Steny Hoyer...What Gives????

[monmouth]

Received this in an e-mail today. The first is from '06, the 2/21/07 is the one that I find disturbing. How do I reply to this if it's true? Steny Hoyer??? What gives???



From a May 3, 2006, press release from Rep. Steny Hoyer, now the House majority leader:

The greed and flagrant abuses of convicted felons, former Republican member Duke Cunningham and Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, hang over this house like a dark cloud. The "K Street" Project proudly promoted by Tom Delay, Rick Santorum and the Republican Leadership--in which quid pro quo was the blatantly articulated standard of conduct--is the most flagrant example of the aptly named "culture of corruption."

From Wonkette.com, Feb. 21, 2007 (ellipsis in original):

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has a great vacation planned for May: He's going to a fancy golf & beach resort in Puerto Rico where people get "sensually awakened." And he's taking a planeload of lobbyists . . . enough to fill 137 luxury hotel suites.

Doesn't that sound nice? But unlike Tom DeLay's unethical golf trip to Scotland with Jack Abramoff, Steny's seaside lobbyist orgy is completely okay because the lobbyists aren't paying Hoyer himself--they're paying Hoyer's PAC.

We're so disillusioned. We really thought the Democrats were going to be different!

[Kolesar]

1. I am not going to go to Wonkette to look this up...eom

[williesgirl]

2. Hoyer makes my skin crawl. Never liked him. He's good-ole boy personafied and has the ethical

standards of a gnat (sorry to all gnats). Nothing he does surprises me, unless it's on the up and up.

[MADem]

11. I spent three days with the guy on a CODEL. He's really down to earth.

I didn't know it at the time, but his wife was dying. He was a very decent fellow one-on-one. Humble in manner, polite, friendly...didn't come off like a jerk at all.

[Southsideirish]

34. I agree - very creepy. Never liked or trusted him. n/t

[bertha katzenengel]

3. He's my congressman. If true, this is disturbing.

I'm going to try to find out. I'll call Hoyer's office on Monday and ref. this "wonkette" thing. I wonder what they'd actually tell me.

Hmm. I don't know how to go about verifying stuff like this. Does anyone else?

[rodeodance]

8. i would think his office could give his schedule.

[MADem]

13. Here is the original source of the story Wonkette takes a bit of truth and a bit of bullshit, as

they do, to make a salacious tale.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/02/20/PM200702205.html


It's a GOLF trip, and it's legal:
But Hoyer's golfing trip — scheduled to begin May 2nd — is completely legal, because it will be a fundraiser for the congressman's political action committee, or leadership PAC.

The resort's promotion video sure makes it sound fun:
TAPE PROMO VIDEO: Whether you are here for business or pleasure, prepare yourself for a sensual awakening.
But it's Hoyer's power in Congress that makes lobbyists quiver. ....

Basically, the lobbyists who spent all that time sucking up to the GOP are now gonna try to suck up to the Democratic leadership. If the GOP had the majority, they'd be golfing with those guys.

OUR CONGRESS made sure this loophole, where the PAC could play, but the Congressperson him or herself could not, stayed.

This is one of those genuine bipartisan issues, where BOTH SIDES are unmotivated to decouple the money pipeline from the halls of power. Without serious campaign finance reform, you'll never see this business change. There's no motivation for change, though, because with PAC money, you can dole it out to others for their campaigns, and then they're loyal to you, and they vote for you for leadership positions. It's the way the game is played. There's a whole load of juggling and power tripping going on that we never see--it's never been Mister Smith Goes to Washington, unfortunately. It's a Lord and Serfs scenario, like it or not.

[deadmessengers]

4. If it's true he needs to get bounced out on his ass.

Crap like this is completely, utterly unacceptable. Democrats need to be completely above-board, because people are watching us more than they will ever watch Repugnicans.

[MADem]

18. Oh, bullshit....that PAC money is going to help MORE Democrats get elected.

What do you think he uses the money for?

It's completely LEGAL. The Congress made SURE of that, on both sides of the aisle.

