Delay

[Balta1701]

If you don't like Tom Delay...it doesn't get much better than This WaPo piece from today.

 

Brief summary before I excerpt:

 

1. U.S. Family Network was a gigantic advocacy group basically run by Jack Abramoff

2. U.S. Family Network never did any advocacy or lobbying work, they simply served to funnel corporate donations, including those from overseas, into Republican/Delay campaigns. They never had more than 1 employee.

3. The Russians donated over a million dollars to this group to try to encourage Delay to support them in a vote. Several businesses in the Marianas Islands gave them hundreds of thousands of dollars in exchange for Abramoff's help securing Delay's support on another vote.

 

Got that everyone? One of the most powerful men in Congress appears to have been in bed with Russian oil companies! Goodie!

 

The U.S. Family Network, a public advocacy group that operated in the 1990s with close ties to Rep. Tom DeLay and claimed to be a nationwide grass-roots organization, was funded almost entirely by corporations linked to embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to tax records and former associates of the group.

 

During its five-year existence, the U.S. Family Network raised $2.5 million but kept its donor list secret. The list, obtained by The Washington Post, shows that $1 million of its revenue came in a single 1998 check from a now-defunct London law firm whose former partners would not identify the money's origins.

 

Two former associates of Edwin A. Buckham, the congressman's former chief of staff and the organizer of the U.S. Family Network, said Buckham told them the funds came from Russian oil and gas executives. Abramoff had been working closely with two such Russian energy executives on their Washington agenda, and the lobbyist and Buckham had helped organize a 1997 Moscow visit by DeLay (R-Tex.).

 

The former president of the U.S. Family Network said Buckham told him that Russians contributed $1 million to the group in 1998 specifically to influence DeLay's vote on legislation the International Monetary Fund needed to finance a bailout of the collapsing Russian economy.

 

A spokesman for DeLay, who is fighting in a Texas state court unrelated charges of illegal fundraising, denied that the contributions influenced the former House majority leader's political activities. The Russian energy executives who worked with Abramoff denied yesterday knowing anything about the million-dollar London transaction described in tax documents.

 

Whatever the real motive for the contribution of $1 million -- a sum not prohibited by law but extraordinary for a small, nonprofit group -- the steady stream of corporate payments detailed on the donor list makes it clear that Abramoff's long-standing alliance with DeLay was sealed by a much more extensive web of financial ties than previously known.

 

Records and interviews also illuminate the mixture of influence and illusion that surrounded the U.S. Family Network. Despite the group's avowed purpose, records show it did little to promote conservative ideas through grass-roots advocacy. The money it raised came from businesses with no demonstrated interest in the conservative "moral fitness" agenda that was the group's professed aim.

 

In addition to the million-dollar payment involving the London law firm, for example, half a million dollars was donated to the U.S. Family Network by the owners of textile companies in the Mariana Islands in the Pacific, according to the tax records. The textile owners -- with Abramoff's help -- solicited and received DeLay's public commitment to block legislation that would boost their labor costs, according to Abramoff associates, one of the owners and a DeLay speech in 1997.

 

A quarter of a million dollars was donated over two years by the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Abramoff's largest lobbying client, which counted DeLay as an ally in fighting legislation allowing the taxation of its gambling revenue.

 

The records, other documents and interviews call into question the very purpose of the U.S. Family Network, which functioned mostly by collecting funds from domestic and foreign businesses whose interests coincided with DeLay's activities while he was serving as House majority whip from 1995 to 2002, and as majority leader from 2002 until the end of September.

 

After the group was formed in 1996, its director told the Internal Revenue Service that its goal was to advocate policies favorable for "economic growth and prosperity, social improvement, moral fitness, and the general well-being of the United States." DeLay, in a 1999 fundraising letter, called the group "a powerful nationwide organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizen control" by mobilizing grass-roots citizen support.

 

But the records show that the tiny U.S. Family Network, which never had more than one full-time staff member, spent comparatively little money on public advocacy or education projects. Although established as a nonprofit organization, it paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees to Buckham and his lobbying firm, Alexander Strategy Group.

 

There is no evidence DeLay received a direct financial benefit, but Buckham's firm employed DeLay's wife, Christine, and paid her a salary of at least $3,200 each month for three of the years the group existed. Richard Cullen, DeLay's attorney, has said that the pay was compensation for lists Christine DeLay supplied to Buckham of lawmakers' favorite charities, and that it was appropriate under House rules and election law.

