From the AP, via the San Franciscom Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic.../02/05/politics0226EST0429.DTL&type=printable -- AP Exclusive: Three times, Kerry nominations and donations coincided JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writers Thursday, February 5, 2004 ©2004 Associated Press At least three times in his Senate career, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry has recommended individuals for positions at federal home loan banks just before or after receiving political contributions from the nominees, records show. In one case, Kerry wrote to the Federal Housing Finance Board to urge the reappointment of a candidate just one day before a Kerry campaign committee received $1,000 from the nominee, the records show. "One has nothing to do with the other," said Marvin Siflinger, who contributed around the time of Kerry's Oct. 1, 1996, recommendation that he be reappointed for another term to the board. Kerry's office, like the nominees, insists the timing of the donations and the nominations was a coincidence. "Sen. Kerry recommends dozens of very qualified individuals each year without regard to their politics or contributions. In this case each of the individuals were highly qualified for the jobs they were appointed to and served with distinction," spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said. "John Kerry is grateful for their support, and we should be thanking them for their service, not questioning it," she added. "The timing of the contributions was completely circumstantial." But a longtime government watchdog says it is common for Washington appointees to donate just before or after they are nominated. "This is just business as usual in Washington," said Larry Noble, the former chief lawyer for the Federal Election Commission who now heads the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. "Kerry is out there saying he is not being part of that game, yet he is the product of the same money system." With Kerry more vocally portraying himself on the presidential campaign trail as an opponent of special interest money in Washington, scrutiny of his dealings with donors and special interests has increased among his rivals and the news media. Noble said while Kerry long has advocated campaign finance reform, he also has benefited from the big money system he now distances himself from on the campaign trail. "It's like a game where you say the people who support me just want good government, but the people who support my opponent are special interests," he said. When he first ran for the Senate, Kerry promised voters he would carefully choose nominees on merit. "I will act as a persistent watchdog over presidential appointments to ensure that only people of integrity, ability and commitment hold positions of power in our national government," Kerry wrote in a June 1984 fund-raising appeal. All three of the people Kerry recommended got the positions they sought on various boards of Federal Home Loan Banks in Boston and New York that provide money for home mortgages. Kerry's recommendations went to the five-member Federal Housing Finance Board, the regulatory body that votes on the final selections. Recommendations come from members of Congress, the White House and trade associations. Siflinger, who was a state housing finance official when Kerry was Massachusetts lieutenant governor, was first appointed to the bank board in Boston during President George H.W. Bush's presidency and in 1996 sought Kerry's help to get reappointed. "You normally seek the support of prominent people who are respected. Certainly in this instance I sought the support of Senator Kerry and I sought support of other members of the congressional delegation," Siflinger said in an interview Thursday. Siflinger made his first donation to Kerry's Senate campaign committee in 1995 more than a year before his reappointment, according to Federal Election Commission records. His most recent donation to Kerry was several weeks ago, Siflinger said. Investment banker Derek Bryson Park says it's "pure happenstance" that he made a pair of $1,000 donations to Kerry a month before the senator's Dec. 29, 1998, letter recommending Park for a position at the Federal Home Loan Bank of New York. "I got assistance from both ... Democrats and Republicans" in attaining the bank board post, Park said. The only political donations Park made to federal candidates around the period of his appointment were to Kerry, according to FEC records. "I've been fortunate to be invited to Senator Kerry's home and we've had a number of meals together and get-togethers," said Park, who got to know Kerry through a longtime supporter of the senator. Former congressional staffer Patrick Dober said that "there's absolutely no relationship" between his $408 donation nearly three months after Kerry's Oct. 9, 1998, recommendation to the federal bank board. Kerry's letter praised Dober for having "worked closely with my office" on "the banking crisis in the early 1990s." At the time, Dober worked for Boston Capital, a real estate financing and investment firm co-founded by Kerry supporter Jack Manning. Manning, who has donated more than $800,000 to the Democratic causes over the past 14 years, gave $65,000 in 2001 and 2002 to a tax-exempt political group Kerry set up. Dober says he thinks his $408 for tickets to a Kerry fund-raiser is the only contribution he's ever made to Kerry. "There was a fund-raiser for Kerry and they had James Taylor and Robin Williams playing," Dober recalled. "My wife and I said this looks like fun. The tickets were a hundred bucks and a $2 service charge, so my wife and I went with another couple and I wrote the check."
