Paul LePage vs NAACP : "Kiss My Butt!"

Paul LePage: NAACP Can "Kiss My Butt"


Paul LePage, Maine's new Tea Party-backed Governor, will reportedly not attend an NAACP event to honor Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, and if the NAACP doesn't like it, LePage said, they can "kiss my butt."

"They are a special interest. End of story ... and I'm not going to be held hostage by special interests," LePage said, according to local station WCSH. "And if they want, they can look at my family picture. My son happens to be black, so they can do whatever they'd like about it."

LePage has an adopted son from Jamaica, WCSH reports.

The NAACP had invited the governor to visit black inmates at a Maine prison, according to CNN. LePage reportedly contends that the organization was upset he insisted on meeting with white prisoners as well.

However, WCSH reports:

Denise Lord, associate commissioner in the Department of Corrections, tells NEWS CENTER that she is not familiar with this specific invitation, but that she would be surprised if the prison had allowed an event that was only for black inmates.

LePage Spokesman Dan Demeritt told the local outlet that the governor had prior commitments during the proposed time slots.

LePage's gruff rhetoric also raised eyebrows during the 2010 campaign season when he told a group of fishermen at a Republican forum that they could expect to see him tell President Barack Obama to "go to hell."


View Larger Map


Sources: Huffington Post, Maine.gov, NAACP, wcsh6.com, Wikipedia, Google Maps

Charlotte Leaders Pay $2M For Park At Harry Jones' Church (Vote Buying Scheme)

Folks if this isn't an example of a Charlotte, NC Vote Buying Scheme (Black voters) I don't know what is.

Check out the video and article below.






Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Leaders Spend $2M In Tax Money For Park On Harry Jones' Church Land (Vote Buying Scheme)



At a time when Mecklenburg County is forced to cut almost 200 jobs from its Park and Recreation Department, the county budget sets aside $60,000 to plan a park that it cannot afford to build.

The NewsChannel 36 I-Team found Mecklenburg County set aside $2 million in a one-of-a-kind deal to build the park on property owned by a church, Friendship Missionary Baptist Church on Beatties Ford Road.

Few debate that the county could use more ball fields along Beatties Ford Road. But some fiscal conservatives have questioned how the church won the one-of-a-kind deal and why it is still funded in a time of sharp cutbacks.

Former Charlotte City Councilman Don Reid is one.

"I don't know how we can invest taxpayer money on a piece of property owned by a church," said Reid, who calls the process used to award the park "a good ole boy network again."

But Reid's so-called "good ole boy" network included an up-and-coming woman -- Mary E. Wilson.

Since the summer of 2008 Wilson has served as the director of Mecklenburg County's Department of Social Services. And the I-Team has raised questions about Wilson mixing state funds with her church -- Friendship Missionary Baptist.

In December 2008, Wilson spent $20,000 of public funds on caterers, entertainment and door prizes for a holiday party for all 1,200 DSS staff held at Friendship Missionary Baptist Church. When questioned, a DSS spokeswoman said the county did not pay for the use of the church facility. She said it had been paid for by an anonymous donor.

But before her county job, Wilson earned more than $86,000 a year as the executive director of Friendship's Community Development Corporation.

And as executive director in 2006 she helped the church pitch its park plan to the county's Park and Recreation Commission. But in the summer of 2006, Wilson joined the very same Park and Rec Commission.

"Connect the dots," said Reid. "Friendship Baptist Church. Mary Wilson. Mary Wilson goes to the park board and the board then decides to fund the church's project."

Wilson abstained from voting on the Friendship Sportsplex and did not participate in discussion at the board meeting where the board approved the park. Experts in state conflict of interest law at the UNC School of Government tell the I-Team that Wilson apparently did not violate any rule or law.

"Personally, I wouldn't allow that to happen," said Park Director Jim Garges, who joined the department after the Friendship Park had passed the board but before it passed the County Commission. "There wasn't anything she (Wilson) did or anything I was aware of I would consider a conflict of interest."

But e-mails obtained by the I-Team show Wilson advocated for the park in March 2008 when it was pending before the County Commission.

When Park Commissioner Brad Pearce e-mailed staff that he was frustrated with the lack of information about the Friendship park, a project which he supported, it was Wilson who responded in less than an hour.

"Let's be reasonable and work together," Wilson wrote. "I am sensing a less than positive partnership tone."

While they may have had their differences on the way the park was handled, Pearce now says he believes Wilson handled her conflict of interest appropriately.

"Certainly no one at the church ever contacted me and asked for special treatment," Pearce said.

The I-Team tried to reach Wilson last week and this week through a county spokesman and by leaving a message on her cell phone. She did not return repeated calls.

But in a church with thousands of members, Wilson was not the only one with political clout.

County General Manager Bobbie Shields, who oversees the Park and Recreation Department, is also a member of Friendship Missionary Baptist Church.

But County Manager Harry Jones tells the I-Team that Shields turned over all control of the park awards to another general manager, John McGillicuddy. And Garges and Pearce both say Shields had no impact on the decision to locate the park at the church.

"Bobbie Shields had no influence over that decision," said Pearce.

"And, if anything, particularly with Bobbie, he went the other way -- 'Don't show me. Don't tell me. I don't want to know anything about it,'" said Garges.

