Sunday, April 17, 2005
Democrat Party Strategy: Here is a quick recap of the strategy of the national Democratic Party- John Tower, Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Newt Gingrich, Judge Prior, Tom Delay, and a host of other judges and congressional leaders. That's it. That's their plan and their vision.
When you lack any ideas and any vision for the future, you are reduced to attacking and destroying your opponents. That's all they got. Character assassination- the Democratic plan and vision for the future. That'll really improve the country....
When you lack any ideas and any vision for the future, you are reduced to attacking and destroying your opponents. That's all they got. Character assassination- the Democratic plan and vision for the future. That'll really improve the country....
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
POLITICAL ALERT: Rep. Bernard Sanders Corruption Revealed! Shock of all shocks- Representative Bernard Sanders paid family members for political work! Is this corruption at it's worst or what?!?!?
Source Link:
Bennington Banner, April 13, 2005
Sanders paid wife, stepdaughter for campaign efforts
By EVAN LEHMANN,
MediaNews Group Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- Rep. Bernard Sanders used campaign donations to pay his wife and stepdaughter more than $150,000 for campaign-related work since 2000, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission.
Jane O'Meara Sanders, his wife, received $91,020 between 2002 and 2004 for "consultation" and for negotiating the purchase of television and radio time-slots for Sanders' advertisements, according to records and interviews.
Approximately $61,000 of that was "pass through" money that was used to pay media outlets for advertising time, Jane O'Meara Sanders said in an interview. The rest, about $30,000, she kept as payment for her services, she said.
Carina Driscoll, daughter to Jane O'Meara Sanders and stepdaughter to the lawmaker, earned $65,002 in "wages" between 2000 and 2004, campaign records show.
Driscoll, a former state legislator, served as Rep. Sanders' campaign manager in 2000, his fund-raiser and office manager in 2003 and his database manager in 2004, according to Jeff Weaver, Sanders' chief of staff.
"Both of them are regarded as people who are knowledgable about Vermont politics," Weaver said Tuesday. "They earned every penny they got."
It seems Sanders is the only member of Vermont's congressional delegation to employ family members. "Sen. Jeffords has not hired any members of his family on his current or past campaigns," said Erik Smulson, his communications director. A spokesman for Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy said the same thing.
No laws prohibit candidates from paying family members for campaign work. But the appearance that lawmakers use their position to benefit people close to them concerns watchdog groups.
"Anytime you pay a family member there's going to be questions raised," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan research group in Washington.
The real question, he says, is whether family members conducted work commesurate to their pay. If they did, "then it's more difficult to say (lawmakers) are funneling money back to the family."
Mary Bloyer, a spokeswoman for Common Cause, a nonprofit advocacy group, said: "The danger here is that you want members of Congress who are in Washington to serve their constituents and not enrich their families. Something like this makes people look twice and makes them wonder what's going on here."
Jane O'Meara Sanders said she worked for her husband for years with no pay, and started charging him only after opening a consulting company, Progressive Media Strategies, which was changed to Leadership Strategies.
"It became clear I could not offer professional services to other candidates and charge them if I worked for Bernie for free," she said.
Still, Jane O'Meara Sanders said her fees are comparatively low, especially for her husband.
"I think the fact that other candidates have chosen to hire me and pay more than what Bernie pays me says that my services are pretty good," she said.
The ethics of lawmakers paying their families jumped into the spotlight on Capitol Hill last week, following reports that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas had paid his wife and daughter more than $500,000 for campaign-related work.
Jim Barrett, chairman of the Vermont Republican Party, used Sanders' family payments to highlight what he said is Democratic "hypocrisy" for fiercely attacking DeLay. "It's the standard hypocrisy from the left," Barrett said. "When a Republican does it, it's inappropriate and front page news. But now it turns out, our own Bernie Sanders has been doing it for a long time."
He added: "If it's corruption when Tom DeLay does it, then it's corruption when Bernie Sanders does it."
Jon Copans, executive director of the state Democratic Party, declined to comment.
But Democratic groups are targeting DeLay for defeat in his 2006 election.
Vermont-based Democracy for America, started by former Gov. Howard Dean, disseminated a mass e-mail Tuesday asking supporters for witty slogans it can paste on billboards in DeLay's Texas district. The billboards, the e-mail says, will let voters there know "it's time for him to go."
Weaver, Sanders' chief of staff, said it was unfair to compare the Vermont Independent with DeLay, who paid his family much more in a shorter period of time.
"For the work they did, they got exactly what anyone else would have been paid," he said of Jane O'Meara Sanders and Driscoll. "Politics is like anything else - you always try to hire the best person."
Even Barrett admitted that the $65,000 earned by Driscoll over four years "almost sounds low."
But he said, "We don't know what she was doing for work. Was she a full-time operative? Were these just consulting fees? Who knows?"
Source Link:
Bennington Banner, April 13, 2005
Sanders paid wife, stepdaughter for campaign efforts
By EVAN LEHMANN,
MediaNews Group Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- Rep. Bernard Sanders used campaign donations to pay his wife and stepdaughter more than $150,000 for campaign-related work since 2000, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission.
Jane O'Meara Sanders, his wife, received $91,020 between 2002 and 2004 for "consultation" and for negotiating the purchase of television and radio time-slots for Sanders' advertisements, according to records and interviews.
Approximately $61,000 of that was "pass through" money that was used to pay media outlets for advertising time, Jane O'Meara Sanders said in an interview. The rest, about $30,000, she kept as payment for her services, she said.
Carina Driscoll, daughter to Jane O'Meara Sanders and stepdaughter to the lawmaker, earned $65,002 in "wages" between 2000 and 2004, campaign records show.
Driscoll, a former state legislator, served as Rep. Sanders' campaign manager in 2000, his fund-raiser and office manager in 2003 and his database manager in 2004, according to Jeff Weaver, Sanders' chief of staff.
"Both of them are regarded as people who are knowledgable about Vermont politics," Weaver said Tuesday. "They earned every penny they got."
It seems Sanders is the only member of Vermont's congressional delegation to employ family members. "Sen. Jeffords has not hired any members of his family on his current or past campaigns," said Erik Smulson, his communications director. A spokesman for Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy said the same thing.
No laws prohibit candidates from paying family members for campaign work. But the appearance that lawmakers use their position to benefit people close to them concerns watchdog groups.
"Anytime you pay a family member there's going to be questions raised," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan research group in Washington.
The real question, he says, is whether family members conducted work commesurate to their pay. If they did, "then it's more difficult to say (lawmakers) are funneling money back to the family."
Mary Bloyer, a spokeswoman for Common Cause, a nonprofit advocacy group, said: "The danger here is that you want members of Congress who are in Washington to serve their constituents and not enrich their families. Something like this makes people look twice and makes them wonder what's going on here."
Jane O'Meara Sanders said she worked for her husband for years with no pay, and started charging him only after opening a consulting company, Progressive Media Strategies, which was changed to Leadership Strategies.
"It became clear I could not offer professional services to other candidates and charge them if I worked for Bernie for free," she said.
Still, Jane O'Meara Sanders said her fees are comparatively low, especially for her husband.
"I think the fact that other candidates have chosen to hire me and pay more than what Bernie pays me says that my services are pretty good," she said.
The ethics of lawmakers paying their families jumped into the spotlight on Capitol Hill last week, following reports that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas had paid his wife and daughter more than $500,000 for campaign-related work.
Jim Barrett, chairman of the Vermont Republican Party, used Sanders' family payments to highlight what he said is Democratic "hypocrisy" for fiercely attacking DeLay. "It's the standard hypocrisy from the left," Barrett said. "When a Republican does it, it's inappropriate and front page news. But now it turns out, our own Bernie Sanders has been doing it for a long time."
He added: "If it's corruption when Tom DeLay does it, then it's corruption when Bernie Sanders does it."
Jon Copans, executive director of the state Democratic Party, declined to comment.
But Democratic groups are targeting DeLay for defeat in his 2006 election.
Vermont-based Democracy for America, started by former Gov. Howard Dean, disseminated a mass e-mail Tuesday asking supporters for witty slogans it can paste on billboards in DeLay's Texas district. The billboards, the e-mail says, will let voters there know "it's time for him to go."
Weaver, Sanders' chief of staff, said it was unfair to compare the Vermont Independent with DeLay, who paid his family much more in a shorter period of time.
"For the work they did, they got exactly what anyone else would have been paid," he said of Jane O'Meara Sanders and Driscoll. "Politics is like anything else - you always try to hire the best person."