This just in: 100% of all appointees to the Federal Bench by George W. Bush contributed to the Bush '00 campaign.
Every politician in every office everywhere is a w****. All of them are beholden to some special interest, be it oil barons or unions. Thinking otherwise is simply naive. Of course Kerry is a shill for special interests. You don't serve in the U.S. Senate for 20 years and then run for president without turning tricks for campaign donations. At election time, we suspend our disbelief and swallow whole their rhetoric about being independent and working for the common man. But they're still whores, doing the work of their special interest pimps. That Americans have to choose between two candidates who sell their principles for an extra nickel is a disgrace. The system needs to be overhauled. I'm voting for the Democratic candidate because his pimp is less offensive to me, but that's a pretty damn sorry way to choose the leader of the free world.
That's not my response at all My response is that nearly 100% of all political appointees are made up of people who donate to campaigns. Bush did it, Clinton did it, Bush Sr. did it, Reagan did it, Carter did it...and so on and so forth. This article cites 3 instances. Bush probably has hundreds or even thousands of appointees who have this same characteristic, as did Clinton, etc.
Why is Basso posting negative articles on Kerry, could it be because he's looking like the Democratic Candidate. So if he's posting an article about something Kerry did to urge you not to vote for him, what's wrong with saying the opposition did the same thing. So yes, its a legit response.
BTW, if that's the best dirt that basso, who no doubt is feverishly scouring NRO, Opinion Journal, Newsmax, Drudgereport, etc, can dig up about Kerry and dutifully updating us of his progress...I'm feeling pretty confident about his chances in November.
But wait, I thought Kerry was the man to fight the special interests?? [Joe Shmoe voice] WHAT IS GOING ON?!? [/Joe Shmoe voice] So let's take a new tally on the liberals' candidate of the month: Panders to Special Interests: Check Against Gay Marriage: Check Voted for the illegal and unjust war in Iraq: Check Supports NAFTA and the exporting of jobs: Check Plans to raise taxes: Check Looks like he is filled with embalming fluid: Check Has a record of not getting his bills passed in the Senate: Check Protested the war in Vietnam with Jane Fonda: Check Disrespected the way in which the US Military honors patriotism and merit: Check Opposes developing natural resources and creating jobs in Alaska: Check At one time favored reducing taxes on the super wealthy: Check Lookee here liberals! We've got a winner!
Hopefully with McCain Feingold, this will be somewhat alleviated. With individual contribution limits, the super large donors can't separate themselves as much from the pack.
normally i'd agree, however kerry has left himself open to these types of charges since he's started spouting his "anti-special interests" line. in that sense, calling him on the contradictions in his own record, it's a legitimate issue.
Great! Since everyone seems to agree that all politicians do this, then we can also agree there's no use posting an article next time Bush appoints a campaign contributor! Hip-hip-hooray! ...like that'll happen.
Like what will happen? If there were a thread everytime an elected official appointed a campaign contributor to a public post....there would be like 100 of them a day, every single day.
thwhy77, while I'd love to get into a detailed analysis of reconciling Buckley v. Valeo with McConnell v. FEC with you, I'd rather smash myself over the head with a steel rod for the next six hours, cool?
I know that this is what happens on a daily basis with all politicians, and frankly don't really care that much since this is how the system works; but what is laughable, is that Kerry is trying to campaign on a platform against special interests! What the hell is he thinking? Dude, pick a new platform, for your own sake. . .