(Some viewers have written that Harry Jones is also a member of Friendship Missionary Baptist Church but Jones told the I-Team he is not a member of the church.)

Under the terms of the lease agreement between Mecklenburg County and Friendship Missionary Baptist Church, the county leases the land for 40 years for the sum of $1, with the county retaining the right to renew the lease for another 40 years. The county agrees to build ball fields on the property. And the church gets first dibs on selling any concessions at no cost, keeping all the proceeds.

Most county parks sit on county land. Here and there Mecklenburg County has a boat ramp on Duke Energy property. The county once placed a track on the campus of Johnson C. Smith University. But for the most part, county planners envision putting parks on public land.

And when voters OK'd a public bond issue for parks in 2004, the Park and Recreation Commission anticipated allocating $8 million for joint public-private partnerships, but that the parks would be placed on county land.

In the case of two of the three winning projects, for the towns of Huntersville and Matthews, the parks went on public land. But in the case of Friendship Missionary Baptist Church, the county entered into a unique lease.

Garges says Friendship was chosen because it had land available for a park and "If anybody else wants a park, give us a call."

But the county doesn't even have the money to build the Friendship Park, let alone take on new parks.

In a time of budget cutbacks, cutting about four out of every 10 park and rec employees, the new county budget contains a capital expense of $60,000 for this year and next to plan for the Friendship park, even though the county does not have the money to build it.


View Larger Map


Sources: WCNC, Google Maps

Bloggingheads: Broken Congress, Obama Partially Responsible

Sources: Bloggingheadstv

Congressional Black Caucus Members Bought & Paid For? I'm Disappointed

Black Congressional Caucus, A Fund-Raising Powerhouse



When the Congressional Black Caucus wanted to pay off the mortgage on its foundation’s stately 1930s redbrick headquarters on Embassy Row, it turned to a familiar roster of friends: corporate backers like Wal-Mart, AT&T, General Motors, Coca-Cola and Altria, the nation’s largest tobacco company.

Soon enough, in 2008, a jazz band was playing at what amounted to a mortgage-burning party for the $4 million town house.

Most political groups in Washington would have been barred by law from accepting that kind of direct aid from corporations. But by taking advantage of political finance laws, the caucus has built a fund-raising juggernaut unlike anything else in town.

It has a traditional political fund-raising arm subject to federal rules. But it also has a network of nonprofit groups and charities that allow it to collect unlimited amounts of money from corporations and labor unions.

From 2004 to 2008, the Congressional Black Caucus’s political and charitable wings took in at least $55 million in corporate and union contributions, according to an analysis by The New York Times, an impressive amount even by the standards of a Washington awash in cash. Only $1 million of that went to the caucus’s political action committee; the rest poured into the largely unregulated nonprofit network. (Data for 2009 is not available.)

The caucus says its nonprofit groups are intended to help disadvantaged African-Americans by providing scholarships and internships to students, researching policy and holding seminars on topics like healthy living.

But the bulk of the money has been spent on elaborate conventions that have become a high point of the Washington social season, as well as the headquarters building, golf outings by members of Congress and an annual visit to a Mississippi casino resort.

In 2008, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation spent more on the caterer for its signature legislative dinner and conference — nearly $700,000 for an event one organizer called “Hollywood on the Potomac” — than it gave out in scholarships, federal tax records show.



At the galas, lobbyists and executives who give to caucus charities get to mingle with lawmakers. They also get seats on committees the caucus has set up to help members of Congress decide what positions to take on the issues of the day. Indeed, the nonprofit groups and the political wing are so deeply connected it is sometimes hard to tell where one ends and the other begins.

Even as it has used its status as a civil rights organization to become a fund-raising power in Washington, the caucus has had to fend off criticism of ties to companies whose business is seen by some as detrimental to its black constituents.

These include cigarette companies, Internet poker operators, beer brewers and the rent-to-own industry, which has become a particular focus of consumer advocates for its practice of charging high monthly fees for appliances, televisions and computers.

Caucus leaders said the giving had not influenced them.

“We’re unbossed and unbought,” said Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat of California and chairwoman of the caucus. “Historically, we’ve been known as the conscience of the Congress, and we’re the ones bringing up issues that often go unnoticed or just aren’t on the table.”

But many campaign finance experts question the unusual structure.

“The claim that this is a truly philanthropic motive is bogus — it’s beyond credulity,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center in Washington, a nonpartisan group that monitors campaign finance and ethics issues. “Members of Congress should not be allowed to have these links. They provide another pocket, and a very deep pocket, for special-interest money that is intended to benefit and influence officeholders.”

Not all caucus members support the donors’ goals, and some issues, like a debate last year over whether to ban menthol cigarettes, have produced divisions.

But caucus members have attracted increasing scrutiny from ethics investigators. All eight open House investigations involve caucus members, and most center on accusations of improper ties to private businesses.

And an examination by The Times shows what can happen when companies offer financial support to caucus members.

For instance, Representative Danny K. Davis, Democrat of Illinois, once backed legislation that would have severely curtailed the rent-to-own industry, criticized in urban districts like his on the West Side of Chicago. But Mr. Davis last year co-sponsored legislation supported by the stores after they led a well-financed campaign to sway the caucus, including a promise to provide computers to a jobs program in Chicago named for him. He denies any connection between the industry’s generosity and his shift.