You don't win elections with love and pale moonlight. You need CASH. That PAC gave us a Democratic majority. Who do you think gave shitloads of cash to all the new Dems in Congress? Steny. Who campaigned for them? Steny. Who loaned out staff and subject matter experts? Steny.

People need to get real. This isn't "unacceptable" -- it's the LAW. Lobbyist donations to PACS are completely legal. It's how things work in DC. Like it or not. And not a single Rep on either side of the aisle is gonna get serious and try to change it, because you NEED money to win elections.

[babylonsister]

5. So much for ethics; I too would like to know how true this is.

Would wonkette publish this if it weren't, and what would be gained?
I can seeing Brian Ross now, skulking behind every corner, taking surreptitious pics. Not a brilliant move, Hoyer.

[MADem]

20. Please reread the entire thread. This is indeed bullshit, but not like you think.

Why is it that everyone is so quick to jump on Steny without bothering to fucking CHECK the source? To read the attached link? To learn that it's LEGAL, that there's no "sensuality" involved beyond the advertising blurb for the golf resort, and that it is a GOLFING TRIP?

If you want to be mad at anyone, be mad at the entire Congress. This is THEIR rule, they voted for it, and he is doing nothing illegal at all.

That cash from those lobbyists will fund races in 08, to maintain and increase the majority.

I am sickened that everyone is delightfully speculating, slamming, anticipating the worst, assuming that nefarious goings-on are likely, and thus far, I'm the ONLY ONE who bothered to check first before spouting off with assumptions, and that is because I have met the man, and he is a decent fellow....

Man, what is up with this place lately?

[babylonsister]

24. Hey, do you own a high horse, there, MADem? I didn't

check the link because none was provided, and yes, I was too lazy to go to wonkette. So solly, charlie. I took the story at face value, and you're right, I shouldn't have.:hi:

[MADem]

26. I wasn't ranting specifically at you. Look at the entire thread, and

you will see where I am coming from...everyone is ripping Steny a new asshole, and not a single person bothered to look, not even those from his own damned constituency.

And everyone is way too eager to ASSUME THE WORST. That's the saddest bit of all.

It's sad, how easily people can be conned and bullshitted. And how quick they are (I am speaking generally, mind you) to help that lie get halfway around the world before the truth can get its socks on....

[babylonsister]

28. I still think it's unethical and the Dems should not be rubbing shoulders

with anyone in this manner, regardless of whether 'it's the way the game is played'. Then the rules need to be changed.
If they want to have a fundraiser, rent some place in DC, don't fly to Puerto Rico or anywhere remotely smelling of an ethical scandal in the making.
And I'm not calling Hoyer out, but the whole idea in general.
And thanks for that link!;-)

[MADem]

30. They have to. Where else can they get the dough to get reelected?

Where will the money come from to run the Tammy Duckworths, the Jon Testers????

No one wants to sit down at a rubber chicken dinner in DC. It's not conducive to schmoozing, to answering questions, to persuading. They want to golf, so that they can spend eighteen long holes pitching their points of view. The golf part makes listening to the pitch BEARABLE. They want to yack over not just one, but SEVERAL, meals, to make their points, to persuade, to show the politicians their perspectives. And the politicians listen politely because the money is worth the pain. Media buys are expensive. The piggy bank contributions from individual donors aren't gonna cut it; they never have. Those big-money donations are mother's milk to these guys. The Congress WILL NOT change this law. And the Supreme Court has ruled that Money Is Speech.

I'm guessing they're going to Puerto Rico (which is an American territory---it's part of the US--it's just not a state. My American relatives living down there would be rather concerned to discover they weren't in America anymore....!) because it's home to a lot of pharmaceutical companies (loads of drugs and drugstore-type products are made down there). It's likely that one of those outfits got a good deal on the resort (you're at the end of the 'tourist' season in PR in May, you see) and it was a large enough venue to accomodate the number of people they had invited.