Even Barrett admitted that the $65,000 earned by Driscoll over four years "almost sounds low."
But he said, "We don't know what she was doing for work. Was she a full-time operative? Were these just consulting fees? Who knows?"
Friday, April 08, 2005
Democratic Party Platform and Strategy: I finally found a copy of the document that outlines the Democratic Party platform and their strategy to improve America and move forward into the 21st century. Take a read of this excerpt and see if it gives you the sense they have bold ideas and a plan:
From Page 2, after the Executive Summary:
"Blah blah blah Tom Delay blah blah blah Tom Delay blah blah blah blah Tom Delay blah blah blah Stop Social Security reform blah blah blah blah Stop Social Security Reform blah blah blah blah blah Stop Social Security Reform blah blah blah blah stop judical nominations blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah stop judicial nominations blah blah blah blah Tom Delay blah blah blah blah Tom Delay blah blah blah Stop Social Security Reform blah blah blah blah no weapons of mass destruction blah blah blah blah blah no weapons of mass destruction blah blah blah Tom Delay blah blah blah Tom Delay blah blah blah blah Tom Delay blah blah blah Stop Social Security Reform blah blah blah blah blah stop judicial nominations blah blah blah blah Tom Delay blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Stop Social Security Reform blah blah blah no weapons of mass destruction blah blah blah blah blah stop judicial nominations blah blah blah blah blah Stop Social Security Reform blah blah blah blah Tom Delay blah blah blah Tom Delay blah blah blah blah no weapons of mass destruction blah blah blah blah Tom Delay blah blah blah blah stop judicial nominations blah blah blah..."
The exquisite piece of writing captures every new idea the Democratic Party has put forth since JFK (not John F. Kerry) proposed going to the moon in 1962. It is the sum total of their creative group think. It's all they've got.
From Page 2, after the Executive Summary:
"Blah blah blah Tom Delay blah blah blah Tom Delay blah blah blah blah Tom Delay blah blah blah Stop Social Security reform blah blah blah blah Stop Social Security Reform blah blah blah blah blah Stop Social Security Reform blah blah blah blah stop judical nominations blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah stop judicial nominations blah blah blah blah Tom Delay blah blah blah blah Tom Delay blah blah blah Stop Social Security Reform blah blah blah blah no weapons of mass destruction blah blah blah blah blah no weapons of mass destruction blah blah blah Tom Delay blah blah blah Tom Delay blah blah blah blah Tom Delay blah blah blah Stop Social Security Reform blah blah blah blah blah stop judicial nominations blah blah blah blah Tom Delay blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Stop Social Security Reform blah blah blah no weapons of mass destruction blah blah blah blah blah stop judicial nominations blah blah blah blah blah Stop Social Security Reform blah blah blah blah Tom Delay blah blah blah Tom Delay blah blah blah blah no weapons of mass destruction blah blah blah blah Tom Delay blah blah blah blah stop judicial nominations blah blah blah..."
The exquisite piece of writing captures every new idea the Democratic Party has put forth since JFK (not John F. Kerry) proposed going to the moon in 1962. It is the sum total of their creative group think. It's all they've got.
POLITICAL ALERT: Harry Reid's Corruption Revealed! This article is reposted from
The L.A. Times on June 23, 2003:
THE SENATORS' SONS: PART TWO
By Chuck Neubauer and Richard T. Cooper, Times Staff Writers
WASHINGTON — It was the kind of legislation that slips under the radar here.
The name alone made the eyes glaze over: "The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002." In a welter of technical jargon, it dealt with boundary shifts, land trades and other arcane matters — all in Nevada.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR THE RECORD
Lobbyists — A graphic accompanying an article in Monday's Section A on Nevada Sen. Harry Reid's lobbyist relatives incorrectly said that the University of Nevada at Reno paid $10,000 a month to the Lionel Sawyer & Collins law firm. In fact, the university paid the firm $40,000 in the last half of 2002, according to federal lobbyist reports.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As he introduced it, Nevada's senior U.S. senator, Democrat Harry Reid, assured colleagues that his bill was a bipartisan measure to protect the environment and help the economy in America's fastest-growing state.
What Reid did not explain was that the bill promised a cavalcade of benefits to real estate developers, corporations and local institutions that were paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying fees to his sons' and son-in-law's firms, federal lobbyist reports show.
The Howard Hughes Corp. alone paid $300,000 to the tiny Washington consulting firm of son-in-law Steven Barringer to push a provision allowing the company to acquire 998 acres of federal land ripe for development in the exploding Las Vegas metropolitan area.
Barringer is listed in federal lobbyist reports as one of Hughes' representatives on the measure that his father-in-law introduced.
Other provisions were intended to benefit a real estate development headed by a senior partner in the Nevada law firm that employs all four of Reid's sons — by moving the right-of-way for a federal power-transmission line off his property and onto what had been protected federal wilderness.
The governments of three of Nevada's biggest cities — Las Vegas, North Las Vegas and Henderson — also gained from the legislation, which freed up tens of thousands of acres of federal land for development and annexation. All three were represented by Reid's family members who contacted his staff on their clients' behalf.
The Clark County land bill, which was approved in a late-night session just before Congress recessed in October, reflects a new twist in an old game: These days, when corporations and other interests want to cement a vital relationship with someone in Congress, they're likely to reach out to hire a member of the family.
Reid said he supported the bill because it was good for Nevada — and not because it helped his family's clients. And when it comes to lobbying relatives, he said, he has plenty of company.
"Lots of people have children, wives and stuff that work back here," he said. "It is not as if a lot of cash is changing hands."
Seeking favors is as old as the Capitol, but the new tendency to come at it from the side — through family members — may be a consequence of campaign-finance reform: As restrictions have tightened on traditional political giving, interest groups have cast about for new ways to ingratiate themselves.
Nothing strikes quite such a personal note as channeling fees or lucrative jobs to relatives — whether the relatives lobby Congress or perform other services. There are no restrictions. Neither House nor Senate rules bar the practice.
At least 17 senators and 11 members of the House have children, spouses or other close relatives who lobby or work as consultants, most in Washington, according to lobbyist reports, financial-disclosure forms and other state and federal records. Many are paid by clients who count on the related lawmaker for support.
But Harry Reid is in a class by himself. One of his sons and his son-in-law lobby in Washington for companies, trade groups and municipalities seeking Reid's help in the Senate. A second son has lobbied in Nevada for some of those same interests, and a third has represented a couple of them as a litigator.
In the last four years alone, their firms have collected more than $2 million in lobbying fees from special interests that were represented by the kids and helped by the senator in Washington.
So pervasive are the ties among Reid, members of his family and Nevada's leading industries and institutions that it's difficult to find a significant field in which such a relationship does not exist.
Reid's chief of staff, Susan McCue, said he has had broad support in his state for the Clark County bill and other legislation that he has championed for those groups.
"In every instance, Sen. Reid acted in the best interest of the people of Nevada and Nevada's economy," she said.
In an internal memo, McCue said Reid's family members had lobbied his staff by "supplying research, technical support and strategic guidance." She described them as "effective advocates for their clients."
Reid said he thought he might have had casual conversations about legislation with his family members but could not remember specific cases or times.
"Have they said something? I am sure they have," he said. "I don't have meetings with my children to go over business things."
Reid's sons — Rory, 40, Leif, 35, Josh, 31, and Key, 28 — work for Nevada's largest law firm, Lionel Sawyer & Collins.
Rory Reid is a partner in the firm and was a Nevada lobbyist before his election to the Clark County Board of Commissioners in November. Leif Reid is a litigator who has represented mining and resort industry associations in Nevada.
Key Reid was hired to open the firm's Washington office in 2002 and help lead its federal lobbying effort with former Sen. Richard H. Bryan (D-Nev.), who splits his time between the capital and Nevada.
Barringer, 47 and married to the senator's daughter, Lana, is a lawyer, federal lobbyist and partner in the small Washington-based lobbying firm of McClure, Gerard and Neuenschwander.
Barringer and Reid's sons declined to be interviewed by the Los Angeles Times.
Washington lobbying firms must file reports twice a year that disclose their clients and the names of the people representing them. Those reports show that, between them, Barringer and Key Reid have represented nearly every major industry in Nevada, from mining and real estate development to tourism and gambling to the city of Las Vegas. All of those clients rely on the senator's goodwill on Capitol Hill.
Ethics Enforcer
Reid is the Senate's minority whip, the chamber's second-highest Democratic leader. He is also a senior member of the Appropriations Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee.