Growing Influence

The caucus started out 40 years ago as a political club of a handful of black members of Congress. Now it is at the apex of its power: President Obama is a former member, though he was never very active.

Its members, all Democrats, include the third-ranking House member, Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina; 4 House committee chairmen; and 18 subcommittee leaders. Among those are Representative Charles E. Rangel, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and Representative John Conyers Jr., chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

There are hundreds of caucuses in Congress, representing groups as disparate as Hispanic lawmakers and those with an interest in Scotland. And other members of Congress have nonprofit organizations.

But the Congressional Black Caucus stands alone for its money-raising prowess. As it has gained power, its nonprofit groups — one an outright charity, the other a sort of research group — have seen a surge in contributions, nearly doubling from 2001 to 2008.

Besides the caucus charities, many members — including Mr. Clyburn and Representative William Lacy Clay Jr. of Missouri — also have personal or family charities, which often solicit donations from companies that give to the caucus. And spouses have their own group that sponsors a golf and tennis fund-raiser.

The board of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation includes executives and lobbyists from Boeing, Wal-Mart, Dell, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, Verizon, Heineken, Anheuser-Busch and the drug makers Amgen and GlaxoSmithKline. All are hefty donors to the caucus.

Some of the biggest donors also have seats on the second caucus nonprofit organization — one that can help their businesses. This group, the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute, drafts positions on issues before Congress, including health care and climate change.

This means, for example, that the lobbyists and executives from coal, nuclear and power giants like Peabody Energy and Entergy helped draft a report in the caucus’s name that includes their positions on controversial issues. One policy document issued by the Black Caucus Institute last year asserted that the financial impact of climate change legislation should be weighed before it is passed, a major industry stand.

Officials from the Association of American Railroads, another major donor, used their board positions to urge the inclusion of language recommending increased spending on the national freight rail system. A lobbyist for Verizon oversaw a debate on a section that advocated increased federal grants to expand broadband Internet service.

And Larry Duncan, a Lockheed Martin lobbyist, served on a caucus institute panel that recommended that the United States form closer ties with Liberia, even as his company was negotiating a huge airport contract there.

The companies say their service to the caucus is philanthropic.

“Our charitable donations are charitable donations,” said David Sylvia, a spokesman for Altria, which has given caucus charities as much as $1.3 million since 2004, the Times analysis shows, including a donation to a capital fund used to pay off the mortgage of the caucus headquarters.

Elsie L. Scott, chief executive of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, acknowledged that the companies want to influence members. In fact, the fund-raising brochures make clear that the bigger the donation, the greater the access, like a private reception that includes members of Congress for those who give more than $100,000.

“They are trying to get the attention of the C.B.C. members,” Ms. Scott said. “And I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. They’re in business, and they want to deal with people who have influence and power.”

She also acknowledged that if her charity did not have “Congressional Black Caucus” in its name, it would gather far less money. “If it were just the Institute for the Advancement of Black People — you already have the N.A.A.C.P.,” she said.

Ms. Scott said she, too, had heard criticism that the caucus foundation takes too much from companies seen as hurting blacks . But she said she was still willing to take their money.

“Black people gamble. Black people smoke. Black people drink,” she said in an interview. “And so if these companies want to take some of the money they’ve earned off of our people and give it to us to support good causes, then we take it.”

Big Parties, Big Money

The biggest caucus event of the year is held each September in Washington.

The 2009 event began with a rooftop party at the new W Hotel, with the names of the biggest sponsors, the pharmaceutical companies Amgen and Eli Lilly, beamed in giant letters onto the walls, next to the logo of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. A separate dinner party and ceremony, sponsored by Disney at the National Museum of Women in the Arts, featured the jazz pianist Marcus Johnson.

The next night, AT&T sponsored a dinner reception at the Willard InterContinental Washington, honoring Representative Bobby L. Rush, Democrat of Illinois and chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees consumer protection issues.

The Southern Company, the dominant electric utility in four Southeastern states, spent more than $300,000 to host an awards ceremony the next night honoring Ms. Lee, the black caucus chairwoman, with Shaun Robinson, a TV personality from “Access Hollywood,” as a co-host. The bill for limousine services — paid by Southern — exceeded $11,000.

A separate party, sponsored by Macy’s, featured a fashion show and wax models of historic African-American leaders.

All of this was just a buildup for the final night and the biggest event — a black-tie dinner for 4,000, which included President Obama, the actor Danny Glover and the musician Wyclef Jean.

Annual spending on the events, including an annual prayer breakfast that Coca-Cola sponsors and several dozen policy workshops typically sponsored by other corporations, has more than doubled since 2001, costing $3.9 million in 2008. More than $350,000 went to the official decorator and nearly $400,000 to contractors for lighting and show production, according to tax records. (By comparison, the caucus spent $372,000 on internships in 2008, tax records show.)

The sponsorship of these parties by big business is usually counted as a donation in the caucus books. But sometimes the corporations pay vendors directly and simply name the caucus or an individual caucus member as an “honoree” in disclosure records filed with the Senate.

