PDA

View Full Version : Washington Post: "Ron Paul’s House seat enriches his family"




RonPaulFanInGA
03-22-2012, 07:26 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/study-ron-pauls-house-seat-enriches-his-family/2012/03/22/gIQAfHuSTS_blog.html


Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), a GOP presidential hopeful, paid more than $300,000 in salaries or fees to his daughter, brother, grandson, daughter’s mother-in-law, granddaughter and grandson-in-law, the report said.

Despite writing that "most of these practices do not appear to violate any laws or House ethics rules" and that there are "hundreds of examples to choose from", and listing other said examples, the Washington Post apparently felt the need to make Ron Paul their headline.

WilliamC
03-22-2012, 07:37 AM
Yes, his family works with him on his campaign.

Imagine that.

kezt777
03-22-2012, 07:47 AM
And if you take that $300,000 and divide it equally among the 6 people listed, that's a whopping 50 grand each. wooooooooo. What a headline. I'm assuming it means total or they would have been clear to right '$300,000 EACH', which would make it almost 2 million. So yeah, I would say that it means total amount divided amongst everyone. Big deal. But they might be hoping some people read that wrong.

randomname
03-22-2012, 07:49 AM
why all the hitpieces WaPo? I thought Ron Paul was irrelevant?

specsaregood
03-22-2012, 08:02 AM
why all the hitpieces WaPo? I thought Ron Paul was irrelevant?

It's the market at work. wapo's audience desperately needs to believe that they are no worse than anybody else, so wapo provides that service.

Victor Grey
03-23-2012, 12:17 AM
The attacks on Paul have become ridiculous. These things touted up are not even reasonably worth pointing out, they're just idiotic.


So that is what they are going on about? 50,000 spent on 6 people each?
Let's keep in mind this isn't just "pay" toward them either. It's stated that amount takes account for fees. Included to moving them around, provide rooms and such. I would presume that is what the fees would be anyway, admittedly I've never traveled cross country on a presidential campaign. Sounds like it costs money.

So what then is left to presume, that they individually probably pocket 20,000, and that amount still a maybe? Possibly 30,000 tops perhaps?

Really. Just give me a break.
That isn't only a silly partisan motivated poke, the article's notion is plain stupid.
If Paul did want to throw money at his family, he could probably do a little more throwing than that.
That amount likely wouldn't cover a common man's opportunity cost, if they just spent the time working instead.
It sounds, like a completely reasonable amount. Thrifty, even.

I'd hope that would address the supposed horrible Paul nepotism scandal.

Oh yes and lastly let's do take into account where the money comes from. The article seems to quickly note it comes from his campaign funds, while acting as if it's from taxpayers. Surrounding the situation with other situations. As if they are equal I would suppose.

Well wow then. :mad::rolleyes:
It is almost like that he's running for president, and having his family in on the ordeal has been considered helpful. Sort of like all presidential campaigns have their families involved.

It's even almost like he's using voluntarily donated money for just that thing, and that the Paul campaign can spend it however the hell they want to. Call me when they're appointed his daughter's mother-in-law to a czar position instead of to a few campaign speeches, picture takings and hand waving sessions, and then maybe I'll care.

It's almost like the Washington Post doesn't have a single dog in that race and needs to shove off.

anaconda
03-23-2012, 12:23 AM
that's a whopping 50 grand

That's just a casual bet amount for Romney

DerailingDaTrain
03-23-2012, 12:23 AM
How much is Mitt Romney paying his kids to stump for him?

Edit: Should say tree. A stump is too short for Romney and his children to look down on people.

fr33
03-23-2012, 12:25 AM
Wapo is not even good enough for me to wipe my ass with if it were the only paper product at my disposal. Ron Paul is a good honest man that works with his family just like I do.

Lomez
03-23-2012, 09:20 AM
$50,000 per family member. Meanwhile, the other GOP candidates waste $50,000 a day on secret service protection. Go figure.

Athan
03-23-2012, 09:21 AM
Wapo is not even good enough for me to wipe my ass with if it were the only paper product at my disposal. Ron Paul is a good honest man that works with his family just like I do.
Try Charmin. Only in SHTF scenario do you look for WaPo paper.

kill the banks
03-23-2012, 09:23 AM
shows the agenda

RonPaulFanInGA
03-23-2012, 09:51 AM
h XXp://wonkette.com/467976/and-the-most-nepotistic-member-of-congress-award-goes-to


A chilling new report from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington shows that this member of Congress’s campaign committee and PAC paid out a total of $304,599 in salaries and $48,742 for services during the 2008 and 2010 election cycles to his daughter, daughter’s mother-in-law, brother, grandson, granddaughter [*PAUSES FOR BREATH*] another granddaughter and a grandson-in-law, making this Representative the most nepotistic member of Congress by volume of family members on the campaign dole. And that’s only from 2008 and 2010! Who is it!? Don’t forget to scribble down your guesses on the back of your unemployment check stubs!

Hooray, and the Oscar goes to Doctor Congressman Ron Paul. Now we know why Ron Paul is always running for president: So that his family members always have jobs, what a guy.

That site still sucks.

ZanZibar
03-23-2012, 11:34 AM
Ron trusts his family. What's wrong with that?

Esoteric
03-23-2012, 11:37 AM
And if Benton makes 100k of that, that's 200k among 5 people (40k/yr).

Schiff_FTW
03-23-2012, 11:40 AM
Ron trusts his family. What's wrong with that?

I wish he had a family member creating his ads, rather than a Romney supporter.