During 16 years in the Senate, Reid has worked tirelessly to help his state.
The University of Nevada at Reno named a building after him as a thank-you for securing "tens of millions of dollars in federal funds for scientific research at the university," including $8.25 million for earthquake studies, the school said.
The Nevada Mining Assn. gave Reid a lifetime achievement award. Throughout his career, the senator has fought tenaciously against hard-rock-mining reforms opposed by the industry. And the American Gaming Assn. honored Reid as one of "America's Gaming Greats." Again, Reid has consistently represented the industry's positions, including opposition to a nationwide ban on college-sports betting.
"I've been proud to help educate America about the contributions gaming entertainment makes to Nevada and across the country," Reid said upon receiving the award.
One of Reid's relatives has represented each of those interests as a lawyer or lobbyist, according to lobbyist reports and court records.
Frank Fahrenkopf Jr., the president of the American Gaming Assn., understood the possible sensitivity involved in hiring a member of Reid's family. He said he called the senator before retaining his son-in-law, Barringer.
"I told him I was thinking of hiring Steve and asked if that was a problem for him. Sen. Reid said, 'If you need him, hire him,' " Fahrenkopf said. "I wouldn't hire any senator's son or son-in-law without checking first."
Reid said he has never used his position to steer business to his family members.
The senator has special standing when it comes to questions of propriety. He is vice chairman — and former chairman — of the Ethics Committee, which has almost total discretion in setting the standards for senators' conduct.
Reid said in an interview that he sees no problem with lobbying by relatives, because lobbyists' activities are "very transparent." That is, the law requires them to publicly report their clients and fees.
In September 2001, Reid sent a letter to his staff telling them that he had sought guidance from the Senate Ethics Committee and had been advised that there was no restriction on lobbying by a relative of a senator. He told his staff to treat his family members who were lobbyists no better or worse than any other lobbyist.
Soon after The Times interviewed him about his children's activities last fall, the senator decided to ban relatives from lobbying his office entirely.
The ban applies to members of Reid's family but not to colleagues at the firms where they work, such as former Sen. Bryan.
"Sen. Reid has long held that elected leaders must take steps to prevent even the appearance of impropriety, and it has become clear this ban is necessary for that reason," his chief of staff, McCue, said in a memo.
Public Lands Go Private
As a senator, Reid exerts a degree of power over local affairs that is unknown in most states.
That is because the federal government owns 87% of Nevada's land; to a large extent, Washington decides whether cities and businesses can expand and where economic growth may occur. Even local zoning may become a federal matter.
Over the years, Reid has used legislation to move federal land into private hands and private land into the public realm. He says he has done so to preserve scenic and environmentally sensitive areas while freeing up more land for urban growth.
Such was the case with the Clark County legislation. It was co-sponsored by Nevada's junior senator, Republican John Ensign, and the House version was introduced by Rep. James A. Gibbons (R-Nev.). President Bush signed it in November.
Reid praised it as balancing economic development with safeguarding natural resources. It placed an additional 440,000 acres of federal land under wilderness protection, he noted.
The bill also benefited at least five clients of Reid family lobbyists. And it contained a provision potentially worth millions of dollars to a senior partner of the law firm that employs Reid's four sons, a provision that was dropped at the last minute after questions were raised in Washington.
The bill freed about 18,000 acres near the cities of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas for development and annexation, by releasing two parcels of land from "wilderness study" protection. Key Reid and former Sen. Bryan lobbied for those provisions, lobbyist reports show. City officials did not return phone calls from The Times.
Barringer's municipal clients also did well.
Lobbying reports show Barringer's firm received $220,000 to lobby on the bill for the city of Henderson. While the city did not get everything it wanted, the bill freed up 4,000 federal acres on its outskirts for development and annexation. Sen. Reid also supported another transfer of federal land to a local irrigation project that paid Barringer's firm to lobby on the provision. In each case, Barringer is listed by name as working for the government entities. Officials did not return phone calls from The Times.
Another Barringer client may have been the single biggest beneficiary of the legislation: the Howard Hughes Corp., a division of the giant Rouse real estate company and the biggest private landowner in Clark County.
Hughes wanted to expand its Summerlin planned community onto nearby federal land. In exchange for the federal land, Hughes proposed to swap 1,082 acres of rugged terrain scattered along the fringes of Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area.
Initially, Congress balked at the exchange. Several years earlier, it had explicitly banned land swaps in southern Nevada because of evidence the government had lost millions of dollars through unequal trades. Now, federal land in the area must be sold at auction in most cases.
The Clark County bill set aside the auction requirement. Reid pointed out that Hughes had begun pushing for the swap before the auction rule was imposed.
And, Reid argued, the exchange preserved the scenic value of the rugged land adjoining the Red Rock conservation area. The state's leading environmental groups had lined up behind the swap.
For its part, Hughes said that if Congress rejected the deal, it might build on the parcels. In 2000, the company had told local tax authorities the land was too steep to develop. But Hughes vice president Thomas Warden said the company's position changed with the upswing in the Las Vegas real estate market.
An appraiser selected by Hughes valued the federal land at $24,448 an acre. After the bill passed, federal land nearby was auctioned for six times that amount.
Warden said that in such a volatile market, any number of factors could account for the difference in prices. Chief of staff McCue said the legislation stopped almost certain development of a "spectacular piece of land."
"We worked with the environmental community to do what was necessary to stop the development," she said. "And we were successful."
The transfer was consummated in May. Warden said Sen. Reid had been "especially helpful." He also credited the expertise of Barringer and his firm, which was paid $300,000, according to lobbyist reports.
"Why were we successful?" Warden said. "It was because of the firm .... They brought a lot to the deal."
Power Line Politics
The Hughes swap was at least done in plain sight. The company name appeared in the Clark County bill, along with descriptions of what each party would get.
Not so with Section 709 of the original bill, "Relocation of Right-of-Way Corridor Located in Clark and Lincoln Counties in the State of Nevada."
Only a close comparison of the provision with local property records for the Coyote Springs valley, which lies northeast of Las Vegas, revealed that the provision was intended to remove an obstacle to a proposed real estate development project headed by Harvey Whittemore, a longtime friend of Sen. Reid and a senior partner in the law firm that employs his four sons.
As U.S. Route 93 slices through the high desert, it divides two visions of the future.
On one side of the road lay 49,817 acres of federal land for which special wilderness protection had been proposed.
On the other side lay 42,800 acres of privately owned land on which Whittemore's development group, Coyote Springs Investment, hoped to build the largest planned community in Nevada history — with 50,000 homes, plus stores and 10 championship-golf courses.
A cloud hung over the plan, however: A federally mandated right-of-way for electric power lines cuts a mile-wide swath the length of the land that Coyote Springs wants to develop.
So far, no skeletal steel towers march across the landscape, but proposals to erect them keep cropping up. And it's difficult to envision buyers flocking to luxury homes whose neighborhood features hulking transmission structures. The right-of-way made the 11,000 acres in the corridor essentially worthless, the development company told county tax officials in recent years.
Section 709 of Reid's bill had offered a solution: Simply move the transmission corridor across U.S. 93 and plunk it down in the "wilderness study" area. Power lines are not permitted on such land without congressional approval. In a flurry of technical language, Reid's land bill changed the classification.
The provision's narrow purpose was "hidden by obfuscatory language in a large land bill," said Janine Blaeloch, director of the Western Land Exchange Project, an independent group that monitors federal-land policy.
Reid, however, considers moving the corridor a win-win proposition. "That property sat out there with nothing on it for many, many years," he said. "Who gets hurt in the movement?"
Whittemore did not return phone calls from The Times.
As originally drafted, Reid's bill would have removed the power-line corridor from the land owned by Whittemore and his partners, at no cost to them. After Interior Department officials objected, Reid agreed that the developers should pay the government something. Reid then withdrew the right-of-way provision altogether, after questions were raised by The Times and the staff at the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
However, the provision removing wilderness-study protection from the federal land was approved and signed into law, meaning relocation can be revived easily.
Nevada Gold Mines
While the Clark County bill focused on real estate, Reid has not neglected the state's other economic engines, also among his children's broad base of clients.
The mining industry is second only to gaming in Nevada. The state is the third-largest gold producer in the world.
Reid, a native son, grew up in the down-at-the-heel mining camp of Searchlight, in a family so poor they lived in a tin-roofed shack with no plumbing. The town's water supply was almost undrinkable, but there was a swimming pool — built for the brothels that helped keep the community alive — which opened to local children one day a week, he wrote in a book about his hometown titled "Searchlight: The Camp That Didn't Fail."
