of his accusers. If he has done something that warrants his expulsion, he should resign -- regardless of whether the whole lot of his detractors are guilty as sin.

But separating the issues does not mean focusing on one (the allegations against DeLay) and ignoring the other. We do need to inquire into the conduct, motivations and hypocrisy of his accusers, especially when they might bear on the credibility of those accusers.

I believe the reason politicians like Charles Rangel, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are willing to condemn DeLay on the strength of the charges alone, is that their mindset is that he is inherently guilty by virtue of his ideology.

In their view, conservatives -- especially ones who believe in their principles with every fiber of their being and, worse, are effective at advancing the right-wing policy agenda -- are already evil. To discover ethical or legal infractions by such people is merely confirmation of what is already true in nature -- conservatives are guilty: of religious zealotry, favoring the rich, exploiting the poor, racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia. (And DeLay is even worse than most evil conservatives, because he is arrogant, meaning he is not intimidated by their liberal "Highnesses.")

So while it would be unthinkable for a reasonable person to suggest that someone -- even a politician -- ought to have to prove his innocence, it is perfectly reasonable to demand that of one as presumptively sinister as Tom DeLay. (If you think I'm exaggerating, all you have to do is recall the venom constantly directed against DeLay, way before he was ever accused of infractions of any kind, other than endorsing an ideological agenda liberals find repugnant.)

DeLay is just another in a long line of victims whose major crime is unabashed conservatism. If the Left can demonize someone as aboveboard as I personally know John Ashcroft to be, and if they can with a straight face paint Kenneth Starr as a sex-obsessed ne'er do well, they can ruin anyone -- mostly with impunity.

At this point -- as others have cogently written -- it doesn't appear that Mr. DeLay has done anything worthy of being ousted as House Leader. He can hardly be crucified for paying family members from campaign funds for legitimate work they performed when House rules expressly authorize the practice -- because it is permitted by congressional regulations. He can hardly be cashiered for a trip to Moscow paid for by the National Center for Public Policy Research, not Russian companies. He can hardly be faulted for a trip to South Korea funded by an organization that had only very recently registered as a foreign agent, unbeknownst to DeLay. And he can't be removed because a liberal, politically charged prosecutor indicted three of his former associates, especially when DeLay himself hasn't been implicated in the case.

But no matter. Democrats will just keep throwing charges against the wall until something sticks, because this is ultimately about power and thwarting the conservative agenda.

If it turns out that DeLay has engaged in misconduct that warrants his stepping down, then he should graciously do so, regardless of the hypocrisy and double standards effervescing from the other side. Otherwise, he should remain in his position and continue to fight aggressively for the things he believes in -- the very things motivating the opposition to destroy him.

In the meantime Republicans better stand by Mr. DeLay. Who knows? Any one of them could be next.


David Limbaugh is a syndicated columnist who blogs at DavidLimbaugh.com

©2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

townhall.com



To: Sully- who wrote (9280)4/15/2005 11:04:46 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Moonbats of a Feather

Little Green Footballs

Congressman Jim McDermott (Moonbat-Seattle), who disgracefully aligned himself with Saddam Hussein and against the US in the run-up to the Iraq War, and was recently given a public official of the year award by radical Islamic front group CAIR, now has his own Daily Kos diary.

UPDATE at 4/15/05 11:09:10 am:

Since Congressman McDermott is using Daily Kos to opine on “ethics,” it’s very interesting to note this report at Beltway Buzz
.
(Hat tip: Axiom.)

<<<

DeLay notes that liberal House member Jim McDermott is also under investigation and would likely be removed from office if the Ethics committee convened. McDermott was found guilty of leaking illegally taped phone conversations to the New York Times of a Republican’s cell-phone conversations. DeLay said, “One of their best friends, [Rep.] Jim McDermott, is being investigated, and they don’t want him to be kicked out of Congress I mean, this guy has been found guilty — guilty by a court of law — and they don’t want an ethics committee.”


nationalreview.com
>>>

littlegreenfootballs.com

littlegreenfootballs.com

littlegreenfootballs.com

dailykos.com



To: Sully- who wrote (9280)4/18/2005 4:20:09 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Tom DeLay's Attorney: The Rules Were Followed

Monday, April 18, 2005; Page A16

The April 6 front-page article "A 3rd DeLay Trip Under Scrutiny" discussed a trip to Moscow that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) took nearly eight years ago, when he was the majority whip. The April 7 news article "As DeLay Faces Ethics Questions, GOP Circles Its Wagons" said that "DeLay was hit by a fresh wave of ethical questions yesterday," apparently in reference to The Post's own story.

Mr. DeLay, along with his wife, Christine, and staff members, traveled to Moscow from Aug. 5 to 11, 1997, on a trip that the National Center for Public Policy Research has said it funded. House ethics rules allow entities such as the center to sponsor fact-finding trips, and Mr. DeLay complied with all disclosure requirements. We are unaware of any requirement that a member obtain permission from the executive branch before such a trip.