 

Some of the U.S. Family Network's revenue was used to pay for radio ads attacking vulnerable Democratic lawmakers in 1999; other funds were used to finance the cash purchase of a townhouse three blocks from DeLay's congressional office. DeLay's associates at the time called it "the Safe House."

 

DeLay made his own fundraising telephone pitches from the townhouse's second-floor master suite every few weeks, according to two former associates. Other rooms in the townhouse were used by Alexander Strategy Group, Buckham's newly formed lobbying firm, and Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC), DeLay's leadership committee.

 

They paid modest rent to the U.S. Family Network, which occupied a single small room in the back.

[Texsox]

Lies, distortions, and half truths. DeLay wouldn't take Russian money, he's a Republican. The Indians shouldn't be taxed on their gambling revenues, because that would slow the economy, by the Indians keeping more of their money and spending it, more money will be paid in taxes down the road. Republicans never want to see government mandated wages increase, so his position that those textile workers should receive government mandated wage increases is consistent with GOP beliefs.

 

There is no evidence DeLay received a direct financial benefit,

Some of the U.S. Family Network's revenue was used to pay for radio ads attacking vulnerable Democratic lawmakers in 1999; other funds were used to finance the cash purchase of a townhouse three blocks from DeLay's congressional office. DeLay's associates at the time called it "the Safe House."

 

Politicians cannot make fundraising calls from government offices and have to leave the property. I think it is nice this group allowed Tom "The Hammer" DeLay to use some space so close to his office. Getting rid of Democrates should be DeLay's passion. They have no value, and are just f***ing up the country with their unAmerican thinking. There probably should be a constitutional ban on them, then those activist judges would finally accomplish something useful for mothers, apple pie, and baseball.

 

Hammer Time 2008

[YASNY]

I love subtle sarcasm.

[Texsox]

I love subtle sarcasm. 

 

The sarcasm was clearly marked in green, I don't think that is subtle.

As I have stated many, many times. Let the voters in Sugarland decide on DeLay. The Dems have taken so many shots, I've lost count, and none have stuck. They took their best shot, it failed. This is revenge politics (for the redistricting) at it's worse.

 

Tax cuts and no increases to minimum wage are both strong GOP positions. Finding out that people who share those values contribute to those candidates is a no issue in my book. Now if a liberal group contributed to a conservative candidate, and the candidate suddenly was voting with the Dems, then you have something, or vice versa.

[YASNY]

Perhaps my sarcasm was too subtle.

[Texsox]

Perhaps my sarcasm was too subtle.

 

Ahhh, sorry

[sox4lifeinPA]

damn, I need a slushie fund....

 

 

thank you, come again.

[Texsox]

damn, I need a slushie fund....

thank you, come again.

 

Where you in his District

[southsideirish71]

If you don't like Tom Delay...it doesn't get much better than This WaPo piece from today.

 

Brief summary before I excerpt:

 

1. U.S. Family Network was a gigantic advocacy group basically run by Jack Abramoff

2. U.S. Family Network never did any advocacy or lobbying work, they simply served to funnel corporate donations, including those from overseas, into Republican/Delay campaigns. They never had more than 1 employee.

3. The Russians donated over a million dollars to this group to try to encourage Delay to support them in a vote. Several businesses in the Marianas Islands gave them hundreds of thousands of dollars in exchange for Abramoff's help securing Delay's support on another vote.

 

Got that everyone? One of the most powerful men in Congress appears to have been in bed with Russian oil companies! Goodie!

 

The U.S. Family Network, a public advocacy group that operated in the 1990s with close ties to Rep. Tom DeLay and claimed to be a nationwide grass-roots organization, was funded almost entirely by corporations linked to embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to tax records and former associates of the group.

 

During its five-year existence, the U.S. Family Network raised $2.5 million but kept its donor list secret. The list, obtained by The Washington Post, shows that $1 million of its revenue came in a single 1998 check from a now-defunct London law firm whose former partners would not identify the money's origins.

 

Two former associates of Edwin A. Buckham, the congressman's former chief of staff and the organizer of the U.S. Family Network, said Buckham told them the funds came from Russian oil and gas executives. Abramoff had been working closely with two such Russian energy executives on their Washington agenda, and the lobbyist and Buckham had helped organize a 1997 Moscow visit by DeLay (R-Tex.).

 

The former president of the U.S. Family Network said Buckham told him that Russians contributed $1 million to the group in 1998 specifically to influence DeLay's vote on legislation the International Monetary Fund needed to finance a bailout of the collapsing Russian economy.