His father worked in the mines. After Reid put himself through law school and got into politics, he became one of the industry's foremost defenders.
Hard-rock mining needed such a champion. In recent years, it has been under almost constant siege because of its environmental destructiveness, as well as what critics see as its almost-free exploitation of federal land.
The Environmental Protection Agency recently concluded that "mining in the Western United States has contaminated stream reaches in the headwaters of more than 40% of the watersheds in the West."
Even with modern improvements, the industry still relies on chemicals and mining techniques that have contaminated thousands of acres of public land with cyanide, heavy metals and other toxic substances.
For five years beginning in 1997, Reid helped beat back or stall a series of reforms that he considered excessive, using his position on the Appropriations Committee to attach delaying riders to must-pass bills — including an emergency-aid bill for Kosovo.
Though some reforms eventually passed, several of those the industry considered unacceptable have been weakened or eliminated under the Bush administration.
During much of that time, his son-in-law and sons represented mining interests in Washington and Nevada.
Mining companies paid $200,000 in lobbying fees to the law firm where Barringer worked from 1999 to 2000, and he worked on their accounts during that period, records show.
Barringer joined his current firm, whose specialties include mining, in 2001. The National Mining Assn. and mining companies active in Nevada have paid that firm $780,000 in fees since his arrival, lobbyist reports show. Barringer has been one of the partners assigned to the mining accounts, the reports show.
Doug Hock, a spokesman for Newmont Mining Corp., said the company used Barringer "based on his expertise in mining and environmental law" and not because of his family ties.
The mining firm Placer Dome Inc. began paying the Lionel Sawyer law firm $5,000 a month in 2001 to be its "eyes and ears" in Nevada and sought out Rory Reid's services, said Placer Dome Vice President Joe Danni. Placer also works with Barringer on federal issues, he said.
He said neither Reid nor Barringer would improperly take advantage of their family ties to the senator.
"My view of Rory and Steve is they are both very principled individuals," he said. "I have never lost sleep over it."
Sen. Reid and industry spokespeople say family members have been paid for their professional services, not their relationship to an important senator.
"Steve Barringer has been a lawyer for more than 20 years," Reid said. "They are not hiring some doofus."
Gambling, Nevada's No. 1 industry, is another frequent target of reform that has sought the help of Reid and the services of his family members.
In 2001, for example, serious efforts were underway to impose a nationwide ban on college-sports betting. The National Collegiate Athletic Assn. backed federal legislation that would outlaw it everywhere, including Nevada, where it is a legal, multimillion-dollar business.
Reid and his fellow members of the Nevada delegation began promoting a competing bill that also promised a crackdown on collegiate sports betting — outside of Nevada.
The American Gaming Assn. enlisted Barringer and other lobbyists to promote Reid's bill and defeat the other one. The result was a stalemate and no action, though another bill to ban all college betting has since been introduced in the House.
The American Gaming Assn. is one of Barringer's most faithful clients, following him from one firm to another and paying his present firm $180,000 over the last two years.
Beyond Nevada's largest industries, Sen. Reid has helped a helicopter-tour company fighting new federal flight restrictions around the Grand Canyon. The company used his son-in-law Barringer to lobby on the issue. A chemical company seeking federal money to clean up radioactive waste and a hydrogen-fuel maker looking for a federal contract also got help from Reid. Both hired son Rory to lobby on unrelated issues in Nevada.
If there is an appearance of a conflict, Reid said, it is unavoidable in a large, talented and politically active family such as his.
"My kids are well-educated. They are nice young men. My daughter is a lovely young woman," Reid said, adding that his son-in-law is a "brilliant lawyer."
"I have done, I think, everything I can to protect myself and to protect my boys," he said.
"The only thing I could do to help myself is to have less kids."
Related Stories
A Washington Bouquet: Hire A Lawmaker's Kid
June 22, 2003
Lucrative Deals for a Daughter of Politics
February 20, 2004
A Sibling Symbiosis in the Capitol
June 17, 2004
The Reid connections
June 22, 2003
A Nevada land swap
June 22, 2003
The L.A. Times on June 23, 2003:
THE SENATORS' SONS: PART TWO
By Chuck Neubauer and Richard T. Cooper, Times Staff Writers
WASHINGTON — It was the kind of legislation that slips under the radar here.
The name alone made the eyes glaze over: "The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002." In a welter of technical jargon, it dealt with boundary shifts, land trades and other arcane matters — all in Nevada.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR THE RECORD
Lobbyists — A graphic accompanying an article in Monday's Section A on Nevada Sen. Harry Reid's lobbyist relatives incorrectly said that the University of Nevada at Reno paid $10,000 a month to the Lionel Sawyer & Collins law firm. In fact, the university paid the firm $40,000 in the last half of 2002, according to federal lobbyist reports.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As he introduced it, Nevada's senior U.S. senator, Democrat Harry Reid, assured colleagues that his bill was a bipartisan measure to protect the environment and help the economy in America's fastest-growing state.
What Reid did not explain was that the bill promised a cavalcade of benefits to real estate developers, corporations and local institutions that were paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying fees to his sons' and son-in-law's firms, federal lobbyist reports show.
The Howard Hughes Corp. alone paid $300,000 to the tiny Washington consulting firm of son-in-law Steven Barringer to push a provision allowing the company to acquire 998 acres of federal land ripe for development in the exploding Las Vegas metropolitan area.
Barringer is listed in federal lobbyist reports as one of Hughes' representatives on the measure that his father-in-law introduced.
Other provisions were intended to benefit a real estate development headed by a senior partner in the Nevada law firm that employs all four of Reid's sons — by moving the right-of-way for a federal power-transmission line off his property and onto what had been protected federal wilderness.
The governments of three of Nevada's biggest cities — Las Vegas, North Las Vegas and Henderson — also gained from the legislation, which freed up tens of thousands of acres of federal land for development and annexation. All three were represented by Reid's family members who contacted his staff on their clients' behalf.
The Clark County land bill, which was approved in a late-night session just before Congress recessed in October, reflects a new twist in an old game: These days, when corporations and other interests want to cement a vital relationship with someone in Congress, they're likely to reach out to hire a member of the family.
Reid said he supported the bill because it was good for Nevada — and not because it helped his family's clients. And when it comes to lobbying relatives, he said, he has plenty of company.
"Lots of people have children, wives and stuff that work back here," he said. "It is not as if a lot of cash is changing hands."
Seeking favors is as old as the Capitol, but the new tendency to come at it from the side — through family members — may be a consequence of campaign-finance reform: As restrictions have tightened on traditional political giving, interest groups have cast about for new ways to ingratiate themselves.
Nothing strikes quite such a personal note as channeling fees or lucrative jobs to relatives — whether the relatives lobby Congress or perform other services. There are no restrictions. Neither House nor Senate rules bar the practice.
At least 17 senators and 11 members of the House have children, spouses or other close relatives who lobby or work as consultants, most in Washington, according to lobbyist reports, financial-disclosure forms and other state and federal records. Many are paid by clients who count on the related lawmaker for support.
But Harry Reid is in a class by himself. One of his sons and his son-in-law lobby in Washington for companies, trade groups and municipalities seeking Reid's help in the Senate. A second son has lobbied in Nevada for some of those same interests, and a third has represented a couple of them as a litigator.
In the last four years alone, their firms have collected more than $2 million in lobbying fees from special interests that were represented by the kids and helped by the senator in Washington.
So pervasive are the ties among Reid, members of his family and Nevada's leading industries and institutions that it's difficult to find a significant field in which such a relationship does not exist.
Reid's chief of staff, Susan McCue, said he has had broad support in his state for the Clark County bill and other legislation that he has championed for those groups.
"In every instance, Sen. Reid acted in the best interest of the people of Nevada and Nevada's economy," she said.
In an internal memo, McCue said Reid's family members had lobbied his staff by "supplying research, technical support and strategic guidance." She described them as "effective advocates for their clients."
Reid said he thought he might have had casual conversations about legislation with his family members but could not remember specific cases or times.
"Have they said something? I am sure they have," he said. "I don't have meetings with my children to go over business things."
Reid's sons — Rory, 40, Leif, 35, Josh, 31, and Key, 28 — work for Nevada's largest law firm, Lionel Sawyer & Collins.
Rory Reid is a partner in the firm and was a Nevada lobbyist before his election to the Clark County Board of Commissioners in November. Leif Reid is a litigator who has represented mining and resort industry associations in Nevada.
