June 07, 2006


Filthy Lucre Watch

Just wow. This is breath-taking in it's scope and audacity. Seems that former homemaker Christine Delay was quite the rain-maker in La Famiglia Delay.

A registered lobbyist opened a retirement account in the late 1990s for the wife of then-House Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and contributed thousands of dollars to it while also paying her a salary to work for him from her home in Texas, according to sources, documents and DeLay's attorney, Richard Cullen.

The account represents a small portion of the income that DeLay's family received from entities at least partly controlled by lobbyist Edwin A. Buckham. But the disclosure of its origin adds to what was previously known about the benefits DeLay's family received from its association with Buckham, and it brings the total over the past seven years to about half a million dollars.

Buckham was DeLay's chief of staff before he became a lobbyist at the end of 1998, shortly before the account was opened and the flow of funds began. He has come under scrutiny from federal investigators because his lobbying firm received hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue from clients of indicted Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

So there's the set up...another in the long line of JACKabramOFF connected lobbyists.
From 1998 until recently, Buckham, an evangelical minister, met regularly with DeLay, occasionally attended staff meetings in his office, made scheduling recommendations or decisions for the office, and served as DeLay's chief political and spiritual adviser, even though he was not formally employed by him. At the time, Buckham's clients included a host of companies with regulatory and legislative business before Congress, and whose interests DeLay supported.

Under congressional ethics rules, lobbyists such as Buckham are barred from providing gifts or gratuities with a total value exceeding $50 to lawmakers in a single year. No similar prohibition exists for payments to a lawmaker's family members, but the pay must be a reasonable wage for real work and not be meant to influence a lawmaker's votes. Nothing in pending House and Senate lobbying reform legislation addresses the issue of such lobbyist payments to lawmaker's families.

My guess? He was comforting Delay with the spirit of the Benjamin, but I'm just cynical thataway I guess.
Besides financing the retirement account, Buckham played a role in two other streams of income that indirectly benefited DeLay.

One involved payments to DeLay's family by his principal political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC), which drew its largest donations from corporations. Three former DeLay staffers with firsthand knowledge of Buckham's activities have described him as a decision maker for the group, even though it was formally run by its executive director.

An arm of the group paid Buckham a monthly consulting fee, and Buckham in turn employed its executive director as a consultant to his lobbying firm. The two of them shared a single office on the top floor of a townhouse owned by a nonprofit organization that Buckham created and directed. Buckham's role is relevant because from 2001 to Jan. 31, 2006, ARMPAC paid Christine DeLay; DeLay's daughter, Dani DeLay Ferro; and Ferro's Texas firm a total of $350,304 in political consulting fees and expenses, according to public records.

The Washington Post previously disclosed that from 1998 to 2002, Buckham's lobbying firm, Alexander Strategy Group, paid Christine DeLay a monthly salary averaging between $3,200 and $3,400. Cullen initially said the payments were for telephone calls she made periodically to the offices of certain members of Congress seeking the names of their favorite charities. Christine DeLay then forwarded that information to Buckham, along with some information about those charities.

Something like this?

Christine Delay- "Hi, this is Speaker Tom's wife! I need to know congress critter X's favorite charity. Every call I make, ensures that money goes to my favorite charity, Tom'n'Me!! Yeah, calling to find their favorite charity for $3,400 a month from home. What, she got that idea off of one of those "work at home" infomercials?

Last week, Cullen said the payments were also for general political consulting Christine DeLay provided to her husband. Cullen said he does not have complete records of the salary payments or the dates when Christine DeLay performed the work from the couple's home in Sugar Land, Tex. But a source familiar with the pay records said the total she received from the Alexander Strategy Group was about $115,000.

Together with the retirement account worth about $25,000, this means the family's total financial benefits from entities at least partly controlled by Buckham exceeded $490,300.

Before being paid by ARMPAC for political consulting, Christine DeLay, a homemaker and advocate for foster care, had not done paid work of that type. That circumstance has figured in government investigations of payments to other lawmakers' spouses, on the grounds that, if the compensation began after a lawmaker's election, it might have been meant to influence official acts.

So, what, they need 27 8x10 color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one to see where the garbage is buried here? This isn't American Blind Justice, this is a prime example of the selling of the government to the highest bidders.

