I wasn't ignoring it, but since you said $1 million, and the text says "hundreds of thousands" I assumed that wasn't what you were talking about. I guess you were just rounding up? barfo
Not to mention the $300K savings Obama got on his house that couldn't have been realized if Rezko's wife hadn't agreed to pay full price for the adjoining vacant lot. The house and lot were being marketed together and the owner was not willing to sell them seperately. It was only because the lot was purchased by Rezko's wife that Obama was able to get the house...and at a savings of $300K.
It does include the land deal. The house Obama bought was part of a two parcel package and the seller would not break it up. So Rezko's wife conveniently paid $400K for land the Rezkos had no intention of developing. Add the $400K to the $600K+ in campaign donations and it's > $1M.
Maybe We The People should demand a special investigator be appointed to look into this matter. It's actually a serious one.
That's twisting the facts quite a bit to count a piece of land that the Rezkos bought and kept for themselves as a "gift to Obama" that should be added as straight cash. Sure, it may have helped Obama that the Rezkos were willing to buy up the extra land so that the seller would sell, but you can't simply say that that's $400K that the Rezkos gave Obama when they kept the land.
there is an exception for preexisitng personal relationships that do not involve your role as a public official. Likewise, you can even win prizes if the contest is open to all people regardless of their position, and the fact that you won had nothing to do with your position.
They wrote a check for $400K, and it benefited Obama. It was $400K they wouldn't have spent if not for Obama. Obama wouldn't have gotten his $1M+ house if not for them writing that check. How did Rezko even know to buy that land? For what purpose other than helping Obama did he buy it?
Another thing we need a special investigator for: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/15/biden-routes-campaign-cash-to-family-their-firms/ Biden routes campaign cash to family, their firms Jim McElhatton (Contact) Democratic vice-presidential candidate Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. has paid more than $2 million in campaign cash to his family members, their businesses and employers over the years, a practice that watchdogs criticize as rife with potential conflicts of interest. The money largely flowed from the coffers of Mr. Biden's failed presidential campaign during the past two years to a company that employs his sister and longtime campaign manager, Valerie Biden Owens, according to campaign disclosure filings. The senator from Delaware also directed campaign legal work to a Washington lobbying and law firm founded by his son R. Hunter Biden, the disclosures show. Putting family members and their companies on the political payroll is legal if the work is legitimate and charged at market rates, according to the Federal Election Commission. Still, public watchdog groups have long criticized such arrangements. "Even though legal within restraints, it's not something I view as completely ethical," said Craig Holman, legislative director for Public Citizen, a campaign finance watchdog organization. "Any candidate ought to shy away from that." Aides to Mr. Biden said all of the payments he has made to family members or their employers were aboveboard. "While no Biden family members are being paid by the Obama-Biden campaign, one of Joe Biden´s greatest political strengths and secret weapon has always been his sister Valerie, starting with her role managing his David-versus-Goliath upset Senate victory in 1972," said Biden spokesman David Wade. "Valerie is a well-known and highly regarded political operative in Democratic politics in Delaware and nationally, and her firm has worked on top races from Michigan to Texas. End of story," Mr. Wade said. Mr. Biden is hardly alone among members of Congress whose campaigns hold close ties to family. FEC records also show that Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain's political action committee, Straight Talk America, paid more than $15,000 in 2006 to his wife, Cindy. McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers said the payment reimbursed Mrs. McCain for catering expenses she had covered in connection with an election night party. The majority of Biden campaign money tied to family - $1.8 million - was for media consulting bills to Joe Slade White & Co., where Mrs. Owens is a top executive. The firm did not return telephone and e-mail messages. Such payments usually include a large portion of "pass through" money, where the consulting company gets campaign cash then uses it to produce and buy political ads. Still, the consulting company usually keeps a portion of the money, Mr. Holman said. "It's a lot of money either way," he said. Other Biden campaign expenditures over the years included more than $50,000 in salary payments to Mr. Biden's sister. And the Washington lobbying and law firm of Oldaker, Biden & Belair, which Hunter Biden co-founded, has received more than $150,000 combined from Mr. Biden's presidential campaign fund and his political action committee, Unite Our States. Dubbed "the rainmaker" by the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity, William Oldaker is a registered lobbyist and a former FEC general counsel who has worked on numerous other political campaigns. Obama aides say Hunter Biden never profited from any fees that the campaign paid to the firm. "Bill Oldaker was Senator