Key Reid was hired to open the firm's Washington office in 2002 and help lead its federal lobbying effort with former Sen. Richard H. Bryan (D-Nev.), who splits his time between the capital and Nevada.
Barringer, 47 and married to the senator's daughter, Lana, is a lawyer, federal lobbyist and partner in the small Washington-based lobbying firm of McClure, Gerard and Neuenschwander.
Barringer and Reid's sons declined to be interviewed by the Los Angeles Times.
Washington lobbying firms must file reports twice a year that disclose their clients and the names of the people representing them. Those reports show that, between them, Barringer and Key Reid have represented nearly every major industry in Nevada, from mining and real estate development to tourism and gambling to the city of Las Vegas. All of those clients rely on the senator's goodwill on Capitol Hill.
Ethics Enforcer
Reid is the Senate's minority whip, the chamber's second-highest Democratic leader. He is also a senior member of the Appropriations Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee.
During 16 years in the Senate, Reid has worked tirelessly to help his state.
The University of Nevada at Reno named a building after him as a thank-you for securing "tens of millions of dollars in federal funds for scientific research at the university," including $8.25 million for earthquake studies, the school said.
The Nevada Mining Assn. gave Reid a lifetime achievement award. Throughout his career, the senator has fought tenaciously against hard-rock-mining reforms opposed by the industry. And the American Gaming Assn. honored Reid as one of "America's Gaming Greats." Again, Reid has consistently represented the industry's positions, including opposition to a nationwide ban on college-sports betting.
"I've been proud to help educate America about the contributions gaming entertainment makes to Nevada and across the country," Reid said upon receiving the award.
One of Reid's relatives has represented each of those interests as a lawyer or lobbyist, according to lobbyist reports and court records.
Frank Fahrenkopf Jr., the president of the American Gaming Assn., understood the possible sensitivity involved in hiring a member of Reid's family. He said he called the senator before retaining his son-in-law, Barringer.
"I told him I was thinking of hiring Steve and asked if that was a problem for him. Sen. Reid said, 'If you need him, hire him,' " Fahrenkopf said. "I wouldn't hire any senator's son or son-in-law without checking first."
Reid said he has never used his position to steer business to his family members.
The senator has special standing when it comes to questions of propriety. He is vice chairman — and former chairman — of the Ethics Committee, which has almost total discretion in setting the standards for senators' conduct.
Reid said in an interview that he sees no problem with lobbying by relatives, because lobbyists' activities are "very transparent." That is, the law requires them to publicly report their clients and fees.
In September 2001, Reid sent a letter to his staff telling them that he had sought guidance from the Senate Ethics Committee and had been advised that there was no restriction on lobbying by a relative of a senator. He told his staff to treat his family members who were lobbyists no better or worse than any other lobbyist.
Soon after The Times interviewed him about his children's activities last fall, the senator decided to ban relatives from lobbying his office entirely.
The ban applies to members of Reid's family but not to colleagues at the firms where they work, such as former Sen. Bryan.
"Sen. Reid has long held that elected leaders must take steps to prevent even the appearance of impropriety, and it has become clear this ban is necessary for that reason," his chief of staff, McCue, said in a memo.
Public Lands Go Private
As a senator, Reid exerts a degree of power over local affairs that is unknown in most states.
That is because the federal government owns 87% of Nevada's land; to a large extent, Washington decides whether cities and businesses can expand and where economic growth may occur. Even local zoning may become a federal matter.
Over the years, Reid has used legislation to move federal land into private hands and private land into the public realm. He says he has done so to preserve scenic and environmentally sensitive areas while freeing up more land for urban growth.
Such was the case with the Clark County legislation. It was co-sponsored by Nevada's junior senator, Republican John Ensign, and the House version was introduced by Rep. James A. Gibbons (R-Nev.). President Bush signed it in November.
Reid praised it as balancing economic development with safeguarding natural resources. It placed an additional 440,000 acres of federal land under wilderness protection, he noted.
The bill also benefited at least five clients of Reid family lobbyists. And it contained a provision potentially worth millions of dollars to a senior partner of the law firm that employs Reid's four sons, a provision that was dropped at the last minute after questions were raised in Washington.
The bill freed about 18,000 acres near the cities of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas for development and annexation, by releasing two parcels of land from "wilderness study" protection. Key Reid and former Sen. Bryan lobbied for those provisions, lobbyist reports show. City officials did not return phone calls from The Times.
Barringer's municipal clients also did well.
Lobbying reports show Barringer's firm received $220,000 to lobby on the bill for the city of Henderson. While the city did not get everything it wanted, the bill freed up 4,000 federal acres on its outskirts for development and annexation. Sen. Reid also supported another transfer of federal land to a local irrigation project that paid Barringer's firm to lobby on the provision. In each case, Barringer is listed by name as working for the government entities. Officials did not return phone calls from The Times.
Another Barringer client may have been the single biggest beneficiary of the legislation: the Howard Hughes Corp., a division of the giant Rouse real estate company and the biggest private landowner in Clark County.
Hughes wanted to expand its Summerlin planned community onto nearby federal land. In exchange for the federal land, Hughes proposed to swap 1,082 acres of rugged terrain scattered along the fringes of Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area.
Initially, Congress balked at the exchange. Several years earlier, it had explicitly banned land swaps in southern Nevada because of evidence the government had lost millions of dollars through unequal trades. Now, federal land in the area must be sold at auction in most cases.
The Clark County bill set aside the auction requirement. Reid pointed out that Hughes had begun pushing for the swap before the auction rule was imposed.
And, Reid argued, the exchange preserved the scenic value of the rugged land adjoining the Red Rock conservation area. The state's leading environmental groups had lined up behind the swap.
For its part, Hughes said that if Congress rejected the deal, it might build on the parcels. In 2000, the company had told local tax authorities the land was too steep to develop. But Hughes vice president Thomas Warden said the company's position changed with the upswing in the Las Vegas real estate market.
An appraiser selected by Hughes valued the federal land at $24,448 an acre. After the bill passed, federal land nearby was auctioned for six times that amount.
Warden said that in such a volatile market, any number of factors could account for the difference in prices. Chief of staff McCue said the legislation stopped almost certain development of a "spectacular piece of land."
"We worked with the environmental community to do what was necessary to stop the development," she said. "And we were successful."
The transfer was consummated in May. Warden said Sen. Reid had been "especially helpful." He also credited the expertise of Barringer and his firm, which was paid $300,000, according to lobbyist reports.
"Why were we successful?" Warden said. "It was because of the firm .... They brought a lot to the deal."
Power Line Politics
The Hughes swap was at least done in plain sight. The company name appeared in the Clark County bill, along with descriptions of what each party would get.
Not so with Section 709 of the original bill, "Relocation of Right-of-Way Corridor Located in Clark and Lincoln Counties in the State of Nevada."
Only a close comparison of the provision with local property records for the Coyote Springs valley, which lies northeast of Las Vegas, revealed that the provision was intended to remove an obstacle to a proposed real estate development project headed by Harvey Whittemore, a longtime friend of Sen. Reid and a senior partner in the law firm that employs his four sons.
As U.S. Route 93 slices through the high desert, it divides two visions of the future.
On one side of the road lay 49,817 acres of federal land for which special wilderness protection had been proposed.
On the other side lay 42,800 acres of privately owned land on which Whittemore's development group, Coyote Springs Investment, hoped to build the largest planned community in Nevada history — with 50,000 homes, plus stores and 10 championship-golf courses.
A cloud hung over the plan, however: A federally mandated right-of-way for electric power lines cuts a mile-wide swath the length of the land that Coyote Springs wants to develop.
So far, no skeletal steel towers march across the landscape, but proposals to erect them keep cropping up. And it's difficult to envision buyers flocking to luxury homes whose neighborhood features hulking transmission structures. The right-of-way made the 11,000 acres in the corridor essentially worthless, the development company told county tax officials in recent years.
Section 709 of Reid's bill had offered a solution: Simply move the transmission corridor across U.S. 93 and plunk it down in the "wilderness study" area. Power lines are not permitted on such land without congressional approval. In a flurry of technical language, Reid's land bill changed the classification.
The provision's narrow purpose was "hidden by obfuscatory language in a large land bill," said Janine Blaeloch, director of the Western Land Exchange Project, an independent group that monitors federal-land policy.
Reid, however, considers moving the corridor a win-win proposition. "That property sat out there with nothing on it for many, many years," he said. "Who gets hurt in the movement?"
Whittemore did not return phone calls from The Times.
