I guess they are all bad

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » October 17, 2006, 5:43 pm

This is getting frustrating
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/17/ ... index.html

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » October 17, 2006, 6:15 pm

I love how politicians only "amend" documents after they've been caught in the cookie jar. None of them declare it in the beginning.
Of course, I have also left income off my taxes before. I want more of my money for me. There is a huge difference, however, in 1000 in tips for piano playing and a 750,000 dollar condo.
You're right Cart, this ethics problem isn't limited to one side of the spectrum. Just slides me one degree closer to total cynicism about our national government.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » October 17, 2006, 6:45 pm

RE the land deal:

Yes let's just wait and see what the ethics committee makes of this. He didn't fail to report the income. The committee just required clarification on a disclosure report. It doesn't sound particularly noteworthy.

Re: the gifts.

Sounds like he made a reasonable effort to insure that it was a legal expenditure in running it by his lawyer. Noble even notes that it is a gray area of the law.

Al · Post by Al » October 17, 2006, 7:30 pm

Arborealus wrote:Sounds like he made a reasonable effort to insure that it was a legal expenditure in running it by his lawyer. Noble even notes that it is a gray area of the law.

A gray area that states clearly that campaign money cannot under any circumstance be used for personal expenditures. He needs to fire his lawyer and seek mental help for believing someone who would say a personal gift can be written off as part of a campaign (even if the lawyer rationalized it by saying something like, "Well, I bet $3300 would win that guy over... We've spent more for less in the past!"). If I were in a business and I used company money to buy my family something for Christmas, I would be fired and charges would be brought against me. His campaign money is no different (well, it is at least similar). Those are funds intended for public use, and a lot of that money comes from charitable organizations. If we allow people to use it for personal reasons, it opens up a plethora of legal precedents.

Edit:

His campaign listed the expenses as campaign "salary" for two of the years and as a "contribution" one year.

Sounds like an attempt to cover it up to me. He wouldn't need to change the description of the transfer if he thought it was legal.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » October 17, 2006, 8:31 pm

Al wrote:
Arborealus wrote:Sounds like he made a reasonable effort to insure that it was a legal expenditure in running it by his lawyer. Noble even notes that it is a gray area of the law.
A gray area that states clearly that campaign money cannot under any circumstance be used for personal expenditures. He needs to fire his lawyer and seek mental help for believing someone who would say a personal gift can be written off as part of a campaign (even if the lawyer rationalized it by saying something like, "Well, I bet $3300 would win that guy over... We've spent more for less in the past!"). If I were in a business and I used company money to buy my family something for Christmas, I would be fired and charges would be brought against me. His campaign money is no different (well, it is at least similar). Those are funds intended for public use, and a lot of that money comes from charitable organizations. If we allow people to use it for personal reasons, it opens up a plethora of legal precedents.

Edit:
His campaign listed the expenses as campaign "salary" for two of the years and as a "contribution" one year.
Sounds like an attempt to cover it up to me. He wouldn't need to change the description of the transfer if he thought it was legal.

Please find me any federal law that clear. There are myriad footnotes and if thens in that law. If the head of the ethics committee characterizes it as gray, then yanno I think you are probably just wrong there.

And I just don't buy that this guy would engage in a cover up over $3k in gifts over 3 years. It makes no sense. 3k is not padding your pockets at that level.

Al · Post by Al » October 18, 2006, 5:53 am

Padding your pockets? I think it was more, "Look what I can do!".

The law specifically defines prohibited personal use expenses as any "obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's campaign or duties as a federal officeholder."

Land deeds show Reid and his wife, Landra, purchased a condominium for their Washington residence at the hotel for $750,000 in March 2001. The holiday fund has existed for years at the condo, workers said.

It would seem that living in that condo results in donations solicitation, regardless of whether you are a senator or a dump truck driver. That would qualify as " irrespective of the candidate's campaign or duties as a federal officeholder".

Edit: nm about the edit.... drunken ramblings

Trek · Post by **Trek** » October 18, 2006, 9:05 am

Not to mention his 4 sons that he got working in Washington for quite a nice chunk of change

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » October 18, 2006, 1:41 pm

um hes a democrat so its perfectly ok because his corruption gives people money while republican corruption fucks underage boys and steals money from people

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 18, 2006, 1:43 pm

And if this same story was posted about Bush, most of the people in this thread, plus some would be ranting about how they can't believe how arrogant he is, and how he just did something else stupid.

I don't know what stuns me more, the arrogance, the ignorance, or the way you try to make people believe you are intelligent.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 18, 2006, 2:28 pm

And if this same story was posted about Bush, most of the people in this thread, plus some would be ranting about how they can't believe how arrogant he is, and how he just did something else stupid.

I don't know what stuns me more, the arrogance, the ignorance, or the way you try to make people believe you are intelligent.

If his intent was to defraud, don't you think he would aim higher than $3300 in gifts?

If anything, he's probably just guilty of being stupid.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » October 18, 2006, 2:29 pm

miir wrote:
And if this same story was posted about Bush, most of the people in this thread, plus some would be ranting about how they can't believe how arrogant he is, and how he just did something else stupid.

I don't know what stuns me more, the arrogance, the ignorance, or the way you try to make people believe you are intelligent.
If his intent was to defraud, don't you think he would aim higher than $3300 in gifts?

If anything, he's probably just guilty of being stupid.

You would think so, but then again I wouldn't put anything past a politician so I wouldn't rule it out.

Post by **Sylvus** » October 18, 2006, 2:54 pm

Yeah, someone reporting income they made and possibly following a protocol incorrectly, as well as accidentally (or whatever) using money he shouldn't have after asking his lawyer first if it was okay to do so is completely on par with being a pedophile, acting on it at work (read: while he should be, I dunno, voting? Proposing legislation? Whatever his job entails...) and having your party's leaders turn a blind eye and cover it up until the story breaks in the news.

Yep, they're all bad. Equally bad.

'Twas a nice riposte by the Republicans, though. Watch how Reid is going to be villified to the same extent as the pedophile now.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » October 18, 2006, 2:58 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:And if this same story was posted about Bush, most of the people in this thread, plus some would be ranting about how they can't believe how arrogant he is, and how he just did something else stupid.

I don't know what stuns me more, the arrogance, the ignorance, or the way you try to make people believe you are intelligent.

No I would say the same thing. I have more than adequate reasons to hate Bush.

My point was let the ethics committee do their work and see if there is anything unethical or illegal happening. When they bother to issue censure etc. based on the evidence they have then it is worth looking at. Until then it is all just rovian noisemaking.