(The New York Times Company is listed as having paid the foundation $5,000 to $15,000 in 2008. It was the cost of renting a booth to sell newspapers at the annual conference.)

Foundation officials say profit from the event is enough to finance programs like seminars on investments, home ownership and healthy living; housing for Washington interns; and about $600,000 in scholarships.

Interns and students interviewed praised the caucus.

“The internship for me came at a very critical moment in my life,” said Ervin Johnson, 24, an intern in 2007, placed by the Justice Department. “Most people don’t have that opportunity.”

Still, Ms. Scott, the foundation’s chief executive, said that members of the caucus’s board had complained about the ballooning bills for the annual conference. And some donors have asked that their money go only toward programs like scholarships. She blamed the high prices charged by vendors mandated by the Washington Convention Center.

Legislative Interests

The companies that host events at the annual conference are engaged in some of the hottest battles in Washington, and they frequently turn to caucus members for help.

Internet poker companies have been big donors, fighting moves to restrict their growth. Caucus members have been among their biggest backers.

Amgen and DaVita, which dominate the kidney treatment and dialysis business nationwide, have donated as much as $1.5 million over the last five years to caucus charities, and the caucus has been one of their strongest allies in a bid to win broader federal reimbursements.

AT&T and Verizon, sponsors of the caucus charities for years, have turned to the caucus in their effort to prevent new federal rules governing how cellphone carriers operate Internet services on their wireless networks.

But few of these alliances have paid off like the caucus’s connection to rent-to-own stores.

Some Democrats in Congress have tried to limit fees charged to consumers who rent televisions or appliances, with critics saying the industry’s advertisements prey on low-income consumers, offering the short-term promise of walking away with a big-screen TV while hiding big long-term fees. Faced with rules that could destroy their business, the industry called on the caucus.

In 2007, it retained Zehra Buck, a former aide to Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and a caucus member, to help expand a lobbying campaign. Its trade association in 2008 became the exclusive sponsor of an annual caucus foundation charity event where its donated televisions, computers and other equipment were auctioned, with the proceeds going to scholarships. It donated to the campaigns of at least 10 caucus members, and to political action committees run by the caucus and its individual members.

It also encouraged member stores to donate to personal charities run by caucus members or to public schools in their districts. Mr. Clay, the Missourian, received $14,000 in industry contributions in 2008 for the annual golf tournament his family runs in St. Louis. The trade association also held a fund-raising event for him in Reno, Nev.

“I’ll always do my best to protect what really matters to you,” Mr. Clay told rent-to-own executives, who agreed to hold their 2008 annual convention in St. Louis, his home district. Mr. Clay declined a request for an interview.

On a visit to Washington, Larry Carrico, then president of the rent-to-own trade association, offered to donate computers and other equipment to a nonprofit job-training group in Chicago named in honor of Mr. Davis, the Illinois congressman who in 2002 voted in favor of tough restrictions on the industry.

Mr. Davis switched sides. Mr. Carrico traveled to Chicago to hand over the donations, including a van with “Congressman Danny K. Davis Job Training Program” painted on its side, all of which helped jump-start a charity run by Lowry Taylor, who also works as a campaign aide to Mr. Davis.

In an interview, Mr. Carrico said support from caucus members came because they understood that his industry had been unfairly criticized and that it provided an important service to consumers in their districts.

While some caucus members still oppose the industry, 13 are co-sponsors of the industry-backed legislation that would ward off tough regulatory restrictions — an alliance that has infuriated consumer advocates.

“It is unfortunate that the members of the black caucus who are supporting this bill did not check with us first,” said Margot Saunders, a lawyer with the National Consumer Law Center. “Because the legislation they are supporting would simply pre-empt state laws that are designed to protect consumers against an industry that rips them off.”

The industry’s own bill, introduced by a caucus member, has not been taken up, but it does not really matter because the move to pass stricter legislation has ground to a halt.

“Without the support of the C.B.C.,” John Cleek, the president of the rent-to-own association, acknowledged in an industry newsletter in 2008, “our mission in Washington would fail.”
















All Active Ethics Probes Focus On Black Lawmakers


The House ethics committee is currently investigating seven African-American lawmakers — more than 15 percent of the total in the House. And an eighth black member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), would be under investigation if the Justice Department hadn’t asked the committee to stand down.

Not a single white lawmaker is currently the subject of a full-scale ethics committee probe.

The ethics committee declined to respond to questions about the racial disparity, and members of the Congressional Black Caucus are wary of talking about it on the record. But privately, some black members are outraged — and see in the numbers a worrisome trend in the actions of ethics watchdogs on and off Capitol Hill.

“Is there concern whether someone is trying to set up [Congressional Black Caucus] members? Yeah, there is,” a black House Democrat said. “It looks as if there is somebody out there who understands what the rules [are] and sends names to the ethics committee with the goal of going after the [CBC].”

African-American politicians have long complained that they’re treated unfairly when ethical issues arise. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are still fuming over Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to oust then-Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) from the House Ways and Means Committee in 2006, and some have argued that race plays a role in the ongoing efforts to remove Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) from his chairmanship of that committee.

Last week’s actions by the House ethics committee are sure to add fuel to the fire.

