Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Barack's First Blunder

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Don_1967 Donating Member (231 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:28 AM
Original message
Barack's First Blunder
Presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, made his first misstep a few days ago when he joined only a handful of Democrats in opposing a Senate reform banning the increasingly widespread practice of legislators hiring their family members on their campaign or PAC payrolls. Obama has not heard the last of this vote. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-NY, who opposes wives cashing in on their husbands’ positions, voted righteously in favor of the reform and will probably use the Illinois senator’s vote against him in the presidential primaries.
When a legislator hires his or her spouse on the campaign or PAC payroll, he is effectively converting contributions to his campaign committee into personal income that flows into the family’s checking account, blurring the line between contribution and bribe.

In the past, senators and House members routinely hired their spouses and other family members on their public payrolls. In the early 1940s, for example, Harry S. Truman hired his wife, Bess, to work on his Senate staff. She got $2,500 a year in salary at a time when senators themselves only earned $8,500. But nepotism on the public payroll is now banned. So inventive congressmen and senators have filled the void by hiring family on their campaign or PAC payrolls.

Hiring family members and paying them with campaign donations is, if anything, more pernicious than doing so with public funds. Where tax money is involved, the sin is against the taxpayer for wasting his funds. But where campaign contributions are involved, the congressman is profiting personally from the largesse of special interest donors. In plain English, that’s a payoff.

There is, of course, a certain hypocrisy in the Senate action since very few senators, in fact, hire their families on their payrolls. It is, though, widely practiced in the House of Representatives, where 30 members have their families on their payrolls. But senators are much less likely to do so. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-CA, who voted “present” on the reform, hired her son, Douglas, a lobbyist, to manage her PAC, paying him $130,000 over a four-year period. Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, then a Democrat, hired his son, Matthew, for $34,000 and his daughter, Rebecca, for $36,000 to work on his 2004 presidential campaign.

So the congressional ethics reform of 2007 boils down to this: the House banned the use of corporate jets but the Senate did not, even though senators are more likely to avail themselves of the luxury than is the average House member. The Senate banned hiring family members but the House did not, even though House members are far more likely to hire their significant others to work for them.

Obama’s inexplicable pro-nepotism vote may have been cast in sympathy with Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-IL, whose hiring of his wife, Sandi, to work on his campaign prompted an FEC ruling allowing the practice. Jackson might be afraid that the Senate action will catalyze a similar reform in the House, which could cut way back on his disposable family income.

But whatever the reason for his vote, Obama has screwed up. The public will not take kindly to a senator who pledged to clean up the political process voting to allow wives to be hired with special-interest campaign funds.

The FEC required, in allowing the practice, that the contract for the services of the family member contain the language customarily used between campaign committees and consultants. The FEC also ruled that any payment to a family member in excess of the fair market value of the services would be considered to be a “personal use of campaign funds.”

But, as usual, the FEC has missed the point. Any payment from campaign money to a spouse is, in fact, an appropriation of campaign funds by the member of Congress for his own personal use, however camouflaged or disguised. The Senate was right to ban the practice and the House should follow suit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bigdarryl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
1. Wasn't this issue brough on by Dick(suck toe) Morris?
who gives a shit what he thinks.Most of the time he's wrong. and on this so-called issue I don't think with all that's going on in this country democrats are going to care about what politician has there family in jobs 08 is about( IT'S THE WAR STUPID )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
2. Wasn't this article from a conservative website?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w13rd0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. And the OP...
...didn't source it. SHOCKER!!!! Wonder why...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. Perhaps because it is against the rules to link to conservative websites
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #9
16. perhaps he didn't realize he was repackaging repuke rhetoric?
maybe it was an accident?

Maybe I'm Ethel Merman?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
3. That is only a misstep if he cannot defend his vote!
Edited on Wed Jan-17-07 09:40 AM by napi21
On it's face, the practice of hiring family members does sound loke something most people would disagree with, however, I can also see a family memberbeing some of a candidates strongest supporters, therefore the most helpful employees. I can seethis practice as acceptable IF these family members are not paid more than any other non-related employees of the candidates campaign, AND there is oversite to insure they are actually WORKING and not just collecting a check. I would suspect the oversite is already being done by any candidates opponent!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
22. Actually, Dick Morris has it wrong. Obama supported it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
4. according to whom?
Edited on Wed Jan-17-07 09:41 AM by AtomicKitten
source?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Dick Morris - FrontPageMagazine.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #8
17. Morris? Jeez - straight from the horse's ass
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #8
20. Pb is that Dick Morris is wrong. Apparently, he does not know what
Edited on Wed Jan-17-07 09:59 AM by Mass
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Connie_Corleone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
5. How can it be a misstep when most people don't care about this issue.
Hey, let's keep track of every single thing he does and see if he trips up so we can talk about it all day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuckyTheDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
6. Obama is right
I think that is the kind of conflict that is best dealt with via disclosure and not a ban. I also think some kind of cap on the total compensation might be a good idea.

But what you fail to see here is that not all candiates and their families are wealthy. In many cases, one's spouse could be the best help one could get -- certainly the most dedicated. However, it can be hard enough for ONE person to quit his or her job to engage in the high-risk project of running for office. If the other spouse has to hige up his/her income as well, then we're saying that we want ONLY rich people to run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaineDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
7. Did you write this yourself?
If not, please cite source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. Dick Morris did. Here's the link:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Nice catch.
Perhaps we can flush ol' Don.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Google News Search is a useful tool
Of course, the same has been said about me. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuckyTheDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. PLAGIARISM ALERT!
Good Googling!



:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
11. An anti-Obama thread. (Blunder? Please)
Welcome to DU, Don_1967.

Try to get that post count a little higher and people won't question your motives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
18. His FIRST mistake was in listening to a single word his mentor,
Holy Joe Lieberman, had to say on politics.

He looked great on paper. He's turned himself into an orator who says exactly nothing, sitting firmly on the fence on most issues, solidly DLC on the rest.

He lost me with his ideas on health care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Which candidate would you be satisfied with?
Is there a candidate who is ideologically pure enough for you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. Ideological purity's got nothing to do with it
Please stop insulting me long enough to analyze what the man is saying. You might consider reading his book, also, the excerpts of his "feel good, I talk pretty from this fence rail" rhetoric are disappointing, to say the least.

You also might want to research his health care stance, Hillarycare for children, only.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. So, who is your candidate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. Ask me that question about a year and a half from now.
Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #18
27. Wow
He's turned himself into an orator who says exactly nothing, sitting firmly on the fence on most issues, solidly DLC on the rest.

I don't think anyone has summed up so well exactly why I am also not thrilled with Obama. I saw a bit of his appearance on Oprah - and that was exactly it. Lots and LOTS of fluffy non-specific rhetoric about how we need new solutions - but not even the tiniest mention of what HE thinks those solutions should be.

There's no "there" there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
19. Obama supported it. Clinton opposed it.
Edited on Wed Jan-17-07 09:57 AM by Mass
The vote for for tabling the motion. Obama voted NO.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00004

You should not take Dick Morris's word for truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
23. Wrong. This was a good vote by Obama. He's had blunders but this isn't one of them.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
generaldemocrat Donating Member (227 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
28. Yawn.......
There's an equal amount of dirt that comes with the glory of someone who's just announced, none of it really sticks in the long-term though. It comes with the territory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
29. Locking
The poster is no longer among the living here at DU, where we look upon plagiarism (and/or trolls covering up their right-wing sources) with a jaundiced eye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Feb 18th 2025, 05:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC