Kennedy Declines to Make Financial Disclosure

[Beacool]

By DAVID M. HALBFINGER
Published: December 22, 2008

If she were applying to be, say, an undersecretary of education in Barack Obama’s new administration, Caroline Kennedy would have to fill out a 63-item confidential questionnaire disclosing potentially embarrassing text messages and diary entries, the immigration status of her household staff, even copies of every résumé she used in the last 10 years.

If she were running for election to the Senate, Ms. Kennedy would have to file a 10-part, publicly available report disclosing her financial assets, credit card debts, mortgages, book deals and the sources of any payments greater than $5,000 in the last three years.

But Ms. Kennedy, who has asked Gov. David A. Paterson to appoint her to succeed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton — and who helped oversee the vetting process for Mr. Obama’s possible running mates — is declining to provide a variety of basic data, including companies she has a stake in and whether she has ever been charged with a crime.

Ms. Kennedy declined on Monday to reply to those and other questions posed by The New York Times about any potential ethical, legal and financial entanglements. Through a spokesman, she said she would not disclose that kind of information unless and until she becomes a senator.

“If Governor Paterson were to choose Caroline, she would, of course, comply with all disclosure requirements,” said the spokesman, Stefan Friedman.

Mr. Paterson’s office said his choice for the Senate would undergo the same background check as any cabinet-level officer in Albany, including verification of employment and education, a review of tax returns, and a criminal background check by the State Police. The governor’s vetting process drew criticism this fall when it surfaced that his top aide at the time, Charles O’Byrne, had failed to pay income taxes for five years. The Paterson administration has since said it is requiring more extensive background checks.

The Senate’s self-imposed ethics rules do not require any disclosure by potential appointees, although sitting senators are required to file financial disclosure statements by May 15 each year. (The latest filing by Ms. Kennedy’s uncle, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, showed a net worth of at least $43.8 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which ranked him the seventh richest senator.)

But several ethics experts, good-government advocates and scholars, who called Ms. Kennedy’s situation highly unusual — because of her overt pursuit of the job, her celebrity and her lack of previous political experience — urged her to reveal information on her finances now, if only for appearances’ sake.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/nyregion/23kennedy.html

[bridgit]

1. She declines!? Cool. Would that it were so; 50 states comprise the U.S.A.

Not to mention territories, etc, sadly it was made point by Krauthammer, of all people :rant:, that *Camelot*...is not a state :cry:

[AllentownJake]

2. No offense but who is the NY Times

to be collecting Ms. Kennedy's disclosure.

If she declines the Govenor's request, declines after or appointment, or declined when running in 2010 those disclosures...that's a whole different animal.

Bill Clinton declined to disclose his foundation's donations till after Hillary's Sec. of State appointment :shrug:

You know when it was reasonable for him to have to disclose it.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Didn't the New York Times just published a letter for the FAKE Mayor of Paris?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3656836

[AllentownJake]

6. I love the NY Times and I think the media has a role to play

in the vetting of public officials however, demanding someone make disclosures of their personal finances to the public on an appointment before the person is appointed is a little bit of a stretch.

If the Govenor of NY's office asks for that information and she wants to be considered she should provide it but there is no reason for her to provide that information to a Newspaper to comb through her personal data when she may not become a public official.

Since this a an appointment the public has the right to know her information after and if she is appointed and if she runs for election.

[CTyankee]

27. I thought there was something a little odd about the letter when I read it

as it was originally published. I didn't quite get why the Mayor of Paris was commenting on American politics. I wonder what gave it away to them finally...

[chascarrillo]

7. When was it reasonable for Bill Clinton to disclose his donors?

I believe that would be when his spouse declared that she was running for President. Kennedy has already discussed an appointment with Gov. Patterson, thus she should disclose her finances.

[AllentownJake]

8. I don't think it was necessary till she had the nomination

because it was not Hillary Clinton's foundation.

Seeing that this is an appointment and not an election I don't believe Caroline Kennedy needs to disclose personal financial data to the public when she may not get the job. Like it or not in NY right now this is an election of one. If Govenor Patterson's office request it as part of his consideration than she should disclose. I know this is not the most democratic process but it is the process that is law in NY. A law that was voted on by the democratically elected representatives of the citizens of NY.