The committee — which has one African-American lawmaker, Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), among its 10 members — on Thursday considered three referrals from the recently formed Office of Congressional Ethics. It dismissed a case against Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.), who is white, but agreed to open full-blown investigations of California Democratic Reps. Maxine Waters and Laura Richardson, both of whom are black.

The committee was already investigating five other African-Americans. Rangel is the subject of two different probes, one involving a host of issues he has put before the committee and another involving allegations that corporate funds may have been used improperly to pay for members’ trips to the Caribbean in 2007-08. Reps. Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-Mich.), Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and Donald Payne (D-N.J.) and Del. Donna Christensen (D-U.S. Virgin Islands) are also included in the second of those investigations.

A document leaked to The Washington Post last week showed that nearly three dozen lawmakers have come under scrutiny this year by either the House ethics committee or the Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent watchdog created in 2008 at the insistence of Pelosi. While the list contained a substantial number of white lawmakers, the ethics committee has not yet launched formal investigative subcommittees with respect to any of them — as it has with the seven African-American members.

The OCE has also been a particular target of ire for the Congressional Black Caucus. Black lawmakers, including CBC Chairwoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), met with OCE officials earlier this year to raise their concerns. Spokesmen for Lee and the OCE both declined to comment.

A number of CBC members opposed the resolution establishing the OCE, arguing that it was the wrong response to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, which helped Democrats seize control of the House in 2006.

Setting up the OCE “was a mistake,” Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) told The Hill newspaper recently. “Congress has a long and rich history of overreacting to a crisis.”

Cleaver, though, now finds himself part of the four-member subcommittee that will investigate Waters, who voted against the OCE. Waters is being probed over her intervention with the Treasury Department on behalf of a minority-owned bank in which her husband served on the board and owned at least $250,000 in stock.

While she has flatly denied engaging in any unethical or improper behavior in her dealings with OneUnited, Waters was described by colleagues and Democratic aides as “livid” over the ethics committee’s decision to investigate her.

“She was hopping mad,” a Democratic lawmaker said of Waters. “She feels this is a complete miscarriage of justice.”

Another CBC member said black lawmakers are “easy targets” for ethics watchdog groups because they have less money — both personally and in their campaign accounts — to defend themselves than do their white colleagues. Campaign funds can be used to pay members’ legal bills.

“A lot of that has to do with outside watchdog groups like [Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington] that have to have a level of success to justify OCE,” the CBC member said. The good-government groups were strong backers of the OCE’s creation.

But these same groups won’t go after Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), this lawmaker claimed, “because she has plenty of money to defend herself,” and the outside groups don’t want to take a risk. The Democrat said the ethics committee would be going up against Harman’s lawyers and “going up against” the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee if they push the OCE to pressure the ethics committee to act.

In fact, CREW filed a complaint against Harman with the OCE.

Harman was allegedly recorded on a 2005 federal wiretap discussing with an Israeli operative her bid to become Intelligence Committee chairwoman. Harman has denied any wrongdoing, but an attempt by the ethics committee to get a transcript of the taped call was rebuffed by the Justice Department.

What especially galled black lawmakers was that the ethics committee voted to move forward with the Waters and Richardson probes following the OCE referrals, while Graves — who OCE also thought should be investigated by the ethics committee — saw his case dismissed.

Even worse, the ethics committee issued a 541-page document explaining why it wouldn’t look into allegations that Graves invited a witness to testify before the Small Business Committee — on which he sits — without revealing his financial ties to that witness.

“It is kind of crazy,” said an aide to one senior black Democrat. “How can it be that the ethics committee only investigates African-Americans? It doesn’t make sense.”

White lawmakers have certainly been the subject of ethics committee investigations before. Former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) was admonished by the committee for his dealings with corporate lobbyists, while ex-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) was the target of an investigation over his dealings with teenage male House pages in late 2006. Foley resigned after the sex scandal was revealed.

And the document leaked to the Post last week shows that a number of white lawmakers — including senior House Appropriations Committee members John Murtha (D-Pa.), Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.), Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) and Jim Moran (D-Va.) — have drawn the attention of the committee and the OCE.

The two congressional ethics watchdogs are looking into these members’ ties to the PMA Group, a now-defunct lobbying firm that won tens of millions of dollars in earmarks from members of the Appropriations Committee. The lawmakers who arranged for the earmarks received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from PMA’s lobbying clients.

But it seems unlikely that the PMA case will become the subject of a full-blown ethics committee investigation. The Justice Department is also looking into the PMA allegations; the FBI raided PMA’s office last year, and Visclosky and his former chief of staff have been served with document subpoenas. And under ethics committee rules, the panel cannot conduct an investigation of any member or staffer already being probed by a law enforcement agency.

The nation’s only black senator, Roland Burris of Illinois, is currently under investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee. It’s not clear whether that committee is currently investigating any white members, although Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) is likely to be in its sights if the Justice Department doesn’t pre-empt a committee investigation.


View
Larger Map


Sources: NY Times, AP, C-Span, Politico, CBC, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama Angry, Dems Frantic Over SCOTUS Campaign Finance Law Decision

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama Lashes Out At Campaign Finance Ruling


President Barack Obama on Saturday sharply criticized a Supreme Court decision easing limits on campaign spending by corporations and labor unions, saying he couldn't "think of anything more devastating to the public interest." He also suggested the ruling could jeopardize his domestic agenda.