I'm guessing that no legislation is going to cover this egregious loophole now or ever. Delay used it, William Jefferson allegedly used it to extract money from donors/those with business before him in one way or another.

The only way to change is to humiliate and arrest enough of these "public servants" until they law is changed and like little kids they are all "penalized" for the behaviour of a miscreant few because they can't seem to stop feeding at the trough of corruption long enough to realize what it's doing to the Republic.

posted by Jo Fish on 06.07.06 at 05:17 PM





Comments:

In other news, as a Democrat let me say how happy I am that Zarqawi is finally dead. I'm sorry Bush opted not to hit him three years ago, but I am glad to see him gone.

posted by: Tony on 06.08.06 at 09:33 AM [permalink]



Pretty bad stuff. But where's the outrage over Hillary's one-day profit of more than $100,000 in commodities trading facilitated by a company being regulated by the state her husband just happened to be governor of?

posted by: bean on 06.08.06 at 10:35 AM [permalink]



bean, you will find that outrage at lgf where you belong. asshole i'm sure they are still pissed about something that happened 10 years ago.

posted by: merlallen on 06.09.06 at 12:31 AM [permalink]



Give it up, bean. You guys spent millions of dollars in taxpayers money trying to get the Clintons, and you got nothing.

posted by: Tony on 06.09.06 at 09:21 AM [permalink]



Your responses just expose the hypocrisy of the Left. We heard all sorts of excuses for how Hillary was "really smart" and could have made this one-day profit on her own. Didn't hear anyone on the Left worried about graft then.

Compare that to today and people on the Right, including me, who are upset about this corruption, runaway spending, and the like.

Dear Bean. Get your facts straight and back off on the Hillary-hatin'. The facts are that she did that over TEN Months, not "a day", it was investigated and no malfeasance was ever found, except in the minds of the republitards. Here's a handy link for you. Easy to read, one page. Delay(s): crooks. Clinton(s): not.

After all, we do know that you still hate the guy who gave us unparalleled economic growth, peace, security and got a knobber. To say you guys hate his wife even more (if that's possible) would be an understatement.

--Jo

posted by: bean on 06.09.06 at 12:49 PM [permalink]



This was in the LTE (Letters to Editor column) of my local paper Sunday... It was so well written I had to share it.

So, I did the right thing and zeroed my sights in on bean's pointy head:

Bush panders

Shame on President Bush for pandering to his fundamentalist supporters by proposing to deface our Constitution with an amendment banning civil marriages between homosexuals.

The taboos of a particular religion, while deserving a certain respect, can never be forced on others who believe differently. Just as non-Muslims are free to produce drawings of the Prophet Muhammad, and non-Jews can eat pork, there is no possible justification for allowing biblical literalists to deny gay couples the benefits of a civil ceremony performed by a secular government.

When Bush took the oath of office, he placed his hand on a Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution - not the other way around. If he is confused about the primacy of the latter over the former in our American form of government, he is manifestly unsuited for office.


Bingo!! Don't think I could have said it better myself.

posted by: Barndog on 06.12.06 at 03:56 AM [permalink]



Are you frigging kidding me? Bean's flogging soemthing that happened in 1978 that wasn't even a crime.

You really don't give a shit about this country, do you? If you did, you'd pay some attention to the events at hand.

posted by: Tony on 06.12.06 at 02:04 PM [permalink]



These silly fuck repubs have nothing left but a small gasp of air. Hence all the reaching for what's left of any straw fragment for an argument thrown out at any point... just to see if they can tread water still.

bean, your sorry ass drowned a while back. Give it up, Son. True, as a Marine I am bound to save you - that is if your are in fact my brother. Your behavior dictates otherwise. Your complete utter lack of dignity, honor and integrity tells me you are full of shit.

Fuck ya. Buh bye.

posted by: Barndog on 06.13.06 at 06:26 AM [permalink]






Post a Comment:

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?



















usdemvet -at- hotmail.com
or
usndemvet -at- usdemvet.com (coming soon)






All the original material © 2002-2003 Jo Fish
steal what you want, all I ask is an attribution of some sort
Thanks