You won't hear about this on MSNBC ...

ViRedd

New Member


Wednesday, October 1, 2008


EXCLUSIVE: Pelosi paid husband with PAC funds


EXCLUSIVE:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm over the past decade, a practice of paying a spouse with political donations that she supported banning last year.

Financial Leasing Services Inc. (FLS), owned by Paul F. Pelosi, has received $99,000 in rent, utilities and accounting fees from the speaker's "PAC to the Future" over the PAC's nine-year history.

The payments have quadrupled since Mr. Pelosi took over as treasurer of his wife's committee in 2007, Federal Election Commission records show. FLS is on track to take in $48,000 in payments this year alone - eight times as much as it received annually from 2000 to 2005, when the committee was run by another treasurer.

Lawmakers' frequent use of campaign donations to pay relatives emerged as an issue in the 2006 election campaigns, when the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal gave Democrats fodder to criticize Republicans such as former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas and Rep. John T. Doolittle of California for putting their wives on their campaign and PAC payrolls for fundraising work.

Last year, Mrs. Pelosi supported a bill that would have banned members of Congress from putting spouses on their campaign staffs. The bill - which passed the House in a voice vote but did not get out of a Senate committee - banned not only direct payments by congressional campaign committees and PACs to spouses for services including consulting and fundraising, but also "indirect compensation," such as payments to companies that employ spouses.

"Democrats are committed to reforming the way Washington does business," Mrs. Pelosi said in a press release at the time. "Congressman [Adam] Schiff's bill will help us accomplish that goal by increasing transparency in election campaigns and preventing the misuse of funds."

Last week, Mrs. Pelosi's office said the payments to her husband's firm were perfectly legal, insisting she is compensating her husband at fair market value for the work his firm has performed for the PAC. But ethical watchdogs said the arrangement sends the wrong message.

"It's problematic," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a nonprofit ethics and watchdog group. "From what I understand, Mr. Pelosi doesn't need the money, but this isn't the issue. ... As speaker of the House, it sends the wrong message. She shouldn't be putting family members on the payroll."

A senior adviser to Mrs. Pelosi described the payments to FLS as "business expenses."

"She's followed all the appropriate rules and regulations in terms of records and paperwork," said Brendan Daly, Mrs. Pelosi's spokesman. "When [former treasurer] Leo McCarthy became ill, she thought that it was best that that firm did the accounting and she's paid fair market value in San Francisco."

Between 1999 and 2006, FLS collected $500 per month to cover rent, utilities and equipment for the leadership PAC, according to the FEC records. The PAC's address is listed as a personal mailbox in San Francisco, across the street from FLS's Montgomery Street office building, but the rent payments went to an office space.

In early 2007, the PAC's treasurer, Leo T. McCarthy, former Democratic speaker of the state assembly and lieutenant governor in California, died. Mr. Pelosi took over as treasurer and his company's PAC payouts rose.

At that point, FLS started charging the PAC $24,000 per year for accounting work. In January 2008, the PAC's rent - paid to FLS - also quadrupled from $500 to $2,000 per month.

Mr. McCarthy, the previous treasurer, had done the work as a volunteer, according to FEC documents and Jennifer Crider, a senior adviser to Mrs. Pelosi and spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. She said FLS' accounting fees are in line with costs for other PACs.

The jump in rent was an adjustment to reflect San Francisco's pricey real estate market, Miss Crider said. The rent was adjusted to $1,250 per month, with $750 in back rent to reflect that the rent should have been increased in mid-2007. This was the first increase since the PAC was established in mid-1999, records show.

Over the first six months of 2008, FLS was the largest vendor for Mrs. Pelosi's PAC. Brian Wolff, a political consultant, is the second-largest vendor, bringing in $22,500 this year.

FLS' payments represent 11 percent of the $213,900 the PAC raised over the first half of this year, according to the FEC documents.

PACs, which are designed to help politicians contribute to other candidates and build influence with colleagues, operate under lighter restrictions than traditional campaign committees.

Meredith McGehee, policy director at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, said putting family members on a PAC payroll is bound to raise questions and, in some cases, allow for abuse.

"The reality is that under the current system, PACs are rife with self-dealing transactions," she said. "The laws and regulations could and should be strengthened.

"There is a point now that you're starting to talk about real money," she said of Mrs. Pelosi's PAC. "This is not just a mom-and-pop operation and any self-dealing transaction by a member of Congress is going to get scrutiny, particularly with large amounts of money and prominent members."

It is illegal for members of Congress to hire family members to work on their official staff, but hiring relatives to work on a campaign or PAC is legal.

To be sure, many political action committees employ or work with family businesses. Last year, CREW found that 19 members of Congress used campaign committees or PACs to purchase services from a family member between 2002 and 2006.

Mrs. Pelosi's PACs have been in trouble before. In 2004, one of her political action committees, Team Majority, was fined $21,000 by the FEC for accepting donations over federal limits. It was one of two PACs she operated at the same time. The Team Majority PAC was closed shortly after the fine was levied.
 

Doctor Pot

Well-Known Member
I think Nancy Pelosi is a partisan tool, but what she's doing isn't illegal or anything. She used donated money to pay her husband's firm to do accounting for her PAC, so this doesn't affect anyone's tax dollars in the slightest. If anyone doesn't like it, well, just don't donate money to her PAC.
 

medicineman

New Member
Pelosi is a gutless maggot. she should have Started impeachment proceedings against Bush-Cheney. If I could vote against her I would.
 

misshestermoffitt

New Member
Get rid of them all. I just don't trust suits anymore than I trust badges.

Like that douche that was on TV today saying "it doesn't matter how we got here, we need to get out of this mess", well pardon the fuck out of me but yes it does matter how we got here. If we don't figure it out we'll end up here again.

Screw us once, shame on you, screw us repeatedly shame on us.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Can you imagine putting 700 billion dollars of taxpayer money into the hands of an unelected official (Paulson) to spend as he sees fit? That was the original request.

Vi
 

Da Kine 420

Well-Known Member
Me too. This fall ... fire them all.

Vi
that is exactly what i am doing and everyone else in this country. they fucked it up, they get fired.

i have voted a couple of times and tis time every incumbent is getting fired.
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
Yeah, Democrats, Republicans, it makes no difference both parties fall to the siren's call of corruption, and thus neither are really worthy of holding office.

Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.
 

misshestermoffitt

New Member
poison "White Rabbit" candy found in CT, made in China, poisoned with Melemine.

Let's take that 700 billion and bring manufacturing back to the US, then we won't have to worry about everything being fucking poisoned.
 

Doctor Pot

Well-Known Member
Yeah, Democrats, Republicans, it makes no difference both parties fall to the siren's call of corruption, and thus neither are really worthy of holding office.
I fail to see the corruption here. This is a fund that Pelosi has the freedom to manage as she chooses.

Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.
I'm not sure who originally said that, but it's not true. Power is like a drug. Some people get fucked up hardcore on it, while others use it to bring about good. Like so many things, it depends on the person.
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Can you imagine putting 700 billion dollars of taxpayer money into the hands of an unelected official (Paulson) to spend as he sees fit? That was the original request.

Vi
Boy you just keep ignoring the fact that there was a whole bunch of so-called conservatives and so-called Mavericks who voted for that shit. Even Palin said that it was needed... Talk about a lock stepper.


Man I'm going to laugh my ass off at you and cc when Obama wins the election... You can keep posting the Over sign all you want, but it doesn't make it so.
Could you tell me where you buy your rose colored glasses?
 

Bongulator

Well-Known Member
Haha, yeah, that's how I took it too! And I was thinking, well, that's a little overly optimistic, but yeah, it is almost over. The path to 270 EVs is getting pretty rough for McCain.

I actually read about a scenario where CLINTON could still win the presidency! Let me see if I can explain how it could happen. (And keep in mind that the odds of this happening are like 0.00000001%.)

Okay, in ME, they don't do winner-takes-all. It's proportional, and the loser of the popular vote would probably get one electoral vote, maybe two.

Now let's say that CLINTON gets 1 or 2 EVs there, and McCain and Obama tie. Then it goes to Congress, and the House picks the prez. Each state gets one vote, based on who has the most representatives. (Mostly Democrats in this scenario.) But people can vote for whoever they want, as long as it is someone on the list, and to get on that list, you have to have at least one electoral vote. So, Hillary could be on that list if she got an electoral vote in ME. And once she's on the list, nothing would stop the House from voting her in.

Tada, Clinton presidency! Then the Senate would vote in the VP. They *could* pick Palin. Unlikely, of course. But still, there's the (incredibly) slim chance of a Clinton/Palin administration.

Lol!
 

Doctor Pot

Well-Known Member
Except Maine voted overwhelmingly for Obama during the primaries. I don't suppose US territories get electoral votes?
 
Top