 

A spokesman for DeLay, who is fighting in a Texas state court unrelated charges of illegal fundraising, denied that the contributions influenced the former House majority leader's political activities. The Russian energy executives who worked with Abramoff denied yesterday knowing anything about the million-dollar London transaction described in tax documents.

 

Whatever the real motive for the contribution of $1 million -- a sum not prohibited by law but extraordinary for a small, nonprofit group -- the steady stream of corporate payments detailed on the donor list makes it clear that Abramoff's long-standing alliance with DeLay was sealed by a much more extensive web of financial ties than previously known.

 

Records and interviews also illuminate the mixture of influence and illusion that surrounded the U.S. Family Network. Despite the group's avowed purpose, records show it did little to promote conservative ideas through grass-roots advocacy. The money it raised came from businesses with no demonstrated interest in the conservative "moral fitness" agenda that was the group's professed aim.

 

In addition to the million-dollar payment involving the London law firm, for example, half a million dollars was donated to the U.S. Family Network by the owners of textile companies in the Mariana Islands in the Pacific, according to the tax records. The textile owners -- with Abramoff's help -- solicited and received DeLay's public commitment to block legislation that would boost their labor costs, according to Abramoff associates, one of the owners and a DeLay speech in 1997.

 

A quarter of a million dollars was donated over two years by the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Abramoff's largest lobbying client, which counted DeLay as an ally in fighting legislation allowing the taxation of its gambling revenue.

 

The records, other documents and interviews call into question the very purpose of the U.S. Family Network, which functioned mostly by collecting funds from domestic and foreign businesses whose interests coincided with DeLay's activities while he was serving as House majority whip from 1995 to 2002, and as majority leader from 2002 until the end of September.

 

After the group was formed in 1996, its director told the Internal Revenue Service that its goal was to advocate policies favorable for "economic growth and prosperity, social improvement, moral fitness, and the general well-being of the United States." DeLay, in a 1999 fundraising letter, called the group "a powerful nationwide organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizen control" by mobilizing grass-roots citizen support.

 

But the records show that the tiny U.S. Family Network, which never had more than one full-time staff member, spent comparatively little money on public advocacy or education projects. Although established as a nonprofit organization, it paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees to Buckham and his lobbying firm, Alexander Strategy Group.

 

There is no evidence DeLay received a direct financial benefit, but Buckham's firm employed DeLay's wife, Christine, and paid her a salary of at least $3,200 each month for three of the years the group existed. Richard Cullen, DeLay's attorney, has said that the pay was compensation for lists Christine DeLay supplied to Buckham of lawmakers' favorite charities, and that it was appropriate under House rules and election law.

 

Some of the U.S. Family Network's revenue was used to pay for radio ads attacking vulnerable Democratic lawmakers in 1999; other funds were used to finance the cash purchase of a townhouse three blocks from DeLay's congressional office. DeLay's associates at the time called it "the Safe House."

 

DeLay made his own fundraising telephone pitches from the townhouse's second-floor master suite every few weeks, according to two former associates. Other rooms in the townhouse were used by Alexander Strategy Group, Buckham's newly formed lobbying firm, and Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC), DeLay's leadership committee.

 

They paid modest rent to the U.S. Family Network, which occupied a single small room in the back.

 

So basically its a political action committee. Just like all of them huh. Both the Dems and the Republicans have pacs, and both sides have just as much behind the scenes crap around them. Pacs are evil, for both sides of this. Its the shadier side of our lovely system. Conjecture and bulls*** aside, and party lines aside, BOTH SIDES are just to blame. And both sides have equally slimy PACs. Anyone that believes this is a republican thing only is a bit naive.

[Balta1701]

So basically its a political action committee.  Just like all of them huh.  Both the Dems and the Republicans have pacs, and both sides have just as much behind the scenes crap around them.  Pacs are evil, for both sides of this.  Its the shadier side of our lovely system.  Conjecture and bulls*** aside, and party lines aside, BOTH SIDES are just to blame.  And both sides have equally slimy PACs.  Anyone that believes this is a republican thing only is a bit naive.

When Abramoff finishes up his plea deal...we'll see about that.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I didn't hear this much complaining from the left when Al Gore was taking money from the Chinese. I guess that was ok huh?

[Texsox]

I didn't hear this much complaining from the left when Al Gore was taking money from the Chinese.  I guess that was ok huh?