If Ms. Kennedy decides to run in 2010 or is actually appointed than of course she should disclose but through the usual channels not the Grey Lady.

[karynnj]

10. I agree with you and think the abstraction of what you are saying

is that the information should be known as part of the input to the selection process. In the case of HRC running for President, the selection is done first by Democratic registered voters in the primaries (and Independents where allowed), then by all registered voters. The people needing the input then obviously start with the registered voters, who needed it as one input to their decision process. (I know few would seriously examine it.)

Here the selection process is David Patterson chooses. He needs to have that information to make the decision an dI doubt he will pick her if he doesn't get it. I think that Patterson might see that prior public scrutiny is needed - it never hurts to have more eyes checking something. He might ask a few short list finalists to disclose information, but it really is a pretty unusual request. The Clinton situation really is and was unusual. If she is named, then just like every Senator, she will be required to make disclosures.

[AllentownJake]

14. The New York Times however,

Is not a Public Party that financial disclosures should be made to exclusively for investigation.

[karynnj]

18. Completely agree - though in an election they can ask

(which doesn't mean get) anything in the name of the voters - here it is less obvious.

[LiberalFighter]

13. The chairman, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr should disclose his "earnings" and...

positions on other companies.

[MadBadger]

3. Just for you, I want Caroline to get this seat

[Beacool]

5. Awww, shucks, you're so kind to me.

Is that my Christmas present?

:7

[cali]

9. so what? as the NYT says, it's hardly standard under the circumstances.

[a kennedy]

11. Probably not even relevent........did Sarah Palin EVER give her out

her medical records??? I know, apples to oranges. :blush:

[ClarkUSA]

12. Unless and until she actually becomes a senator, why should she?

:shrug:

[Blarch]

15. So the people know who and what they are supporting.

They want a person who can be re-elected.

[ClarkUSA]

17. I'm supporting her and I don't need to know. She's being appointed, not elected or re-elected.

I stand by my previous statement.

[NashVegas]

16. I See No Need for the NY Times to Vet An Appointment

At this time.

[GarbagemanLB]

19. I hope someone who actually deserves the seat is picked. This Caroline Kennedy business makes the

Democratic party look bad.

[AllentownJake]

20. No worse than Blago or John Salazar or a placeholder till Beau gets back

At least this can be defended.

[GarbagemanLB]

21. the Beau placeholder is also a joke.

[snooper2]

22. Stupid Media- her last name is SCHLOSSBERG

:argh:

[AllentownJake]

23. Actually it is Kennedy

Kennedy and Schlossberg were married on July 19, 1986<13> at Our Lady of Victory Church in Centerville, Massachusetts. Kennedy's matron of honor was her cousin Maria Shriver. She was walked down the aisle by her Uncle Ted. Although she is often incorrectly referred to as "Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg," she did not change her name when she married.<1><2>

[CakeGrrl]

24. She won't disclose to the NYT. So what?

If she wants the seat, I'd bet she knows when she's required to disclose and when not.

This is a non-issue if it's only the NYT complaining that she won't give THEM the goods.

[SuperTrouper]

26. Once again, the irrelevant MSM is throwing a temper tantrum, how pathetic.

[Phx_Dem]

25. Big deal. The Clintons refused to disclose donations to the Clinton

Library and Bill's Global Outreach Program unless Hillary won the Presidential nomination. Caroline doesn't have to disclose anything until or unless she becomes a Senator because the public is not voting. She may very well have diclosed to Gov. Patterson and, for now, he's the only one who matters. The NYT sure as hell doesn't, especially after printing the nasty and false remarks about her from the "Paris mayor."

[AtomicKitten]

28. And for years the Clintons have balked at disclosure. Tread carefully with this insinuation.

[rvablue]

29. Sorry but the title of this OP, whether it is the NYT headline or not, is highly misleading

I was ready to be outraged when I read the title.

I don't care either way, whether she is appointed or not. I'm good with it either way.

But when I read this, I was like, "Hell to the no!" Everyone other Senator has to divulge their backgrounds, so, so must she. If she won't, then she shouldn't take the seat. The rules apply to all.

But upon further reading, she hasn't declined. She has only said that she will wait until she is appointed.

Frankly, I'm OK with that.