Many politicians have PACs. They aren't new, which is why the brouhaha over this story seems, well, curious. I wonder if Wonkette has been taken over by South Park Republicans, sometimes. Nancy Pelosi got in hot water with hers a few years back http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/state/california/2004-02-11-pelosi-pac-fined_x.htm and Hillary Clinton's HILPAC is a powerhouse, too. Barbara Boxer has a goodie as well: http://www.pacforachange.com/

[flpoljunkie]

36. Where? From we, the people. Durbin will introduce public financing for Congressional campaigns

That's how. Senator Dick Durbin will introduce a bill to publicly finance Congressional campaigns he spoke about so eloquently in a speech on the Senate floor last month.

Excerpt from Durbin's speech:

For many years on Capitol Hill, I resisted the notion of public financing of campaigns. I had some pretty good arguments against it. Why do I want to see public moneys or taxpayer dollars going to crazy candidates representing outlandish causes who have no business in this political process? Well, those arguments held up for a while, but over time I came to understand that while I was arguing against that lunatic fringe in American politics, I was creating a trap for everyone else who was honest and trying to raise enough money to wage an effective campaign.

The time has come for real change. In this last election cycle, which the Presiding Officer knows full well, more money was spent in that off-year election than in the previous Presidential election year. The amount of money going into our political process is growing geometrically. It means that more and more special interest groups and individuals with an agenda are pouring dollars into the political process. It means that our poor, unsuspecting voters are the victims of these driveby ads that come at them night and day for months before a campaign. It means that candidates, both incumbents and challengers, spend month after weary month on the telephone begging for money.

It is no surprise that the same people we are begging money for are the people who are the subject of this ethics legislation--the lobbyists of the special interest groups. We live in this parallel world.

Today, with the passage of this underlying legislation, we will ban a lobbyist buying me lunch. Tomorrow that same lobbyist can have me over for lunch at his lobbying firm to provide campaign funds for my reelection campaign, and it is perfectly legal. What is the difference? From the viewpoint of the person standing on the street looking through the window, there is none. It is the same lobbyist and the same Member of Congress. The fact that one is a political campaign fundraising event and another is a personal lunch is a distinction which will be lost on most of America.

The reason I raise this is I will support these ethics reforms. They are absolutely essential. They are the product of the scandals we have seen on Capitol Hill in the last several years. But if we stop there, if we do nothing about the financing of our political campaigns, we have still left a trap out there for honest people serving in Congress to fall into as they try to raise money for their political campaigns. In a few weeks I will be introducing public financing legislation to try to move us to a place where some States have already gone--the States of Arizona, for example, and Maine--moving toward clean campaigns, understanding that the voters are so hungry for changes and reforms that will shorten campaigns, make them more substantive, take the special interest money out of those campaigns, make them a real forum and debate of ideas and not a contest of fundraising. Sadly, that is what they have become in many instances.

I urge my colleagues in their zeal for reform not to believe that the passage of S. 1 and its amendments will be the end of the debate. I hope it will only be the beginning and that we can move, even in this session of Congress, to meaningful hearings and the passage of public financing of campaigns that will truly reform the way we elect men and women to office at the Federal level and restore respect to this great institution of the U.S. Congress, both the House and the Senate.

The game is rigged for those in power, and not for the American people--who get the shaft, or so it seems, no matter who is in power.

http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2007/01/11/sen-durbins-speech-in-support-of-public-financing

[MADem]

44. Your sincerity, and naivete, are touching.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Translation: No one in the Senate wanted to hear that shit. They all beat feet out of there. If they supported the words, they'd be crowded around him, giving him support.

Look, the reason they left in that loophole for the PACS, as I said before, is so they don't have to eat rubber chicken four nights a week, give a speech, grip and grin, and kiss your or my ass for a lousy two hundred dollar check. They'd never get ANY work done if all they were doing was grubbing for nickels and dimes. It's WAY easier to suffer listening to these lobbyists for a few days, while golfing, eating and drinking, and leaving with a big fat check and NO promises, save "I'll consider what you said."

