Court ruling on DeLay's PAC

The Coffee Shop
1

(from nytimes.com)

WASHINGTON, May 26 - A Texas judge ruled today against a political action committee tied to Representative Tom DeLay, finding that the group’s treasurer failed to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in violation of election law.

The decision in a civil lawsuit brought by five defeated Democratic candidates has no direct impact on Mr. DeLay, the House majority leader, who formed the political organization. He was not named as a defendant in the case.

But the ruling marked an important symbolic and legal victory for critics of Mr. DeLay, lending credence to allegations that he and his associates skirted legal constraints to gain the Republican majority in the Texas House in 2002. Three of Mr. DeLay’s closest associates have been indicted in a related criminal case, part of a widening controversy that has engulfed the congressman for months.

Judge Joseph H. Hart, the senior district judge in the civil case, said in a letter to lawyers on both sides that Bill Ceverha, the treasurer of Texans for a Republican Majority, should have reported $532,333 in corporate donations that was spent illegally on campaign activities rather than for administrative purposes.

Until recently, Texas law allowed businesses to donate money for administrative expenses.

Mr. Ceverha will have to pay $196,660 as a result of the ruling, a sum that will be divided among the plaintiffs. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said that they expected the defendants to appeal, but that they were confident the case laid the groundwork for Mr. DeLay’s associates to be found liable in several other pending civil suits and convicted in a criminal trial.

“This was an important first step,” said Cris Feldman, a lawyer for the Democratic plaintiffs. Mr. DeLay’s spokesman did not immediately return telephone calls for comment.

Mr. Ceverha’s lawyers had argued that the group operated within complicated new campaign finance laws, and that all of the corporate contributions had been spent on administration, an argument the judge did not accept.

A portion of the civil case remains undecided while the criminal case is under way; charges that Mr. Ceverha and two other associates of Mr. DeLay conspired to evade campaign finance laws will be addressed once Ronnie Earle, the district attorney in Austin, Tex., concludes his grand jury inquiry.

2

Very fascinating. Do you have any links to stories about the criminal charges against Hilary’s campaign staff?

3

Very fascinating. Do you have any links to stories about the criminal charges against Hilary’s campaign staff?

http://www.sacunion.com/pages/california/articles/4759/

Happy now? I thought you were above the “well, Clinton did it, too” defense. I guess I was wrong, yet again.

4

The blogs he reads don’t cover that sort of news…

5

First thing I found on Fox:

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,157739,00.html

Clinton Fundraiser: I Had Bad Judgment

Thursday, May 26, 2005

LOS ANGELES — Jurors must decide whether the former national finance director for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (search) deliberately deflated the cost of a Hollywood fundraiser or simply didn’t understand the law on reporting certain contributions.

David Rosen (search), 38, is charged with making false statements to the Federal Election Commission, which oversees campaign contributions. Deliberations were to begin Thursday.

Rosen testified Wednesday that he may have used bad judgment when he failed to report that a campaign donor paid his $10,000 Beverly Hills hotel bill and let him use a Porsche. But he said he never tried to hide anything.

Federal prosecutors allege Rosen deliberately lied to regulators by claiming that “in-kind” contributions for a lavish Hollywood fundraiser he helped organize totaled $401,000. They say Rosen knew the contributions were worth more than $1.1 million, but he claims he relied on other people to document the costs.

Prosecutors say Rosen was trying to duck federal financing rules so Clinton’s campaign would have more money to spend on her 2000 U.S. Senate race, but they have said the New York Democrat was unaware of any wrongdoing.

The hotel cost and use of the Porsche were provided by Aaron Tonken (search), another organizer of the fundraiser who is now serving a 63-month prison sentence on separate charges of defrauding charities of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Rosen testified that he thought the use of the Porsche was a personal gift.

“I didn’t think there was any campaign expense,” he said. “If I executed poor judgment in that decision, I made a mistake but I certainly didn’t intend to hide anything.”

The August 2000 dinner and concert, held at a 112-acre Brentwood estate, attracted celebrities including John Travolta, Diana Ross and Muhammad Ali.

Prosecutors said Rosen should have known that he needed to report things such as the cost of office space, expensive hotels and the use of the Porsche. They said he knew — or should have known — that the event, with its professional light and sound system, 30,000 invitations, and performers including Cher, Melissa Etheridge and Toni Braxton, cost far more than $400,000.

“This man was not a babe in the woods,” prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg said during his closing. “He’s an expert finance director.”

Rosen said he relied on an outside group run by Tonken and Peter Paul (search) that was organizing the event to calculate and document the costs. The figures were then reported to the federal government, he said.

Paul, a three-time convicted felon, pleaded guilty in March to securities fraud in a separate case.

Each of the two counts against Rosen carries a maximum five-year prison sentence and a $250,000 fine

6

Rev. Jackson, His Groups Given Election Fines for 2000

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,157787,00.html

Thursday, May 26, 2005

http://www.foxnews.com/images/foxnews_story.gif

WASHINGTON — The Democratic Party, the Rev. Jesse Jackson (search) and two groups associated with the civil rights activist have agreed to pay a total of $200,000 in civil fines for campaign finance violations in the 2000 elections.

