Documents show Margolies turned to own charity in time of need.

[Divernan]

This expose of Congressional candidate Marjorie Margolies (in a crowded primary field of Dems for a congressional seat) has a tremendous amount of disturbing detail - my conclusion after reading the entire article(which I urge all to do) is that she and her ex-husband, ex-con, ex-Congressman, Ed Mezvinsky were two birds of a feather. No surprise that their son makes his millions from hedge funds. Both parents were very slick at scamming the system. She wouldn't stand a prayer of getting elected if she weren't now a Clinton in-law. There are several other candidates much more deserving of both respect and votes. But in such a crowded primary, sometimes the good guys divide the votes, and the least deserving ends up winning.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/31/marjorie-margolies-charity-_n_5043352.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

According to documents obtained by The Huffington Post, as Ed Mezvinsky's fraud was exposed, Margolies doubled her own salary as head of a small, largely taxpayer-funded charity into the six figures, attempted to have the charity renovate and lease a mansion in which she would live, billed the charity for her automobile lease and other expenses, and required charity staff to assist with her other responsibilities as a faculty member at a local university.

The Huffington Post earlier reported that over the past several years, Margolies was paid an unusually large salary given the size of her charity, Women's Campaign International, whose revenue in recent years was in the very low millions. In defending that salary in December, WCI noted that the charity's board of directors determines compensation -- not Margolies, who still runs the charity.

That explanation, however, elided one critical detail: For the first three years of WCI's existence, and at a crucial board meeting at which the decision about her salary was made, Margolies was herself the chairman of the board.

On Dec. 9, 2001, Margolies, as chairman, convened a meeting of WCI's board to discuss salary. Previous minutes date her chairmanship to Dec. 7, 1998, the charity's first meeting -- one month after she lost a bid to become Pennsylvania's lieutenant governor. For WCI's first three years, its only board members were Margolies, Fredrica Friedman and her husband, Stephen Friedman. Nonprofit watchdogs consistently warn charities that a husband and wife should not both serve on a board, that they certainly should not make up two-thirds of it, and that the head of the charity should not also be the board's chairman.

[bluestateguy]

1. She always struck me as a rather flighty and scatter-brained Congresswoman

Not ready for prime time. Not really a heavyweight.

And her husband is an outright crook.

[JPZenger]

2. Seems like a cheap attack

I'm not a big fan of her's, but this seems like a cheap attack. The Phila. Inquirer had a good article a couple days ago explaining the situation. Among other things, the top employees of the organization accepted deferred compensation when the recession became severe. Then, the organization received large grants, and that back paid was paid out in the next year. It made it appear she had a huge increase in income, when actually she was just paid what she was fairly owned.

[Divernan]

3. According to Phillie article, she's threatening another of her bogus lawsuits.

I read the Phillie article, and note Margolies' spokesperson threatens they'll sue HuffPo.

http://articles.philly.com/2014-04-06/news/48891167_1_marc-mezvinsky-chelsea-clinton-marjorie-margolies

Margolies' campaign this week said it was contemplating a defamation suit against the Huffington Post for reporting that she "turned to her own charity in time of need" and "paid herself handsomely."

Among other things, Margolies and the nonprofit disputed the claims that she set her own salary. A senior campaign adviser called the articles "political hit jobs."

First of all, as to the question of whether she was overpaid, both sides use statistics to back up their claims. As the saying goes, lies, damn lies and statistics. Having taken graduate level courses in statistics (before I went to law school), I well understand how statistics can be "interpreted" using differing parameters which can lead to opposite conclusions. However the Phillie article did not document or follow up with obvious questions to Margolies on her claim that she did not set her own salary. She did not deny that she was both on the Board, which set her salary, and President at the same time. She did not deny that for the first several years, the "Board" consisted of her, her husband and one other person. She did not deny using charity staffers to help her on her other job as a university faculty member. She did not deny billing the charity for her auto lease and expenses.

Secondly, I did a little research on her background, and came across this interesting article from Politico, which mentions in passing two of her previous lawsuits which were (and I agree with both judges) thrown out of court.

"There’s no question that the scandal and its messy fallout were damaging to Margolies as well. When she filed for bankruptcy, a judge rejected her assertion of ignorance in a scathing decision that, depending on how you read it, either calls her feminism into question or suggests she knows more than she’s letting on. “Her consistent response to questions asked by her creditors about the disposition of her assets is lack of knowledge or ‘my husband handled it,’ a mantra that is completely at odds with her public persona, background, and accomplishments,” the judge wrote."

* * * * * * * *

"When I ask the native Northeast Philadelphian Boyle what differentiates him from his opponents, Margolies in particular, he says he’s “the only candidate who isn’t a millionaire or married to one.” Put another way: He’s a first-generation Irish-American who grew up in a row house in Northeast Philly; she once sued US Airways after a bag fell on her head. (She was fine, and the case was dismissed.) The presence of the Clintons may just amplify inevitable charges of carpetbaggery from Boyle and her other opponents."

Still, it’s better to be safe than sorry. Three weeks after Hillary’s speech in Philadelphia, Margolies' organization, Women’s Campaign International, hosted a gala for its 15th anniversary. The theme of this year’s fundraiser was the “next generation” of female leaders. The honoree? Chelsea Clinton.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/the-clinton-in-law-marjorie-margolies-100696_Page3.html#ixzz2yCyuSK6j

Margolies is already being painted as the right-wing candidate running in her newly redrawn district, which is now considerably less suburban than it was 20 years ago. State representative Brendan Boyle is thought to have a lock on the urban part of the district, and state senator Daylin Leach is the favorite among progressive voters. While an internal poll showed Margolies as the frontrunner in August, it’s unclear what her natural voter base is. Indeed, if you scroll through her campaign donations, you’ll find that most of them come from tony suburbs like Bryn Mawr and Bala Cynwyd that are still located in her old district—not middle- and working-class Northeast Philadelphia, which now comprises more than half of the new seat. (When I float the possibility that some of her donors don’t know their district has moved, Margolies belts out a deep-throated laugh and says, ‘Thank God!”)

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/the-clinton-in-law-marjorie-margolies-100696_Page3.html#ixzz2yD1S1PEi

The other 3 Dem candidates in the 13th Congressional district primary are State Rep. Brendan Boyle (endorsed by 23 labor unions), State Sen. Daylin Leach, and Dr. Valerie Arkoosh. It will certainly be an interesting race to watch on election night. I work as a judge of elections in Allegheny County, complete my duties for the day and get home in front of the TV - around 11 p.m., and by that time the numbers are coming in.