Like it or not, that's the way it is. It's a shell game; they prevent the lobbyists from buying pizzas for the staffers, but the big money still finds its way to the PACS. And the reason it is like that is because THE SENATE and the HOUSE voted for it. Overwhelmingly.

And if you think the FEDERAL laws are bad, the state laws are a fucking joke. What got Delay in trouble was that he played fast and loose with TX law--he would have been better off running his operation out of Chicago, where there's no rules at all, damn near.

Because the relationships are PUBLIC, if a Senator or Representative starts rolling over and, say, voting for all the pro-Big Pharma legislation, well, the voters can see the relationship. It's in the FEC filings. That's the good part of it all.

But if you think the cheap bastards in this country are going to be willing to kick in ten or twenty bucks per person in a tax increase to fully fund public campaigns, well, I have to say we aren't there yet. I'd be surprised if we get there any time soon. There are too many people who hate taxes of any kind, others who think that the money should go to their pet project/issue/medical matter, and still others who like the system the way it is, because the relationships are defined and known--if you want to look them up. This http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml is the law of the land, and the reason it is is because those legislators wanted it that way. Take a look at this chart--if you were running for office, how would you raise your money? Individual donors, going to fundraisers four nights a week for at least thirty weeks a year, or a few 'sufferable' conclaves of rich bastards and lobbyists? It's no contest:

[Tom Joad]

6. Sounds like a real 'ho down. Just what i expected of Mr Hoyner.

He's livin' up to my expectations.

[MADem]

14. No, not at all. I posted a link to the original story above. It is a GOLF TRIP.

His name is HOYER, not Hoyner, and he is a widower. His wife died not terribly long ago. He's a nice guy. All of those Fighting Dems that won in the House, well, they won because they got a shitload of money from Steny's PAC. He campaigned for them, he gave them advice, and he gave them money. Money that those lobbyists are going to replenish. LEGAL money, because the entire Congress is in favor of keeping that cash cow to milk...

But go ahead and bash the guy. If not for him we might not have such a fine majority in the House. Most of those new folks voted for him as leader, FWIW.

Sheesh....

[Tom Joad]

22. Legal money. That i'm sure they expect nothing special for....

sure.

Anyone who believes that... well...got some Bay Bridges to sell -- cheap. PM me if your interested.

[MADem]

23. No offense, but you need to grow up. That's how it works. That is how it has always worked.

At least now there's more transparency, but if you think it's going to go away, I've got a bridge to sell YOU. I can't understand why anyone is surprised...this shit is NOT NEW.

This system is in place because the elected officials need BIG MONEY to run for office. And they get it, not from your or my little twenty five dollar check, or the two grand from Barbra Streisand, they get it from the lobbyists. Campaign finance reform won't provide that kind of dough, which is why they always leave loopholes to funnel the big money to the elected officials.

And here's the bottom line--they can take the money, and vote the way the lobbyist might like, or they can take the money, and vote the opposite. For the most part, the lobbyists pretty much preach to the choir. They grease the palms of the sure votes heavily to keep them that way, and they also grease the palms of the undecided. They invest in trying to change minds, too, but they know how to do a count. See, they aren't stupid, either.

[Tom Joad]

27. I know how it works. I also know the result is that rich people get the government they want

and the rest of us suffer, we end up dying in wars for them, and maybe have no health care, and some folks are sleeping under freeway overpasses, while the rich live in luxury... i know how it works.

"the lobbyists pretty much preach to the choir" I agree 100% -- because hardly any gets in congress that ain't pretty much in line with this way of doing business.

Don't expect me to accept the status quo of these whoring assholes though.

[MADem]

29. And your solution is.....what?

Taking your ball and going home? Calling them all bastards? Fist shaking?

It's NOT going to change. The fact that we know who's talking to whom, that the process is out in the open, is about as good as it is gonna get. No one, elected officials included, will vote against their own self-interest. It just won't happen.

Campaign finance reform is a dead duck. Who in their right mind would take poverty handouts when they can get huge barrels of bundled cash, lobbying cash, AND the individual contributions of wealthy donors? Even McCain is raising money hand over fist, and he's not too excited about living off the public dole to run a campaign--it was fine in theory, but in practice...not so nice.