In its 5-4 decision this week, the high court overturned two decisions and threw out parts of a 63-year-old law that said companies and unions can be prohibited from using their own money to produce and run campaign ads that urge the election or defeat of particular candidates by name.

Portraying himself as aligned with the people and not special interests, Obama said the decision was unacceptable.

"This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy," the president said in his weekly radio and Internet message. "It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way — or to punish those who don't."

Obama said that means public servants who stand up to Wall Street banks, oil companies, health insurers and other powerful interests could find themselves under attack when election time rolls around.

"I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest," he said. "The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections."

The court issued its ruling just as crucial midterm election campaigns are getting under way and as Obama's Democratic Party feels the pressure from a string of losses in New Jersey, Virginia and in Massachusetts, where this week Republican Scott Brown came from behind to win a Senate seat Democrats had held for decades.

Obama said the decision will make it harder to enact financial reforms, close tax loopholes, promote energy independence and protect patients from insurance company abuses — key elements of his domestic agenda.

"We don't need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans," Obama said. "And we don't intend to."

He said he has instructed his administration to work with Congress to "fight for the American people" and develop a "forceful bipartisan response" to the decision.

"It will be a priority for us until we repair the damage that has been done," Obama said.


Sources: MSNBC, U.S. Supreme Court, Wikipedia

Chuck Schumer Slams SCOTUS Corporate Political Finance Ruling

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, Google Maps

SCOTUS Special Interest Campaign Finance Decision Bad For Dems & Voters

SCOTUS Ruling Running The Fat Cats Out Of Town? Not Likely


The ruling allowing unlimited campaign spending is a huge win for special interests. Mark McKinnon and Steve Hildebrand make the bipartisan case for how Congress can fix the political money mess.

The Supreme Court just sucker-punched hope and change and cozied up to the status quo on money and politics. On Tuesday, voters sent a wake up call to Washington, and today the court just gave the voters yet another reason to be mad as hell.

Against the backdrop of angry Massachusetts voters, the Court’s decision today in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allowing unlimited spending by corporations and unions in elections means that unless there’s serious, bold campaign finance reform in Washington, the notion of any fundamental “change” in Washington just hit the immoveable object: big money. Politicians who ignore the politics of this decision do so at their peril.

There’s a wall of campaign money that separates regular voters from their representatives, and we believe the only way to fix it now is for Congress to respond to the Roberts Court decision with legislation that puts voters in charge. It is also an answer to the angry voters who, in the words of Sen.-Elect Scott Brown, want candidates “not beholden to the special interests.”

We’ve advised and elected dozens of federal and state candidates from our respective parties. We can tell you, unequivocally, that what ruins a good political leader is the unending chase for campaign contributions. Candidates are forced to travel the country begging wealthy people for money instead of finding solutions to our country’s biggest problems. They hate it, but the system forces them to do it.

That’s why today’s decision is both a scourge and an opportunity. In a nutshell, the Roberts Court overturned a six decade-long prohibition against spending corporate and union treasury money to directly campaign for or against federal candidates.

We both believe that there is too much “interested” money in politics today and not enough of the small donor contributions that drove the Obama campaign’s fundraising. The Citizens United decision makes this bad situation worse. It will unleash an unlimited amount of corporate political spending, and fuel an escalating campaign fundraising arms race among members of Congress to keep up. They spend too much time fundraising already—time that gets in the way of doing the work they’re supposed to do.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln, a Democrat from Arkansas is a perfect example. Senator Lincoln complained recently that she had lost $300,000 due to canceling fundraisers when she was “forced” to be in Washington for the health care vote. Now consider her situation knowing that millions will be spent for or against her because of that vote. It’s a catch-22, and regardless of how we feel about Sen. Lincoln and her positions, why do we let stand a system that forces members of Congress to constantly juggle doing their jobs with the fundraising it takes to keep their jobs?

And voters hate it, too, but for different reasons. A survey by the U of T/Austin said campaign donors are more influential with members of Congress than anyone else. In the same survey, voters ranked themselves dead last. Gallup’s 2009 annual ranking of the honesty and integrity of various professions placed members of Congress lower than ever before. Just nine percent of Americans believed it was an honest and ethical job, ranking it only above lobbyists (which debuted on the list at the bottom), car salesmen, and advertising practitioners.

As Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) says, this situation is untenable. Politicians raise more and more money every year. Voters get more and more disillusioned and angry. Something has to give.

The Supreme Court’s decision gives Congress the opportunity to change all this. The Massachusetts results provide the imperative to act.

Unfortunately, Washington’s response to the Court’s decision will probably be to do as little as possible, and to sell it as a big deal. A small solution to this money problem —the mother of all political pre-existing conditions—will be the equivalent of placing a band-aid on a broken arm.

Like all Americans, we want more leadership from those we elect. Companion bills introduced by Sen. Durbin and Reps. John Larson (D-Conn.) and Walter Jones (R-N.C.) provides that opportunity. Called Fair Elections, the Durbin-Larson-Jones approach would put the financing of elections into the hands of regular voters and free candidates from the constant pressures of fundraising. Qualified candidates take no more than $100 contributions, and receive public funding by demonstrating support from thousands of these small donors. The public funding is capped, but the amount of small donor money isn’t, leaving candidates continuing to focus on connecting to voters as they run for office.