During the Moscow visit, Mr. DeLay met with religious leaders and government officials. He also toured a Russian space center because his congressional district includes NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston.

Another focus of his trip was to investigate religious persecution in Russia. When the Duma passed legislation that encouraged religious dis- crimination and violated several international agreements on human rights just weeks after his trip, Mr. DeLay co-sponsored a House resolution condemning the law and discouraging additional U.S. aid to Russia.

The article insinuated that the majority leader's vote for legislation supporting the International Monetary Fund and the Overseas Private Investment Corp. was in exchange for his travel to Moscow. That is unfounded. Historically, these programs generally have received strong bipartisan support from the Houston area's congressional delegation
.

BOBBY R. BURCHFIELD

Washington

The writer is outside counsel to the House majority leader.

washingtonpost.com



To: Sully- who wrote (9280)4/19/2005 1:22:30 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Where's the beef?

Power Line

David Limbaugh writes of Tom DeLay:

<<<

At this point -- as others have cogently written -- it doesn't seem Mr. DeLay has done anything worthy of ouster as House Leader. He can hardly be crucified for paying family members from campaign funds for legitimate work they did when House rules expressly authorize the practice --it is permitted by congressional regulations. He can hardly be cashiered for a trip to Moscow paid for by the National Center for Public Policy Research, not Russian companies. He can hardly be faulted for a trip to South Korea funded by an organization only very recently registered as a foreign agent, unbeknownst to him. And he can't be removed because a liberal, politically charged prosecutor indicted three of his former associates, especially when Mr. DeLay himself hasn't been implicated in the case.


washtimes.com
>>>

I think Limbaugh is right about this. Given the weakness of the Democratic charges against DeLay, it's safe to assume that his real offense is his effectiveness in advancing his party's agenda and his role in the Texas redistricting that cost several senior Democrats their office. These, or course, are reasons why Republicans, including President Bush, should strongly support DeLay on the current record.

UPDATE: Jeffrey Bell in the Weekly Standard makes the same point more forcefully and precisely than I did:

<<<

The truth is that Tom DeLay is a special target because he is the first legislative power broker to be an authentic Red State conservative. . . . DeLay is the most important of a small but growing group of conservative leaders who are willing and able to operate without permission or praise from Blue State media. . . . Hastert, DeLay, and their allies have maintained unbroken operational control of the House, never losing a significant floor vote in the four-plus years since Bush became president. . . . If DeLay goes down because of overseas trips and/or fundraising practices that have never caused the slightest political problem for anyone else, the lesson to other Red State leaders will be clear. The four-year House winning streak, so widely taken for granted among conservatives, will not long survive DeLay. That is why Democrats and Blue State media (despite some half-hearted efforts to depict DeLay as a GOP albatross) so fervently desire his career to end as soon as possible.


weeklystandard.com
>>>

powerlineblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (9280)4/20/2005 7:03:02 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
We're sure the critics of DeLay's trips will be equally
outraged by Jones' conduct. NOT.

SHE'S LIVIN' LA VIDA LOCA.... AT A LOBBYIST'S EXPENSE

By Michelle Malkin
April 20, 2005 06:45 AM

The Washington Times reports:

<<<

Stephanie Tubbs Jones, an Ohio Democrat who sits on the House ethics committee, took a 2001 trip to Puerto Rico that was paid for by a registered lobbyist firm — an apparent violation of the chamber's ethics rules — according to documents that she filed with the House clerk.


A spokeswoman for Mrs. Jones disputed those records yesterday, saying "human error" led a staffer to list the name of D.C. lobbyist firm Smith, Dawson & Andrews as having paid the $3,366 tab for Mrs. Jones and her husband to travel to the Puerto Rican island of Vieques in the Caribbean.

"Smith Dawson was put on the form in error," Jones spokeswoman Nicole Williams said. "The invitation came from Todo Puerto Rico con Vieques. They hired Smith Dawson to handle logistics for the trip."

Miss Williams declined to provide The Washington Times with any evidence to support her assertion and refused to have either the lobbying firm or the group she says actually paid for the trip provide any documentation to prove her claim
.

In addition to the travel disclosure form, which was filed two weeks after Mrs. Jones' return and bears her signature, the lobbyists also were listed as the trip's sponsor in the financial disclosure forms she signed and filed at the end of the year.


In a brief telephone interview late yesterday, James P. Smith, a managing partner with Smith, Dawson & Andrews, denied that his firm paid for Mrs. Jones' travel. He offered to place his hand on the Bible.

The irregularities mirror some of the ethics questions dogging House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Texas Republican. Various investigations into casino lobbyist Jack Abramoff revealed that at least one of Mr. DeLay's trips was paid for by Mr. Abramoff rather than the private entity listed by Mr. DeLay. Mr. DeLay says he was unaware of Mr. Abramoff's connection.
>>>

We're sure the critics of DeLay's trips will be equally outraged by Jones' conduct. NOT.


michellemalkin.com

washingtontimes.com