As originally drafted, Reid's bill would have removed the power-line corridor from the land owned by Whittemore and his partners, at no cost to them. After Interior Department officials objected, Reid agreed that the developers should pay the government something. Reid then withdrew the right-of-way provision altogether, after questions were raised by The Times and the staff at the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
However, the provision removing wilderness-study protection from the federal land was approved and signed into law, meaning relocation can be revived easily.
Nevada Gold Mines
While the Clark County bill focused on real estate, Reid has not neglected the state's other economic engines, also among his children's broad base of clients.
The mining industry is second only to gaming in Nevada. The state is the third-largest gold producer in the world.
Reid, a native son, grew up in the down-at-the-heel mining camp of Searchlight, in a family so poor they lived in a tin-roofed shack with no plumbing. The town's water supply was almost undrinkable, but there was a swimming pool — built for the brothels that helped keep the community alive — which opened to local children one day a week, he wrote in a book about his hometown titled "Searchlight: The Camp That Didn't Fail."
His father worked in the mines. After Reid put himself through law school and got into politics, he became one of the industry's foremost defenders.
Hard-rock mining needed such a champion. In recent years, it has been under almost constant siege because of its environmental destructiveness, as well as what critics see as its almost-free exploitation of federal land.
The Environmental Protection Agency recently concluded that "mining in the Western United States has contaminated stream reaches in the headwaters of more than 40% of the watersheds in the West."
Even with modern improvements, the industry still relies on chemicals and mining techniques that have contaminated thousands of acres of public land with cyanide, heavy metals and other toxic substances.
For five years beginning in 1997, Reid helped beat back or stall a series of reforms that he considered excessive, using his position on the Appropriations Committee to attach delaying riders to must-pass bills — including an emergency-aid bill for Kosovo.
Though some reforms eventually passed, several of those the industry considered unacceptable have been weakened or eliminated under the Bush administration.
During much of that time, his son-in-law and sons represented mining interests in Washington and Nevada.
Mining companies paid $200,000 in lobbying fees to the law firm where Barringer worked from 1999 to 2000, and he worked on their accounts during that period, records show.
Barringer joined his current firm, whose specialties include mining, in 2001. The National Mining Assn. and mining companies active in Nevada have paid that firm $780,000 in fees since his arrival, lobbyist reports show. Barringer has been one of the partners assigned to the mining accounts, the reports show.
Doug Hock, a spokesman for Newmont Mining Corp., said the company used Barringer "based on his expertise in mining and environmental law" and not because of his family ties.
The mining firm Placer Dome Inc. began paying the Lionel Sawyer law firm $5,000 a month in 2001 to be its "eyes and ears" in Nevada and sought out Rory Reid's services, said Placer Dome Vice President Joe Danni. Placer also works with Barringer on federal issues, he said.
He said neither Reid nor Barringer would improperly take advantage of their family ties to the senator.
"My view of Rory and Steve is they are both very principled individuals," he said. "I have never lost sleep over it."
Sen. Reid and industry spokespeople say family members have been paid for their professional services, not their relationship to an important senator.
"Steve Barringer has been a lawyer for more than 20 years," Reid said. "They are not hiring some doofus."
Gambling, Nevada's No. 1 industry, is another frequent target of reform that has sought the help of Reid and the services of his family members.
In 2001, for example, serious efforts were underway to impose a nationwide ban on college-sports betting. The National Collegiate Athletic Assn. backed federal legislation that would outlaw it everywhere, including Nevada, where it is a legal, multimillion-dollar business.
Reid and his fellow members of the Nevada delegation began promoting a competing bill that also promised a crackdown on collegiate sports betting — outside of Nevada.
The American Gaming Assn. enlisted Barringer and other lobbyists to promote Reid's bill and defeat the other one. The result was a stalemate and no action, though another bill to ban all college betting has since been introduced in the House.
The American Gaming Assn. is one of Barringer's most faithful clients, following him from one firm to another and paying his present firm $180,000 over the last two years.
Beyond Nevada's largest industries, Sen. Reid has helped a helicopter-tour company fighting new federal flight restrictions around the Grand Canyon. The company used his son-in-law Barringer to lobby on the issue. A chemical company seeking federal money to clean up radioactive waste and a hydrogen-fuel maker looking for a federal contract also got help from Reid. Both hired son Rory to lobby on unrelated issues in Nevada.
If there is an appearance of a conflict, Reid said, it is unavoidable in a large, talented and politically active family such as his.
"My kids are well-educated. They are nice young men. My daughter is a lovely young woman," Reid said, adding that his son-in-law is a "brilliant lawyer."
"I have done, I think, everything I can to protect myself and to protect my boys," he said.
"The only thing I could do to help myself is to have less kids."
Related Stories
A Washington Bouquet: Hire A Lawmaker's Kid
June 22, 2003
Lucrative Deals for a Daughter of Politics
February 20, 2004
A Sibling Symbiosis in the Capitol
June 17, 2004
The Reid connections
June 22, 2003
A Nevada land swap
June 22, 2003
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
POLITICAL ALERT: Hillary Clinton Corruption Revealed! This item reposted from The Smoking Gun.
JANUARY 7--The finance director for Hillary Clinton's 2000 U.S. Senate campaign was indicted today on federal charges of filing bogus financial reports with the Federal Election Commission. According to the below indictment, David Rosen reported the false numbers in connection with a "Hollywood tribute" honoring Clinton. Investigators allege that a "wealthy individual" paid more than $1.1 million to underwrite the Clinton gala and that those payments were delivered through "several corporate entities controlled by him." While that whopping sum should have been reported to the FEC as an "in-kind contribution," prosecutors charge that Rosen covered up the real source of the money, and even caused the creation of a fictitious $200,000 invoice to aid his scheme. The August 2000 fundraiser was billed as a "Hollywood Tribute to William Jefferson Clinton," though the funds raised went to his wife's campaign kitty. The bash was held as the Brentwood estate of radio mogul Ken Roberts. While the so-called wealthy individual (referred to only as "C-1") is not named, he is clearly Peter Paul, an Internet entrepreneur who helped organize the bash. Clinton is not mentioned by name in the indictment,instead referred to only as "Senator A." The fundraiser was largely orchestrated by Aaron Tonken, a notorious L.A. con man who last August was sentenced to five years in prison following a guilty plea to a pair of fraud counts. The 39-year-old Tonken, who made his living defrauding donors and underwriters of charity events, now resides in the federal lockup in Taft, California, where he is scheduled to remain until April 2009. (10 pages)
JANUARY 7--The finance director for Hillary Clinton's 2000 U.S. Senate campaign was indicted today on federal charges of filing bogus financial reports with the Federal Election Commission. According to the below indictment, David Rosen reported the false numbers in connection with a "Hollywood tribute" honoring Clinton. Investigators allege that a "wealthy individual" paid more than $1.1 million to underwrite the Clinton gala and that those payments were delivered through "several corporate entities controlled by him." While that whopping sum should have been reported to the FEC as an "in-kind contribution," prosecutors charge that Rosen covered up the real source of the money, and even caused the creation of a fictitious $200,000 invoice to aid his scheme. The August 2000 fundraiser was billed as a "Hollywood Tribute to William Jefferson Clinton," though the funds raised went to his wife's campaign kitty. The bash was held as the Brentwood estate of radio mogul Ken Roberts. While the so-called wealthy individual (referred to only as "C-1") is not named, he is clearly Peter Paul, an Internet entrepreneur who helped organize the bash. Clinton is not mentioned by name in the indictment,instead referred to only as "Senator A." The fundraiser was largely orchestrated by Aaron Tonken, a notorious L.A. con man who last August was sentenced to five years in prison following a guilty plea to a pair of fraud counts. The 39-year-old Tonken, who made his living defrauding donors and underwriters of charity events, now resides in the federal lockup in Taft, California, where he is scheduled to remain until April 2009. (10 pages)
POLITICAL ALERT: Schumer Corruption Revealed! This is reposted from National Review Online. Dateline May 5, 2003, by Byron York.
May 5, 2003, 8:45 a.m.
Schumer’s Campaign Violations
The FEC hits the campaign-finance “reformer” with a hefty fine.
New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, an outspoken advocate of campaign-finance reform, has been hit with one of the biggest fines ever imposed on a member of Congress by the Federal Election Commission — for violating campaign-finance laws.
The FEC ruling, handed down in March, ordered Schumer's 1998 senatorial campaign to pay a civil penalty of $130,000. The campaign was also ordered to return $120,455 in illegal contributions, bringing the total of fines and restitution to slightly more than a quarter-million dollars. The campaign paid the sum in April.