[Tom Joad]

31. Calling whores, whores .... seems like a start. We need democracy.

You sound like someone who has given up, not me.

[MADem]

33. Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Pat Leahy, MoveOn.Org

Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Wes Clark...on and on and on. They ALL have PACs. Are they all "whores?" http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/04/a_look_at_leadership_pacs.html

You can look up your favorite whore here: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/category.asp?txt=J2100&cycle=2006

You'd have to toss every single one of them out. On both sides of the aisle. In both chambers.

And they'd be replaced by people who would leave those rules in place. Meet the new whores, same as the old whores???

I haven't "given up" -- as you say. I simply understand the system, and am not naive and starry eyed. In actual fact, the entire procedure is more transparent NOW than it was in the bad old days, when the money was big wads of cash in plain envelopes, slipped into breast pockets, untraceable, unaccountable.

If you, for a second, think that these elected officials are going to vote against their own self-interests and toss the cash cow out of the barn, you're high on something. They're not. They're going to keep things the way they are, because it is WAY easier to suffer through three days of golf and meals (and the golf is great, so's the food--it's listening to the bullshit that is hard) and get a MASSIVE chunk of cash, than go around eating rubber chicken four nights a week for thirty weeks straight and taking home a small fraction of the golf cash. Those 'citizen donations' are limited, first of all, and those citizens are often either poor or cheap. The rules on these PACS make it easier for politicians to rake in the cash in exchange for listening to a pitch. They don't have to buy off on the speil, though maybe they might.... but there's a RECORD of who they spoke with, at which venue, and when. The public can draw their own conclusions and they can question the politician about the reason for their vote.

It's no contest for the politicians--they can run around grubbing for dimes for thirty weeks a year, or they can suffer through a few days of pleasant bullshit and have a much better financial result.

[The Magistrate]

37. The Diagnostic Of Democracy, Mr. Joad

Is not whether people who agree with you personally hold office. Allowance must be made for the possibility that the great preponderance of the people do not share your views on how the country ought to be run.

[Tom Joad]

40. They agree with the donors with the most cash. Sure its a coincidence though.

[The Magistrate]

41. That Is Your Opinion, Mr. Joad

And no more. People do actually have to get a majority of votes cast in an election to hold the office, after all. That is democracy.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[napi21]

9. How about sending it to Nancy and asking HER to check it out?

After all, SHE nominated HIM to be the House leader, and SHE would bedamaged by his actions if they are true!

[monmouth]

10. I have done that, it's infuriating. The enemy within???

[MADem]

16. You should have RESEARCHED this BEFORE you made the accusation, frankly

It is a golf trip.

It is legal.

There's no 'ho's' or 'sensuality' involved.

If you'd clicked on the Wonkette link when you first read the piece, you would know that. The accompanying public radio link explains it all clearly.

Now a shitload of people have an unfairly negative view of Rep. Hoyer.

Sheesh...well done. :sarcasm:

[Kolesar]

25. You did not even put up the url to link to the story

See comment number 1

[Nite Owl]

12. I thought she wanted

John Murtha???

:shrug:

[MADem]

17. The majority leader is ELECTED, not selected

The people who ELECTED Steny were ones who benefitted from his help. We wouldn't have a roomful of Fighting Dems if it weren't for Steny.

That PAC everyone is bitching about??? IT FUNDED those races. Those folks who won those races? They VOTED for Steny.

I can't believe this thread. It's a bit sickening how people are piling on the man. He's a decent fellow.

[Nite Owl]

38. But Pelosi did

want Murtha not Hoyer elected or not, Murtha was the one she was backing.

[MADem]

43. She had to support Murtha, because Murtha helped HER get the

minority leader job in the last session, and he did the point man thing on the war. It's all 'quid pro quo' up in there. She likes Steny, they came to the Hill together, and they are both from MD (she reps SF now, but she's MD born/raised). But see, she "owed" Murtha.