The overall cost of the system, to literally wrest the control of elections away from special interests, is roughly $800 million a year, less than half what we spent in promoting democracy around the world in the last fiscal year. If promoting democracy is a good thing, shouldn’t we promote it here, too?

The legislation is picking up support. In addition to Reps. Larson and Jones, 124 members of the House have joined as cosponsors. This court decision will speed its momentum, no doubt.

So we say, seize the day, Congress. Don’t think of a quick fix that gives you a sound-bite. Address the real problem and give elections back to the people.


Sources: The Daily Beast, Politico

Howard A. Schmidt: Obama's Cyber Security Czar

Howard A. Schmidt Tapped To Be Obama's Cyber Security Czar


After months of wrangling and delays, President Barack Obama has chosen a national cyber security coordinator to take on the formidable task of organizing and managing the nation's increasingly vulnerable digital networks.

Obama has tapped Howard A. Schmidt, longtime computer security executive who worked in the Bush administration and has extensive ties to the corporate world, according to a senior White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the announcement will not be made until Tuesday.

Schmidt's selection comes more than 10 months after Obama declared cyber security a priority and ordered a broad administration review.

The official said Obama was personally involved in the selection process and chose Schmidt after an extensive search because of his unique background and skills. Schmidt will have regular and direct access to the President for cybersecurity issues, the official said.

Obama released the findings of the cyber security review nearly seven months ago, vowing that the White House will name a cyber coordinator to deal with one of the "most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation."

Corporate computer security leaders have openly expressed frustration with the White House as movement on the job post stalled and questioned the administration's claims that the issue is a priority.

At the same time, cyber experts and potential job candidates have complained that the position lacks the budgetary and policy making authority needed to be successful. Schmidt will report to the National Security Council and closely support the National Economic Council on cyber issues.

"From the industry's perspective, a lot of people are starting to think that other pressing matters in Afghanistan and other issues put this on a back burner," said Roger Thornton, chief technology officer for Fortify Software, and a cyber security expert. "If it is, that's understandable but depressing."

Schmidt's selection suggests that economic and business interests in the White House held more sway in the selection process. Schmidt, president and CEO of the Information Security Forum, a nonprofit international consortium that conducts research in information security, has served as chief security officer for Microsoft and as cyber security chief for online auction giant eBay. He was reportedly preferred by NEC director Lawrence Summers.

Thornton praised Schmidt's choice, saying the coordinator has to be strong on many different dimensions.

He said Schmidt understands the technology, has broad management experience and also has worked well within the political arena, a key requirement for the White House post.

"I think he would be able to get people to compromise and move things forward," said Thornton.

U.S. government computer systems are constantly under assault, and are being attacked or scanned millions of times a day. Hackers and cyber criminals pose an expanding threat, using increasingly sophisticated technologies to steal money or information, while nation-states probe for weaknesses in order to steal classified documents or technology or destroy the networks that run vital services.

The nation's cyber security vulnerabilities have been underscored recent months, with a number of high profile assaults, including ones that breached a high-tech fighter jet program and the electrical grid, although no classified material was compromised.

Early last month, unknown hackers knocked a number of U.S and South Korean government Web sites off line in a widespread and unusually resilient computer attack.

Considered an expert in computer forensics, Schmidt's roughly 40-year career includes 31 years in local and federal government service, including a stint as vice chairman of President George W. Bush's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board. He also was for a short time an adviser to the FBI and worked at the National Drug Intelligence Center.

Congress members, business leaders and cyber security experts have called for a more coordinated effort by the federal government to monitor and protect U.S. systems and work with the private sector to insure that transportation systems, energy plants and other sensitive networks are equally protected.

Obama pledged that the new cyber coordinator will have "regular access" to the Oval Office. But critics worry that the coordinator will be mired in bureaucracy.

Rather than being a cyber czar, the person will be more of a "cyber peasant" said James Lewis, a cybersecurity expert and senior fellow at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. "A lot depends on who the person is, but it's not a top tier position, not someone who reports directly to the president."

In a letter to Obama, TechAmerica – which represents about 1,500 companies – said the naming of a coordinator was urgently needed since " those that would seek to harm America by exploiting our digital infrastructure continue to increase their efforts."

With his administration struggling to pass a controversial health care overhaul, deal with a troubled and unpopular war in Afghanistan, and revive the stumbling economy, Obama has had little time to focus on what has become a cyber quagmire.


Sources: Huffington Post, AP

Lassiter & Foxx's Campaign Cash Donors, Who Cares??...Lassiter Still Has My Vote

(Media folks assume most people know At-Large Charlotte City Council members/ 2009 Mayoral Candidates John Lassiter (Republican) and Anthony Foxx (Democrat). Experts say that's not the case at all.)






Lassiter & Foxx: Where their campaign cash comes from


Elizabeth Martin and David Miller don't think of themselves as special interest donors. But according to Charlotte's two mayoral candidates, they are.

The subject flared during Wednesday night's televised debate between Democrat Anthony Foxx and Republican John Lassiter, putting contributions such as Martin's and Miller's in the spotlight in the campaign's waning days.

