Unbelievable!

[ProSense]

All the crooked shit that went on during the election, and this is what they focus on:

FEC says Kerry loan to his presidential campaign was legal
February 21, 2006

WASHINGTON --Sen. John Kerry's $6.4 million personal loan to his presidential campaign in 2003 was within bounds of federal campaign law, the Federal Election Commission announced Tuesday.

"Sen. Kerry did not borrow in excess of his share of the collateral property," the FEC concluded in its review of the loan.

The government watchdog group Judicial Watch alleged in a March 2004 complaint that Kerry's wife Teresa Heinz Kerry may have made an excessive and unreported contribution to the campaign as part of the loan arrangement.

The loan helped keep Kerry's cash-strapped presidential campaign stay alive at a critical juncture in the race. Shortly before Christmas in 2003 he was sagging in the polls and facing fundraising woes.

more...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/02/21/fec_says_kerry_loan_to_his_presidential_campaign_was_legal/

[TayTay]

1. This is what some of the much-reported excess campaign cash

went to: defending the campaigns actions in front of the FEC. Sigh! I belive that this is at least the 3rd or 4th complaint to be settled in Sen. Kerry's favor, as it were.

[wisteria]

2. Your right, unbelievable. Of all the issues they could have investigated

for example the funding of the Swift Boat Vets, and they focused on this. At least, if he runs again and they bring this up we can say it was legal-period.

[karynnj]

3. It also shows how risky it really was

if Kerry would have lost the primary, he would have had no easy way to pay it off without earning large amounts of money. They would have watched him like a hawk to make sure Teresa didn't pay it off.

[TayTay]

6. If he lost, he probably would have had to resign his seat

in order to work at a more lucrative job and get the money to repay the loan. He risked everything when he did that. It was a very bold move.

[ProSense]

7. Couldn't he have

sold the house?

[TayTay]

9. He didn't own all of it.

He has half-ownership of that house. Teresa owns the other half. (Why would he want to sell his house anyway?)

[ProSense]

11. I know

Teresa owns half. I assumed it would have to be a joint decision. I don't suppose he'd want to sell his house, but I had a hard time envisioning Kerry resigning the Senate, so I threw out another option.

[TayTay]

12. I know, I know. Me too!

But it just shows what a risk that was. It was a very gutsy move.

[karynnj]

13. Rather than give up his Senate seat

I wondered if he couldn't sell his share to Teresa (or one of the Heinz boys), leaving him no ownership. He certainly would still be able to live with his wife, just as he does in all the other houses and he could still declare it his residence.

As he would lose his money in the house, it would seem real. Is it just the appearance and the fact that he is held to higher standards than anyone, passes the threshold and it's still reported with a suspicion that he did something wrong.

[TayTay]

14. Nah, same old, same old

freepers are arseholes. Rethug organizations like the one that brought the complaint are arseholes too! They just wanted to gum up the works. They would never press this on a Rethug candidate, cuz Rethugs candidates are expected to have money and not even need to ever take out a loan. Sigh!

[FreedomAngel82]

4. At least they can't get him now

[karynnj]

5. Why don't they question other couples,

isn't a lot of McCain's money from his wife as well? Is it because the Kerrys do keep their assets seperate?

[TayTay]

10. Because McCain is a 'saint'

and John Kerry is but a lowly Democrat. The press has standards. They report everything that the Rethugs want and leave the Repub candidates alone. The press is a toothless tiger after all, when the person in question is a Rethug.

[karynnj]

8. Compare Kerry's honesty on this investigated transaction

versus Senator Santor's many sleazy uses of campaign money:

"The Prospect decided to heed Santorum’s advice by taking “an honest look at the family budget” -- his family budget. What we found is that Santorum’s exurban lifestyle is financed in ways that aren’t available to the average voter back home in Pennsylvania -- namely a political action committee that lists payments for such unorthodox items as dozens of trips to the Starbucks in Leesburg, a number of stops at fast-food joints, and purchases at Target, Wal-Mart, and a Giant supermarket in northern Virginia. Although a Santorum aide defends those charges as legitimate political costs, good-government experts say the expenditures are at best unconventional, and at worst a possible violation of Senate rules, and the purchases appear to be unorthodox when compared with other senators’ filings. Santorum’s PAC -- a “leadership PAC,” whose purpose is to dispense money to other Republican candidates -- used just 18.1 percent of its money to that end over a recent five-year period, a lower number than other leadership PACs of top senators from both parties. "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=175&topic_id=9358&mesg_id=9358

Which Senator deserves to be investigated?