According to FEC records, only three cases involving federal candidates have resulted in higher fines than the one levied on Schumer's campaign. No senatorial candidate has ever been so severely penalized.
At issue in the FEC action were more than 750 contributions, totaling about $915,000, dating from Schumer's 1998 race against Republican Alphonse D'Amato. The FEC found that each of those donations exceeded the $1,000 limit then in effect for contributions to a candidate during a primary or general election.
The FEC said most of those excess contributions were within the $1,000 to $2,000 range.
The FEC also found that the Schumer campaign failed to file notices required by law for $89,500 in contributions given in the last days of the 1998 campaign. The Schumer campaign also filed late notices for $186,500 in contributions.
After an FEC audit discovered the violations in 2001, some of Schumer's defenders downplayed them as "technical." But the size of the fine suggests the FEC viewed the infractions as a serious matter. At the least, the violations suggest a relaxed attitude on the part of the Schumer campaign toward the rules regarding the reporting of campaign contributions.
And the punishment might have been worse. It appears that Schumer's campaign benefited from a change in FEC rules, adopted last November, which in effect reduced the number of violations that were subject to fines. Had the Schumer campaign been judged by the FEC's old rules, the $130,000 fine might have been much higher.
The FEC cleared Schumer of personal responsibility for the violations. "The Commission does not allege and there is no finding that U.S. Senator Charles Schumer engaged in any wrongdoing in connection with the findings in this agreement." His 1998 campaign treasurer, Steven D. Goldenkranz, was named in the report.
When asked about the FEC judgment last week, a Schumer spokesman promised to make a written comment, but so far has not made one.
The 1998 Schumer race against D'Amato was, at the time, the most expensive in history, with the Schumer campaign spending nearly $17 million. Now, as he prepares to run for reelection next year, Schumer has already amassed nearly $15 million, making him the most successful fundraiser in the Senate.
Source Link: Schumer's Campaign Violations
May 5, 2003, 8:45 a.m.
Schumer’s Campaign Violations
The FEC hits the campaign-finance “reformer” with a hefty fine.
New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, an outspoken advocate of campaign-finance reform, has been hit with one of the biggest fines ever imposed on a member of Congress by the Federal Election Commission — for violating campaign-finance laws.
The FEC ruling, handed down in March, ordered Schumer's 1998 senatorial campaign to pay a civil penalty of $130,000. The campaign was also ordered to return $120,455 in illegal contributions, bringing the total of fines and restitution to slightly more than a quarter-million dollars. The campaign paid the sum in April.
According to FEC records, only three cases involving federal candidates have resulted in higher fines than the one levied on Schumer's campaign. No senatorial candidate has ever been so severely penalized.
At issue in the FEC action were more than 750 contributions, totaling about $915,000, dating from Schumer's 1998 race against Republican Alphonse D'Amato. The FEC found that each of those donations exceeded the $1,000 limit then in effect for contributions to a candidate during a primary or general election.
The FEC said most of those excess contributions were within the $1,000 to $2,000 range.
The FEC also found that the Schumer campaign failed to file notices required by law for $89,500 in contributions given in the last days of the 1998 campaign. The Schumer campaign also filed late notices for $186,500 in contributions.
After an FEC audit discovered the violations in 2001, some of Schumer's defenders downplayed them as "technical." But the size of the fine suggests the FEC viewed the infractions as a serious matter. At the least, the violations suggest a relaxed attitude on the part of the Schumer campaign toward the rules regarding the reporting of campaign contributions.
And the punishment might have been worse. It appears that Schumer's campaign benefited from a change in FEC rules, adopted last November, which in effect reduced the number of violations that were subject to fines. Had the Schumer campaign been judged by the FEC's old rules, the $130,000 fine might have been much higher.
The FEC cleared Schumer of personal responsibility for the violations. "The Commission does not allege and there is no finding that U.S. Senator Charles Schumer engaged in any wrongdoing in connection with the findings in this agreement." His 1998 campaign treasurer, Steven D. Goldenkranz, was named in the report.
When asked about the FEC judgment last week, a Schumer spokesman promised to make a written comment, but so far has not made one.
The 1998 Schumer race against D'Amato was, at the time, the most expensive in history, with the Schumer campaign spending nearly $17 million. Now, as he prepares to run for reelection next year, Schumer has already amassed nearly $15 million, making him the most successful fundraiser in the Senate.
Source Link: Schumer's Campaign Violations
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
POLITICAL ALERT: Pelosi Corruption Revealed! The following article reposted from NewsMax.com (Carl Limbacher):
Nancy Pelosi's Ethics Questioned
In what pundits are calling a quid pro quo for her hard line on the ethics of House Majority Leader Tom Delay, R-Texas, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is under fire for an adviser’s nine-day, $4,475 junket to Spain and Germany last April, a trip primarily paid for by a nonprofit transportation-research organization Pelosi had helped to secure Federal Transit Administration monies, according to a report in the Washington Times.
According to the report, the president of WestStart-CALSTART also gave money to Pelosi’s political action committee at the same time.
The trip is fodder for some Republicans, who say Pelosi and others have been going overboard when criticizing DeLay on ethics charges.
"Given the actions of the minority leader vis-a-vis the majority leader and other Republicans, I’m having a little trouble finding where the outrage is coming from these groups that continue to pound on Republican members," a senior Republican lawmaker said on the condition of anonymity.
Although the Pelosi camp has issued a statement maintaining that the disputed trip was within House rules, the anonymous lawmaker told the Times that nothing distinguished Pelosi’s actions from those of DeLay and other Republicans that she has criticized.
"I think the minority leader ought to be subject to the same type of scrutiny as other members," he said, adding that the questions about Mrs. Pelosi rise to the point of an ethics complaint.
Apparently there was little attempt at subterfuge – with WestStart-CALSTART announcing just before the trip that Pelosi had helped the group secure $1 million from the Federal Transit Administration for a bus rapid-transit program. Furthermore, a month after the adviser’s trip, the group dispatched a press release thanking her for a $2 million grant for a fuel-cell program.
According to campaign records revealed by the Times report, WestStart-CALSTART Chief Executive Officer John R. Boesel also gave $1,000 to one of Pelosi’s political action committees in 2003 and $1,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Boesel said there is no link between the staffer’s trip and the grants, noting that Pelosi had backed his projects for more than a decade. Boesel also emphasized that the programs in question have drawn support from both parties and that his political donations have been divvied up to both parties.
Despite such disclaimers, Ken Boehm, chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center, which has targeted Pelosi’s campaign fund-raising in the past, said, "I think it looks like she’s doing legislative favors for donors because she is."
The controversy arises as Republicans mount an offensive against what they think is a coordinated attack by Pelosi and allied groups on DeLay.
Source Link:
Nancy Pelosi's Ethics Questioned
Nancy Pelosi's Ethics Questioned
In what pundits are calling a quid pro quo for her hard line on the ethics of House Majority Leader Tom Delay, R-Texas, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is under fire for an adviser’s nine-day, $4,475 junket to Spain and Germany last April, a trip primarily paid for by a nonprofit transportation-research organization Pelosi had helped to secure Federal Transit Administration monies, according to a report in the Washington Times.
According to the report, the president of WestStart-CALSTART also gave money to Pelosi’s political action committee at the same time.
The trip is fodder for some Republicans, who say Pelosi and others have been going overboard when criticizing DeLay on ethics charges.
"Given the actions of the minority leader vis-a-vis the majority leader and other Republicans, I’m having a little trouble finding where the outrage is coming from these groups that continue to pound on Republican members," a senior Republican lawmaker said on the condition of anonymity.
Although the Pelosi camp has issued a statement maintaining that the disputed trip was within House rules, the anonymous lawmaker told the Times that nothing distinguished Pelosi’s actions from those of DeLay and other Republicans that she has criticized.
"I think the minority leader ought to be subject to the same type of scrutiny as other members," he said, adding that the questions about Mrs. Pelosi rise to the point of an ethics complaint.
Apparently there was little attempt at subterfuge – with WestStart-CALSTART announcing just before the trip that Pelosi had helped the group secure $1 million from the Federal Transit Administration for a bus rapid-transit program. Furthermore, a month after the adviser’s trip, the group dispatched a press release thanking her for a $2 million grant for a fuel-cell program.
According to campaign records revealed by the Times report, WestStart-CALSTART Chief Executive Officer John R. Boesel also gave $1,000 to one of Pelosi’s political action committees in 2003 and $1,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Boesel said there is no link between the staffer’s trip and the grants, noting that Pelosi had backed his projects for more than a decade. Boesel also emphasized that the programs in question have drawn support from both parties and that his political donations have been divvied up to both parties.