 

I am not hearing any complaining from the right now. Yet they complained about Al Gore? Hmmmm, I guess both sides are guilty of selected ethics in fund raising.

[EvilMonkey]

http://news.pajamasmedia.com/2005/12/19/67...Will_Retu.shtml

 

Abrmoff was an equal opportunity scumbag. If he talks, ALOT of people, on both sides, are going down.

[kapkomet]

http://news.pajamasmedia.com/2005/12/19/67...Will_Retu.shtml

 

Abrmoff was an equal opportunity scumbag.  If he talks, ALOT of people, on both sides, are going down.

DeLay is the biggest fish in a HUGE pond. I agree, there will be fundamental changes if this guy sings to "protect" both sides.

[Rex Kickass]

http://news.pajamasmedia.com/2005/12/19/67...Will_Retu.shtml

 

Abrmoff was an equal opportunity scumbag.  If he talks, ALOT of people, on both sides, are going down.

 

Bloomberg Media would disagree with the "equal opportunity" tag.

 

http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/pre...p.php?view=1239

 

Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show. At the same time, his Indian clients were the only ones among the top 10 tribal donors in the U.S. to donate more money to Republicans than Democrats.

 

I should say at this point - to preempt the "you'll do anything to exonerate the Democrats" accusation that seems inevitable, but I hope anyone that Abramoff helped break the law with goes down hard. I just seem to get the idea - that the bulk of people he helped were Republican. Why? Cause he was one.

Edited January 3, 2006 by Rex Kickass

[Texsox]

Bloomberg Media would disagree with the "equal opportunity" tag.

 

http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/pre...p.php?view=1239

I should say at this point - to preempt the "you'll do anything to exonerate the Democrats" accusation that seems inevitable, but I hope anyone that Abramoff helped break the law with goes down hard. I just seem to get the idea - that the bulk of people he helped were Republican. Why? Cause he was one.

 

If you want Republican votes, hire a guy close to them. If you want Democrat votes, hire a guy close to them. And there are plenty of those guys to go around.

 

IMHO, the "business" of government produces the same scum bags on, and for, both sides of the aisle.

[Rex Kickass]

And that's sorta my point.

[NorthSideSox72]

Regarding the "business" of government...

 

I'd like to see the Republicans go back to one of their mantras of the 80's (and other periods in their history), of saying that government should indeed run like business. And mean it, of course. That does NOT mean just making broad funding cuts across all areas at once, with no follow up on implementation.

 

It would probably mean bringing in professional consulting firms, many of them, to analyze each department for efficiency and methodology. Contracts to all major firms, for protection and balance. No pay for play in the contract, just analysis and proposal for direction. Then make the agencies reach the target efficiences set in the analysis and strategies, and have the consultancy firms monitor the implementation for actual usefulness. Not just cuts that are easy, but cuts and re-engineering of processes that actually make the agencies leaner in the long run. Lots more detail needed here, but you get the picture. No more agencies that run at 90% to self-feeding administrative costs (see: BIA).

 

That's in my ideal world. When I've voted Republican before (which I have for many offices in many elections), one of the major drivers was fiscal responsibility. I'd like to see them get back on track with that priority, which I think they've thrown out the window in recent years (at least at the Federal level anyway).

 

I totally went off-thread there, didn't I? Sorry. Tex's post sent me in that direction. Plus I can't sleep.

[sox4lifeinPA]

I didn't hear this much complaining from the left when Al Gore was taking money from the Chinese.  I guess that was ok huh?

 

damn, they could have paid me in TSO Chicken.

 

YUM!!!!!

[Texsox]

Tex's post sent me in that direction.  Plus I can't sleep.

 

I should have said the business of politics.

 

The Republicans lost fiscal responsibility with Reagan. He cut taxes and made Republicans happy, he increased spending and made Democrats happy. Of course that made all of us happy in the short term.

[southsider2k5]

I didn't hear this much complaining from the left when Al Gore was taking money from the Chinese.  I guess that was ok huh?

 

They tried to get John Kerry elected President after taking money from the same guy as Gore/Clinton, and Kerry even did the one up of getting the guy a meeting with the SEC. For those keeping score at home, that is forgein nationals giving money to our top governmental officials to influence them...

[Texsox]

They tried to get John Kerry elected President after taking money from the same guy as Gore/Clinton, and Kerry even did the one up of getting the guy a meeting with the SEC.  For those keeping score at home, that is forgein nationals giving money to our top governmental officials to influence them...

 

Even better is we give our tax money to foreign nationals to influence them.