At issue in the Federal Election Commission case was about $450,000 in election spending by Jackson, the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and the Citizenship Education Fund (search) using funds from the groups. The two non-profit groups were incorporated, making their money corporate and subject to restrictions under federal campaign finance laws.

According to the FEC, the money was used for a partisan get-out-the-vote effort and voter registration speaking tour that was coordinated with the Democratic National Committee and included appearances by Jackson and Democratic House and Senate candidates.

Federal campaign finance law bans the use of corporate money for partisan, candidate-specific federal election activities.

Under an agreement with the FEC, Jackson and the two groups will share in a $100,000 civil penalty, and the DNC will also pay $100,000. The commission announced the outcome of the case Thursday.

The $450,000 in election spending was eventually reimbursed by the Democratic National Committee and various other Democratic entities.

7

Happy now? I thought you were above the “well, Clinton did it, too” defense. I guess I was wrong, yet again.

Thrilled. All in the interest of balance, Ken. I know how you so value balance.

8

Happy now? I thought you were above the “well, Clinton did it, too” defense. I guess I was wrong, yet again.

Thrilled. All in the interest of balance, Ken. I know how you so value balance.
That’s so much bullshit. Whining “he did it too” is not balance. Balance would be to present reasonable arguments against the court ruling cited. I don’t post this because he’s a Republican and I’m a whiny liberal; I post it because DeLay is a sack of s*** and a threat to our democracy. This particular case is merely the tip of the iceberg, as has been well documented in this forum.

9

I don’t post this because he’s a Republican and I’m a whiny liberal; I post it because DeLay is a sack of s* and a threat to our democracy.**

Yeah, you’re right, you often post things like this about liberal Democrats, too. Please.

10

Come on! You know that your liberal orientation is the basis for highlighting DeLay’s problems. At least be honest.

I think both Delay and Clinton should go and are both threats to good government.

11

Why is Clinton a problem? What does she support that would be bad?

12

You are kidding right?

13

Maybe a neo conservative can provide a little balance. By and large, no one gives a damn about any of these technical campaign finance violations. OK, the Clinton thing was over the top, but everything else, even if you add in all the Pelosi stuff and all of the Jack Abramoff stuff is just a bunch of not dotting all the i’s and crossing the t’s or petty ante crap.

The Delay stuff is just silly in particular. This is the same prosecutor that got thrown out of court after presenting a BS case against Kaye Bailey Hutchinson.

No one cares about this stuff. If you want really corruption, tune into what is going on in Canada, or, of course, the UN or the Palestinian Authority.

14

No one cares about this stuff. If you want really corruption, tune into what is going on in Canada, or, of course, the UN or the Palestinian Authority.

Well then it sure is good our president just gave the PA $50M.

15

art, you can’t be serious when you say that abramoff’s stuff is simply a minor paperwork snafu. that guy is dirty dirty dirty. and he’s got his fingers in a lot of bi-partisan pies.

and by the way, the delay stuff goes well beyond the investigation by ronnie earle. who, for the record, has a long history of going after both democrat and republican politicians. he’s clearly a democrat, but he’s got a track record for going after both sides.

16

This conservative believe the likes of Delay is a scourge to Congress and must go. He was a party to our local congressman’s (Joel Hefley) ouster because Hefley had the temerity to slaps his wrist while heading the Ethics committee. He, like many on the other side of the aisle, is a dirty politician and is not good for the conservative movement.

17

No, I’m 100% serious. Please state why she is a problem.

18

Socialized medicine for one.

19

Funny that a guy who has socialized medicine guaranteed for the rest of his life would be against anyone else having it.

Ironic indeed.

20

Some sort of government assisted medical care is greatly in need. Even if you’re a devout Republican you can see why.
If done properly we could probably save billions by with prevention and education our population and installing healthy eating and living programs in schools, making gym and nutrtion mandatory…instead we let soft drink companies bridge budget gaps and then we have millions of dollars to pay for obese smokers who can’t afford healthcare.
I recently head a car company executive (Ford, I think) are talking about moving more production to Canada because they would save money by getting rid of their healthcare costs.
Corporations are getting smarter and more amoral…Walmart is the uber-example. A huge percentage of their workers can’t afford or don’t use their company health care because it’s too expensive.

So what?

It turns out that A HUGE PERCENTAGE of the millions of people who work for walmart use state assisted medical care for their children and themselves…so we pay anyway.

I just think people get into the rut of being on ONE TEAM OR THE OTHER. It’s dumb. Let’s all stop towing the party line and look at real solutions. Maybe completely socialized medicine would be a nightmare.
However, why can’t the US just offer health care benefits to anyone or wants to pay for it. All these people pooling their resources might result in lower premiums.

It’s a statistical fact that richer people live longer and healthier than their poor counterparts. It’s probably always been this way but I think we should try to offer an option to poor hardworking people.