Despite such disclaimers, Ken Boehm, chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center, which has targeted Pelosi’s campaign fund-raising in the past, said, "I think it looks like she’s doing legislative favors for donors because she is."
The controversy arises as Republicans mount an offensive against what they think is a coordinated attack by Pelosi and allied groups on DeLay.
Source Link:
Nancy Pelosi's Ethics Questioned
Monday, April 04, 2005
The Schiavo Execution; Poll Myth Busted:
Zogby Poll: Americans Not in Favor of Starving Terri Schiavo
Polls leading up to the death of Terri Schiavo made it appear Americans had formed a consensus in favor of ending her life. However, a new Zogby poll with fairer questions shows the nation clearly supporting Terri and her parents and wanting to protect the lives of other disabled patients.
The Zogby poll found that, if a person becomes incapacitated and has not expressed their preference for medical treatment, as in Terri's case, 43 percent say "the law presume that the person wants to live, even if the person is receiving food and water through a tube" while just 30 percent disagree.
Another Zogby question his directly on Terri's circumstances.
"If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water," the poll asked.
A whopping 79 percent said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9 percent said yes.
"From the very start of this debate, Americans have sat on one of two sides," Concerned Women for America's Lanier Swann said in response to the poll. One side "believes Terri's life has worth and purpose, and the side who saw Michael Schiavo's actions as merciful, and appropriate."
More than three-fourths of Americans agreed, Swann said, "because a person is disabled, that patient should never be denied food and water."
The poll also lent support to members of Congress to who passed legislation seeking to prevent Terri's starvation death and help her parents take their lawsuit to federal courts.
"When there is conflicting evidence on whether or not a patient would want to be on a feeding tube, should elected officials order that a feeding tube be removed or should they order that it remain in place," respondents were asked.
Some 18 percent said the feeding tube should be removed and 42 percent said it should remain in place.
Swann said her group would encourage Congress to adopt legislation that would federal courts to review cases when the medical treatment desire of individuals is not known and the patient's family has a dispute over the care.
"According to these poll results, many Americans do in fact agree with what we're trying to accomplish," she said.
The poll found that 49 percent of Americans believe there should be exceptions to the right of a spouse to act as a guardian for an incapacitated spouse. Only 39 percent disagreed.
When asked directly about Terri's case and told the her estranged husband Michael "has had a girlfriend for 10 years and has two children with her" 56 percent of Americans believed guardianship should have been turned over to Terri's parents while 37 percent disagreed.
(4/1/2005)
- By Steven Ertelt, Life News
Source Link: Zogby Poll
Zogby Poll: Americans Not in Favor of Starving Terri Schiavo
Polls leading up to the death of Terri Schiavo made it appear Americans had formed a consensus in favor of ending her life. However, a new Zogby poll with fairer questions shows the nation clearly supporting Terri and her parents and wanting to protect the lives of other disabled patients.
The Zogby poll found that, if a person becomes incapacitated and has not expressed their preference for medical treatment, as in Terri's case, 43 percent say "the law presume that the person wants to live, even if the person is receiving food and water through a tube" while just 30 percent disagree.
Another Zogby question his directly on Terri's circumstances.
"If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water," the poll asked.
A whopping 79 percent said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9 percent said yes.
"From the very start of this debate, Americans have sat on one of two sides," Concerned Women for America's Lanier Swann said in response to the poll. One side "believes Terri's life has worth and purpose, and the side who saw Michael Schiavo's actions as merciful, and appropriate."
More than three-fourths of Americans agreed, Swann said, "because a person is disabled, that patient should never be denied food and water."
The poll also lent support to members of Congress to who passed legislation seeking to prevent Terri's starvation death and help her parents take their lawsuit to federal courts.
"When there is conflicting evidence on whether or not a patient would want to be on a feeding tube, should elected officials order that a feeding tube be removed or should they order that it remain in place," respondents were asked.
Some 18 percent said the feeding tube should be removed and 42 percent said it should remain in place.
Swann said her group would encourage Congress to adopt legislation that would federal courts to review cases when the medical treatment desire of individuals is not known and the patient's family has a dispute over the care.
"According to these poll results, many Americans do in fact agree with what we're trying to accomplish," she said.
The poll found that 49 percent of Americans believe there should be exceptions to the right of a spouse to act as a guardian for an incapacitated spouse. Only 39 percent disagreed.
When asked directly about Terri's case and told the her estranged husband Michael "has had a girlfriend for 10 years and has two children with her" 56 percent of Americans believed guardianship should have been turned over to Terri's parents while 37 percent disagreed.
(4/1/2005)
- By Steven Ertelt, Life News
Source Link: Zogby Poll
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Terri Schiavo's 14-day execution: Death penalty opponents now have incontrovertible proof that the justice system has and will execute innocent persons. The Florida judicial system has sentenced a person to die based on hearsay evidence, refused to consider the views of opposing experts, refused to provide legal council, refused to put the evidence to a jury, and imposed the sentence of death by starvation on an innocent woman.
What galls "the Right" is that if a prosecutor came into court and requested the Death Penalty against a person convicted- by a jury- of robbery and murder, and the only evidence was a witness statement that the defendant said they did it, the judge would throw the request out.
What galls "the Right" is that the person convicted of a capital crime is provided a series of appeals at all levels prior to execution and at each level, the evidence is reviewed and any new evidence - such as DNA - is examined. In the Schiavo case, these reviews were denied.
What galls "the Right" is that the imperious "judiciary" used the instance of this woman to make a clearly anti-legislature statement at the expense of her innocent life. They didn't apparently care about any contradictory evidence, the process and the stature of the judiciary outweighed the evidence and the value of her life.
What galls "the Right" is that a cabal of a husband - in legal sense only - a lawyer that is sympathetic to the Hemlock Society and a contributor the presiding judge, and a judge beholding to Mr. Felos teamed up to decide the fate of this woman without regard to the evidence or wishes of blood relatives.
What galls "the Right" is that if word came out that the U.S. Military were allowing prisoners in Guantanamo Bay or Abu Grahib prisons to die of starvation and dehydration while their blood relatives were forced to sit by and watch, the ACLU along with Human Rights Watch would have teamed up with the New York Times, LA Times, and Washington Post to demand court action to defend the prisoners.
What galls "the Right" is the outcry over the intervention of the U.S. Congress, particularly by the equally imperious media. Herewith a quote from the U.S. Constitution, Article III: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The U.S. Congress was clearly within it's jurisdiction to pass a law allowing for federal review of the Schiavo case, but the media were allowed to successfully misrepresent the situation.
The nation must now come to grips with the fact a state judiciary has executed an incapacitated woman based on a lower standard of evidence than would be required in a court of law for conviction. Why?
What galls "the Right" is that if a prosecutor came into court and requested the Death Penalty against a person convicted- by a jury- of robbery and murder, and the only evidence was a witness statement that the defendant said they did it, the judge would throw the request out.
What galls "the Right" is that the person convicted of a capital crime is provided a series of appeals at all levels prior to execution and at each level, the evidence is reviewed and any new evidence - such as DNA - is examined. In the Schiavo case, these reviews were denied.
What galls "the Right" is that the imperious "judiciary" used the instance of this woman to make a clearly anti-legislature statement at the expense of her innocent life. They didn't apparently care about any contradictory evidence, the process and the stature of the judiciary outweighed the evidence and the value of her life.
What galls "the Right" is that a cabal of a husband - in legal sense only - a lawyer that is sympathetic to the Hemlock Society and a contributor the presiding judge, and a judge beholding to Mr. Felos teamed up to decide the fate of this woman without regard to the evidence or wishes of blood relatives.
What galls "the Right" is that if word came out that the U.S. Military were allowing prisoners in Guantanamo Bay or Abu Grahib prisons to die of starvation and dehydration while their blood relatives were forced to sit by and watch, the ACLU along with Human Rights Watch would have teamed up with the New York Times, LA Times, and Washington Post to demand court action to defend the prisoners.
What galls "the Right" is the outcry over the intervention of the U.S. Congress, particularly by the equally imperious media. Herewith a quote from the U.S. Constitution, Article III: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The U.S. Congress was clearly within it's jurisdiction to pass a law allowing for federal review of the Schiavo case, but the media were allowed to successfully misrepresent the situation.
The nation must now come to grips with the fact a state judiciary has executed an incapacitated woman based on a lower standard of evidence than would be required in a court of law for conviction. Why?