But Murtha's PEERS -- his fellows in the House -- liked Steny better. It's not what NANCY wants, it's what the members of the Democratic majority in the House want.

And that's probably because Steny is MORE TO THE LEFT than Murtha. Murtha is a Pro-Life, Pro-Military (with a brother who is a Defense industry lobbyist, FWIW) VERY conservative Democrat. He's no fool, certainly, and he sees that this war is fer-shit, like ANYONE with military experience does, but once this war is over and the servicemembers come home, I'm betting a lot of the more left of our brethren won't be cheering Jack if or when he votes to tighten a woman's right to choose.

But here is what no one seems to be getting--your democratic representatives ELECTED both Nancy as Speaker, and Steny as Majority Leader. To say nothing of James Clyburn as Majority Whip. These people are the ones who keep the wheels turning--they do the administrative things, like lining up votes for bills our side wants passed (and using that PAC money they raise as a threat or a promise, if need be), raising MONEY, picking candidates to challenge incumbent republicans AND funding them, and ensuring that we achieve, maintain and grow a majority.

That's the way it IS. It's the way it always HAS been. Will there be the same degree of outrage when Boxer or Pelosi do a shindig to raise money for their PACs? How about Ted Kennedy's PAC? Or any of the dozens and dozens of other PACS that do this same shit?

Wonkette, purchased from Anna Marie Cox and now run by two anonymous clowns, puts a snarky piece in their stupid little teasing blog. NO ONE, save me, apparently, bothers to check their cites and get the full story, to include the parts that are outright misrepresentations (the 'sensuality' horseshit being a part of the resorts ad, and referring to the weather, scenery, amenities, and so forth--not to 'fucking' or things of that nature). Even when I post the correct information, the "outrage" over absolutely nothing continues.

Karl Rove must be thrilled. How well so many do his work for him.

[MADem]

15. She nominated no one. That's not how it works.

People RUN for the job, and the reps elect them. Hoyer ran, so did Murtha.

Hoyer was the guy who raised money, gave it to the Fighting Dems, campaigned for them, helped them, and secured us a majority. The people he helped voted for him. That's how it works.

Murtha had no constituency, because he didn't extend himself to help others get elected in the same way Hoyer did.

As I said elsewhere, it's a golf trip, and it is legal.

[napi21]

19. I don't mean to make you mad, but please explain to me why

a golf trip to somewhere in the US and apparently paid for, allbit indirectly, by lobbiests is legal? I'm not trying to jump all over Stenny! I'm just VERY concerned that the Pubs will grab something like this and destroy OUR image of being cleaner than the Pubs were. The OP just made this sound dirty!!!

[MADem]

21. Because the Congress VOTED for it. Your elected representatives put that in the regs.

That lobbyists CAN contribute to a PAC with no worries.

The "Pubs" aren't going to say shit, because they're getting the same good deals--not as good as before, because they aren't the majority, but those wheels WILL continue to be greased.

The wheels of government are greased by lobbying money. That money is used to fund elections. Senators and Reps who take the time (and expend the effort) to set up and manage these big PACS take the cash they get and use it to help others get elected. With the money comes a bit of quid pro quo, OF COURSE.

Now, those lobbyists are paying to PITCH their ideas and attitudes. They're paying for ACCESS. That doesn't mean Steny or anyone else has to vote the way they want...

[many a good man]

32. MADem, you would do better if

Instead of telling us to accept that this is the way the game is played, why don't you educate us on HOW this is substantially different than the way Delay, Abramoff, et.al. operated?

[MADem]

35. Delay violated the law. He got greedy, piggy, sloppy, and had a sense of

entitlement that was not deserved. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/11/AR2005081101607.html

Democrats and liberal groups lambasted DeLay for the infractions. "When it comes to federal elections law, Tom DeLay and his special-interest friends live by one set of rules, and everyone else lives by a very different set," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The audit said that ARMPAC made "material" misstatements about its donations, cash on hand and disbursements. The discrepancies, which have been corrected, totaled more than $100,000.

