Who picks the charities? Who watches where the money goes then? Who might be working for the charities chosen?
I am definitely FOR supporting worthy charities, but this bit about returning Abramhoff clients' money to charity sorta worries me.
First, it is not 'returning the money' if you don't give it back to the folks who gave it to you. That is passing the money on. Something people also do in money laundering schemes.
Second, how do we keep an eye on the money after it gets a coat of whitewash called 'giving to charity'? Suddenly the politicians are saintly for coughing up the dough for widows and orphans? I doubt they have it in them! Where does the money go? Do any like amounts magically turn up in the coffers of other politicians or, perhaps, former aides of politicians?
Third, is it more spin, lather, rinse, repeat as far as laundering $$, not too different as groups being instructed by Ambraoff giving $$ to pols Abramoff was at the personal contributions limit for, might be some inadvertent participation in a form of Money Laundering. (
Hey, Bugsie... Dis guy in a black coat and hat, Mumbles I tink da calls him... he to told me ta give yous dis bag of loot)
If you're still with me, here's your reward:
money given back?Conrad Burns (R idiot for Montana) 'gave the money back' (slowly & grudgingly) to a charity which employs, as a lobbyist, a former legislative aide of Senator Burns.
Burns decided to give the $101,000 in question to charity and donated it to the Montana Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council. Stan Ullman, who was Burns' legislative assistant and worked in his Washington office for four years, is registered as that group's only lobbyist.
Burns also gave the group $10,000 he had received directly from Abramoff and an associate. When announcing in December that he would return that money, Burns said he had "instructed my staff to work with the Montana Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council to identify an appropriate Native American charitable entity to which the contributions received directly from Mr. Abramoff and his associates may be donated."
Instead, that money also went directly to the Montana Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council. Burns Campaign Chairman Mark Baker said the senator decided to "rely on (the council's) judgment to how best to use those resources" and that Ullman had nothing to do with the decisions.
Now, I do not wish to suggest there is anything wrong with the particular charity Burns gave/passed the Abramoff client monies to. They most likely do some great stuff. But,
the fact that a former Burns aids now just happens to be the only registered lobbyist for said charity does cause me some serious concern.
Politicians caught up in the scrutiny of Abramoff's escapades, including the joker posing as president, are 'returning the money'. Well, no, they aren't. They are trying to wash off the stink of bribery with a bath of magnanimous gesture. 'Giving the money to charity'... cue the bubble machine.
To
return the money would involve giving it back to the Abramoff clients who made the contributions. There has been some fuzzy reference that actually returning the money - actually giving it back to the folks it came from,
might possibly be illegal.
OK, I am no lawyer, don't even play one on TV, but shouldn't a bunch of guys who are, or employ, lawyers KNOW if it is illegal to return a campaign contribution instead of just speculating it
might be illegal? Seems odd they don't know for sure. Especially odd when there
have been cases of politicians making a big show of actually giving $$ directly back to contributors with unsavory pasts after the public got wind of the transactions.
So, they 'return' (but not really give back) the money to charity.
In the case of Conrad Burns, I wonder if the lobbyist for the group benefiting from the transaction can, in any way, influence the group about how that money is spent. Or how a similar amount from their coffers is spent. Could that lobbyist, the one who is a former Burns aide, recommend to the charity that they support big doners with, oh, let's say contributions to any political endeavors they might be involved in? Can that aide-turned-lobbyist suggest other political contributions the group might make with an amount similar to what Burns gave them? Could that aide turned lobbyist be given payment for services in like amounts?
Spin, lather, rinse, repeat.
Is it just more money laundering?
And how many other
nobel and repentant pols caught in the mess are 'returning the money' to charities with which they may have interesting connections?
From an
earlier havocmom post Am thinking some REAL journalist might wanna consider the same stunt might be going on with the other crooked pols who 'returned' the money to 'charity' instead of the injured parties they took it from.
How many other 'former aides' are out there lobbying for the charities chosen to receive the funds? How is that $$ tracked after being given to those charities?
DeLay is in DeClink for taking funds from lobbyist A, running it to a PAC then giving a check for the same amount to Candidate B. It is called money laundering. Drug dealers do it and they go to jail.
Conrad Burns is not an overly creative chap. Seems possible he is pulling a monkey see, monkey do routine with his tainted cash. How many others are pulling the same shell game?
Should we ask the Olberman crew that question and hope they run with it? ;)
Worries me that the people on TV who might actually do real journalism are pretty cash starved for resources to investigate. Hope somebody manages to afford a bit of digging on this issue. But then, the entire population is being financially squeezed until we have no resources to fight back with. Hey, some bright American said 'We hang together or we hang separately.' Hey, news guys: If not now, when?"
edit: typos - can somebody pass the coffee?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