However, I'm sure the other candidates also have their granddaughter running their Facebook page, being a professional national presidential campaign and all.

angelatc
03-23-2012, 11:46 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/study-ron-pauls-house-seat-enriches-his-family/2012/03/22/gIQAfHuSTS_blog.html



Despite writing that "most of these practices do not appear to violate any laws or House ethics rules" and that there are "hundreds of examples to choose from", and listing other said examples, the Washington Post apparently felt the need to make Ron Paul their headline.

An entirely predictable attack that the campaign will have certainly anticipated, since the same issue arose in the 2008 campaign. Why. I'll be they've had the response to this drafted for 3 years now.

Right?

Anti Federalist
03-25-2012, 03:26 PM
Report: Members Use Positions for Profit

By Amanda Becker
Roll Call Staff
March 22, 2012, 4:18 p.m.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/report_members_use_positions_for_profit-213337-1.html?ET=rollcall:e12569:80088468a:&st=email&pos=epm

Updated: 6:50 p.m.

More than half of the Members of the House of Representatives have used their position to financially enrich themselves or their families, according to an exhaustive report released today by a nonprofit ethics group.

Researchers at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington spent the better part of the past year examining how Members have paid family members’ salaries from their Congressional and campaign accounts, funneled money to the political campaigns of relatives from their own re-election war chests and earmarked money that benefitted businesses and nonprofits associated with their family.

To compile the exhaustive 347-page report, CREW reviewed the personal and campaign finances of every House Member during the 2008 and 2010 election cycles and identified at least 248 Members who used their role in ways that benefitted spouses, siblings, children and other personal relations.

“Conduct like this reinforces the widely held view that Members of Congress are more interested in enriching themselves than in public service,” CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan said in a statement with the report’s release.

Though most of the behavior detailed in the “Family Affair” report does not appear to run afoul of campaign finance laws or House ethics rules, it provides a glimpse of the perks Members can exploit to bolster their $174,000 annual salaries.

The report’s cover is a sketch of a lawmaker’s family sitting down to dine on heaping plates of cash, lobster and caviar. In the background, stacks of money tumble from an open freezer — perhaps a visual allusion to former Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), who is currently appealing a corruption conviction after federal agents found nearly $100,000 hidden in the freezer of his Virginia home during a now-infamous raid.

Of the 82 Members who used government and campaign accounts to pay more than $5.5 million in salaries and fees to 117 different family members, CREW singled out several for having relatives who received particularly handsome sums.

Arlene M. Willis, the wife of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), for example, was paid $512,293 by his Congressional office between 2007 and 2010. Though House rules prohibit Members from hiring their spouses, Willis is allowed to work in the office because she did so before the two were married.

Lewis’s Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Specht pointed out that although Willis has worked for the Congressman since 1979, House rules have barred her from receiving merit pay increases since the two were married in 1986.

Despite being “recognized and sought out for her expertise in running a congressional office by the Congressional Management Institute” the rules mean Willis “has a much lower salary than nearly all other chiefs of staff in the House,” Specht wrote in an email.

Other lawmakers cited for having highly paid family members included Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), whose re-election account paid his wife $238,438;

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), whose campaign committee paid or reimbursed six different relatives a combined $304,599;

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), who paid her daughter and grandson a combined $495,650 for work on her campaign and in her Congressional office; and Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), who is said to have paid more than $600,000 to a woman with whom he was romantically linked.

Direct payments to family members for work performed on the Hill and during the course of campaigns was not the only way that CREW found lawmakers lining their own pockets. Though Congressional candidates routinely loan their campaign accounts money during election season, the report identified several who have received hefty interest payments.

Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.), for example, received more than $94,000 in interest during the 2008 and 2010 election cycles from a $150,000 loan she made to her campaign account in 1998. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (D-Hawaii) collected more than $31,000 in interest on a $125,000 loan during the same period. Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) has collected about $29,000 in interest on a $309,000 loan he made to his campaign account after telling the Federal Election Commission he wouldn’t charge any interest, the report found.

Other details in the report included three lawmakers — Reps. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Tim Walz (D-Minn.) — who reimbursed themselves and their wives for baby-sitting costs and two who received a salary from their campaign while running for office, Reps. James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.).

The results of CREW’s research have been compiled in a searchable database that will be maintained by the website Legistorm.

A Kinzinger representative said the payments had been mischaracterized and were in fact reimbursements for supplies and other expenses.

“All of the items on the report were reimbursements and did not go toward a salary for Congressman Kinzinger,” a spokeswoman said.

Elfshadow
03-25-2012, 03:32 PM
The majority of that should be Jesse Benton for airfaire at the begining of the campiegn. Don't know how that counts.

ronpaulfollower999
03-25-2012, 03:33 PM
That would be from having relatives on the campaign, I'm assuming.

Anti Federalist
03-25-2012, 03:33 PM
That would be from having relatives on the campaign, I'm assuming.

That's what I'm guessing.

Sucks that the single most ethical member of Congress gets his name listed for that.

I don't like the idea myself, there is no faster way to turn friends into enemies and family into outcasts than to go into business with them.

MelissaWV
03-25-2012, 03:57 PM
That's what I'm guessing.

Sucks that the single most ethical member of Congress gets his name listed for that.

I don't like the idea myself, there is no faster way to turn friends into enemies and family into outcasts than to go into business with them.

Yet once upon a time, the notion of a "family business" did not bring up the image of banksters and gangsters so much as businesses that proudly boasted "& Sons" on the end.

Watch
03-25-2012, 04:30 PM
Oh do people have a problem with where there tax money goes??

Crickett
03-25-2012, 04:42 PM
I do not get the point of this. It sounds like these people somehow used Congress and taxpayer money to hire people for their campaigns. Seems like Ron uses his own raised campaign money to pay his campaign workers, some of course, are related to him. He returns part of his congressional allowance, so what is this article saying??

moderate libertarian
03-27-2012, 06:03 PM
That is eye opening.