Auditors also said they had trouble examining the accounts because about 28 percent of contributor checks and a third of expense paperwork such as invoices were missing.

ARMPAC failed to properly disclose debts totaling $322,306 that it owed to 25 vendors, the report said. McGahn said that the vendors were paid on time and that the fund amended disclosure documents to comply with the auditors' criticisms.

DeLay's fund also spent $203,483 from a non-federal account -- which contained money relatively easy to raise in large chunks -- that should have come from an account governed by tighter federal laws, which make the money harder to collect in such sizable amounts.

ARMPAC has been repaying the non-federal account with the harder-to-raise funds and has amended disclosure statements to reflect the changes, the audit said....

He also violated Texas law with his little TX PAC, and he put his family on the payroll, paying them a fortune for doing absolute shit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/08/AR2005090800973.html


A grand jury in Texas indicted yesterday a state political action committee organized by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) for accepting $120,000 in allegedly illegal corporate campaign contributions shortly before and after the 2002 elections that helped Republicans cement their control of the House of Representatives.

The indictment follows a lengthy investigation in Austin that previously had targeted the defunct political action committee's executive director, John Colyandro. He was indicted last year for accepting illegal corporate donations and for illegally laundering $190,000 in corporate funds through the Republican National State Elections Committee that later wound up in the hands of Texas Republican candidates.


The criminal charges are based on a Texas election law, akin to rules in 17 other states, that strictly bars political contributions from corporations for election purposes. But according to evidence submitted in a related civil trial, the committee, Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC), raised and spent at least $523,000 in corporate funds -- most of which were not reported to state election officials.

The funds paid for surveys, mailings, receptions, candidate investigations and probes of Democratic candidates that helped Republicans gain control of the Texas House for the first time in 130 years, and enabled them to redraw the state's congressional districts in 2003 in such a way that Texas voters elected five more Republicans to Congress in 2004....

The rules are loose enough so that everyone can have a payday, so long as you keep careful note of who, what, when, where, why and HOW MUCH, you stay within the guidelines, and you turn in your paperwork on time without errors.

Delay got greedy and didn't even keep decent books. He didn't think he had to comply with FEC law--as far as he was concerned, it was like that smartass comment he made at Ruth Chris' (a high end restaurant in DC--crawling with pols and lawyers) when the waiter told him not to smoke -- "I AM the federal government" he said. The waiter wouldn't back down, so he left in a huff....true story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A57541-2003May14

Turned out, he WASN'T the federal government....not when he wanted a cigar, and not when he blew off the FEC regs.

[zulchzulu]

39. Pardon me, but the guy looks like a crooked politician from Central Casting

If this story is true, he can go on this trip in P.R. and stay there. Now is not a time to give the Repugs ammo like this.

[MADem]

45. So, should Pelosi get the lash, too, along with the rest of the leadership, for their PACS?

A little history on Nancy's fundraising: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?CID=N00007360&cycle=2006 --Note that SIXTY SIX percent of her fundraising comes from (gasp!) PACs.

This isn't "ammo" and the only one who's flogging this lunatic story is Wonkette and the OP, and everyone who doesn't research before ASSUMING that there's something nefarious going on. Reread the whole thread, and pay attention to my posts, which EXPLAIN the nature of PACs and fundraising.

Good grief. Steny Hoyer is a progressive guy who has done a lot for his constituents. He looks like a crooked politician, eh? Is that how you judge someone? On the way they "look?"

Here's the "crook's" "left/liberal" record:

Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 87% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 40% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 85% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 15% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 22% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by FAIR, indicating a voting record loosening immigration. (Dec 2003)
Rated 87% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)

http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Steny_Hoyer.htm


Steny Hoyer is a Populist-Leaning Liberal.

I'm just stunned at the piling on, with no effort whatsoever at verification. It's damning.

[AtomicKitten]

42. I actually heard this guy say

we invaded Iraq because they had disregarded UN resolutions. Wow. That was pretty breathtaking. Funny how other Dems get tagged for being wingnutty when this guy is straddling the centrist fence in a big way.