Campaign Finance Restrictions Violate the Constitution By Floyd Abrams {First appeared in the Wall Street Journal} Towards the end of the 1992 presidential campaign, I had "maxed out" in my contributions to the Clinton campaign. A thousand dollars for the primaries, another thousand for the general election, and I had given all that the law allows. So I was surprised to receive a call asking me if I would make an additional contribution to the Democratic National Committee. Thus did I learn the difference between "hard" money and "soft"--that is, between money to be spent on a political campaign (which could only be given in limited amounts) and money dedicated to building one's political party (which was unlimited). And thus did I learn the lack of difference between the two. It is understandable that proponents of campaign finance reform in Congress would seek to close the "loophole" through which my solicitor was seeking to move my money. It is more than understandable that they would seek to limit how much soft money individuals or political action committees may give. And it is perfectly understandable that they would object to corporations and unions giving soft money and thus effectively circumventing the laws that prevent them from giving hard money. All these efforts make a kind of sense, but the legislation aimed at campaign finance reform that was defeated last month in the Senate, and last week failed even to reach the House floor, was at war with freedom of speech. Return with me for a moment to First Amendment principles--to one of the few principles upon which individuals ranging from Robert Bork to Laurence Tribe agree. It is that political speech is at the apex of First Amendment protection. Was I not engaged in political speech when I contributed to the DNC? And when I contributed to the Clinton campaign itself? Proponents of campaign finance reform argue that the speech I was engaging in by contributing money was dangerous in the sense that too much of it from too few people could result in wealthier contributors skewing the political system in their favor. That is not a ridiculous argument. But it should not lead to restrictions on speech in the service of "protecting" people who have less money. That would strike at the heart of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court recognized as much in Buckley v. Valeo (1976). The court held unconstitutional limits on expenditures that Congress had adopted in the aftermath of Watergate. "The concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements in our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment," Justice William Brennan wrote for the court. But while the ruling barred restrictions on campaign spending, it permitted restrictions on contributions to a campaign. The former, the court said, jeopardized speech more directly, since expenditures were tantamount to speech itself; the latter merely associated the contributor with speech with which the contributor agreed. And contributions (unlike expenditures) were said to raise more directly the specter of corruption. Result: Steve Forbes and Ross Perot can spend all they want of their own money on their campaigns. But if my political tastes had led me to wish to contribute to their campaigns, I would have been limited to $1,000 per campaign--or I could have made unlimited contributions to the political entities Messrs. Forbes and Perot created to tout their candidates. It's an odd result, not least because the First Amendment distinction between expenditures and contributions is so intellectually shaky. Most of the opposition to having distinct First Amendment rules for the two categories has come from people and groups that wish to limit both political spending and political contributions. But increasing intellectual firepower has come from people who have concluded that the First Amendment does not allow restrictions on either. Last summer, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a powerful dissenting opinion rejecting the distinction altogether. "Whether an individual donates money to a candidate or group who will use it to promote the candidate or whether the individual spends the money to promote the candidate himself," Justice Thomas wrote, "the individual seeks to engage in political expression and to associate with like-minded persons. A contribution is simply an indirect expenditure." Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law School is one of an increasingly vocal group of scholars who believe that the First Amendment bars limitations on either expenditures or contributions. To share their views, as I do, is not to doom us to a system in which the views of wealthier interests will always rule. Not, at least, if the public knows who is contributing to whom. Ms. Sullivan has thus proposed that limits on spending and contributions be abandoned so long as "the identity of contributors [is] required to be vigorously and frequently reported." House Speaker Newt Gingrich has taken the same approach. It is certainly an approach that is consistent with deeply rooted First Amendment principles. If we trust people to make sound judgments when properly informed of the facts, why not seek to assure that there is more speech and more information about political candidates? None of this is fanciful. It is not at all clear that Bob Dole profited more from the contributions of tobacco companies than President Clinton did from criticizing Mr. Dole for taking the money. The same may be true of the National Rifle Association, the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups. First Amendment principles should guide whatever legislative solution we choose. The first principle is that it is not for Congress to decide that political speech is some sort of disease that we must quarantine.
sorry...I was referring to the ability of others to refrain from posting similar articles about bush.
I understand where you're coming from and see your point. But why should someone with money have more of a say in a democracy than someone without money? Money is property, not speech. It's because some Americans consider money "speech" that special interests control the political landscape. Politicians should put their contituents first, not those who donated money to their campaigns.