Foxx accused Lassiter of being beholden to developers. Lassiter attacked him for taking out-of-state money. It was the latest effort by both men to showcase differences in a race that once seemed to offer few.

It also shed light on who's bankrolling Charlotte's first million-dollar mayor's race.

An Observer analysis shows Lassiter has gotten at least $104,000 - 20 percent of the money he raised - from individuals, such as Miller, who listed jobs in the real estate, building and development industries. Foxx got $28,000, or 5 percent of his money, from such donors.

Foxx got more than $54,000 - or one in every $10 - from people like Martin, who live outside North Carolina. Lassiter got $11,000 from out of state, about 2percent of his money.

In a new fundraising appeal Wednesday, Lassiter said Foxx "has resorted to accepting special interest money from groups and individuals that have no affiliation with the Charlotte community.

"Their agenda is set on priorities that are not aligned with the priorities of the citizens of Charlotte," he said Thursday. "We have focused our fundraising on folks who live and work in this community."

But Foxx said, "All this conversation about the out-of-state money is to obfuscate the massive contributions by developers to (Lassiter's) campaign."

Lawyers are big givers

The Observer found both candidates tapped into some of the same groups of donors:

Foxx, a lawyer, raised at least $83,000 from fellow members of the legal profession. Lassiter, also a lawyer and a former president of the Mecklenburg County Bar, got at least $77,000 from donors so identified.

Foxx took in at least $46,000 from individuals with banking and finance interests. Lassiter raised at least $31,000 from that group.

Each candidate got $3,000 from the Bank of America political action committee and $2,500 from Wells Fargo's PAC. Each also received money from PACs representing Piedmont Natural Gas, the N.C. Home Builders and N.C. Realtors.

Some donors say they gave because they know the candidate, not for any agenda.

"I've known John for 25 years," says Lassiter donor David Miller, CEO of a commercial real estate business. "The assertion that a person who supports a political candidate has ulterior motives might be offensive to people who make contributions to any candidate."

Elizabeth Martin went to school with Foxx at West Charlotte High. She's now a lawyer in Manhattan and helped organize a Midtown fundraiser for him last month.

"We reached out to our Charlotte networks," said Martin, who said the fundraiser drew former Charlotteans and graduates of Davidson College and New York University's law school, which Foxx attended.

While the candidates tapped into many of the same professional groups, Foxx got more financial support from his party.

The only party-related contribution Lassiter reported was $250 from Republican Mayor Pat McCrory's gubernatorial campaign. (McCrory also gave him $2,000).

Foxx, on the other hand, had nearly $42,000 in party-related contributions. That includes almost $31,000 in the form of mailings paid for by the state Democratic Party. He also got $4,000 from a PAC affiliated with U.S. Rep. Mel Watt of Charlotte and $4,000 from Watt's congressional campaign committee.

Gov. Bev Perdue sent $500; former Gov. Jim Hunt sent $750. This week House Speaker Joe Hackney of Chapel Hill hosted a Durham fundraiser. Political support also has come from outside North Carolina.

Newark, N.J., Mayor Cory Booker gave Foxx $4,250. Another $250 came from U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, a Florida Democrat.

No apologies

In Wednesday's fundraising e-mail, Lassiter asked supporters for $70,000 "in the next 72 hours" to help "send a message to my opponent's campaign that Charlotte cannot be bought."

"I hear a lot about the supporters that I have from out of the state, most of whom are either family or friends or friends of family and friends," said Foxx. "And there's no interest other than supporting me as someone they think would be a good leader for Charlotte."

He said voters should be concerned about Lassiter's support from real estate and development interests. "If you look at the tremendous amount of money John has attracted from developers and then look at his record it's a pretty clear correlation," he said.

He cited Lassiter's votes against a bicycle master plan last year and street guidelines in 2007.

Lassiter said he's raising money to combat, among other things, a state Democratic Party mailing that began Wednesday that echoes Foxx. It says Lassiter has taken thousands of dollars from developers "and then supported their agenda of unrestrained sprawl." A party spokesman said she didn't know what the mailings cost.

Lassiter makes no apologies for his support.

"I have been working aggressively for the past six years to bring projects to this community that create jobs," he said.

"The only way a lot of things happen is by individuals and organizations that put capital at risk," he said. "That folks in the development community support my campaign is some indication that I have a reputation for getting things done."

Both men say they make independent judgments, unswayed by contributions.




2009 Charlotte Mayoral candidates agree on 1 thing: It's the Economy

They've argued over tax increases and streetcars. But the two candidates for mayor of Charlotte agree that turning around the faltering local economy in North Carolina's largest city is the priority.

Republican John Lassiter and Democrat Anthony Foxx are competing in next week's election to replace Mayor Pat McCrory, who is stepping down after 14 years.

The candidates say Charlotte has to move quickly to create and retain jobs.

With the nation's banking meltdown, Charlotte has lost thousands of financial services jobs. Bank of America, one of the nation's largest banks, is headquartered in Charlotte.

Foxx says the city should recruit more financial services companies for its experienced workers. Lassiter says the city also must diversify its Economy.



View Larger Map

Sources: McClatchy Newspapers, Charlotte Observer, News14, Huffington Post, Youtube, Google Maps