Biden´s counsel for his Senate races, not Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden didn´t make a dime from the firm's representation of Senator Biden because the firm´s partners share expenses but don´t share revenue unless they work on the representation," Mr. Wade said. "In the case of Bill Oldaker´s election law practice, none of the revenue is shared with Hunter Biden. Bill represented Senator Biden´s Senate campaigns since before Hunter was old enough to vote." The District-based Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington earlier this year issued a report that found 16 senators, including Mr. Biden and Mr. McCain, had paid one or more family members fees or salaries. The group's report, made public in February, analyzed campaign filings covering the 2002, 2004 and 2006 election cycles. It named 87 senators from all 50 states: 42 Democrats, 43 Republicans and two independents. The CREW report listed Mr. Biden among the top five senators by salaries and fees paid to family members, saying he paid his sister and niece more than $50,000. It also listed Mr. Biden among the top five senators by payments to a family business or employer, with more than $40,000 paid to his son's firm. The watchdog group also found that other Biden campaign cash paid reimbursement expenses for his sister, his wife, two of his sons, his brother and the senator. The CREW report did not include payments from Mr. Biden's presidential campaign. But a review by The Washington Times of FEC campaign records as well and data compiled CQ MoneyLine and the Center for Responsive Politics - groups that track the flow of money in politics - found more than $1.8 million to Joe Slade White & Co. and more than $100,000 to Oldaker, Biden & Belair. CREW also noted that at least 33 federal lobbyists, including, at the time, Hunter Biden, were registered with the federal government. Hunter Biden recently dropped his lobbying clients amid scrutiny about whether his work undermined Sen. Barack Obama's anti-lobbyist rhetoric on the campaign trail. Mr. Obama refuses money from federal lobbyists, saying they're a corrosive force in Washington. Elected officials can hire family members for their campaigns at fair market value rates, but they are not allowed to convert campaign donations to "personal use" or hire family for their official congressional offices. Some observers say having family members on the campaign payroll blurs the lines of what's permissible. "Technically, it's legal, but frankly, it doesn't pass the smell test," said Bruce Buchanan, a professor of government and presidential politics at the University of Texas at Austin. "That's why all the public interest groups flag it and report it. It feeds the public perception that politicians are ethically challenged."
It's still not $400K that went to Obama. The value of the land remained with the Rezkos, whether or not they developed it.
As someone who both works in real estate and who was a former resident of Kenwood/Hyde Park, I have to say your statement is profoundly ignorant. The property only had value if it were developed, which it was not. In fact, it was used as the Obama family's yard. Given the RE boom in that area, it remained one of the few open lots that was never developed nor even put on the market. When the Rezcos sold a slice of the property to the Obamas to try to stem any further investigation, it served to make the Rezcos lot too small to develop, thereby making it worthless. I have no doubt that Gov. Palin wanted her ex-BIL fired and pushed Monaghan to do it. I also have no doubt that there were not only Democrats, but Republicans of the Alaska GOP Machine that wanted to take her down a notch. Did she abuse her power a bit? Probably. Is it worse than the Clinton Travel Office scandal? Not even close, and few thought that was a big deal. But to say that the Rezco deal with Obama doesn't stink is just to plug your nose. It reeks.
I agree. It demonstrates poor decision-making and a sense of entitlement that has engulfed many, if not most, of our representatives in the government. But like the Palin thing, it won't affect anyone's votes.
Fair enough, but that still misses my point. I'll retract that the Rezkos "retained the value" if in fact that land is worthless without development. But my point was that it was not a $400K gift to the Obamas, which your point doesn't contradict in the least. Whether or not the Rezkos "lost" that value, the value wasn't transferred to Obama. He didn't receive $400K in cash or value. That value was simply let lie fallow. Perhaps with the understanding that Obama would eventually buy some or all of it, but still certainly no "$400K gift." It's certainly a questionable move by a politician (due to how it looks) but, unlike Palin, there's no actual evidence of abuse. It may have been influence-selling, or it may have been the profoundly typical phenomenon among the social/financial elite of making use of connections. Politician or not, those with connections have a lot more options available. Rezko may have done Obama a personal favour for which he expected the possibility of a personal favour in return someday, not a political favour. I'm in no way suggesting that that's definitely true, but it is just as likely since it happens all the time outside the political arena. And such a thing would not be an ethics violation. Obama is allowed to accept and do favours that aren't related to exercise of his political power.
If he bought him a $400K car and let him drive it, never drove it himself, paid for the insurance, etc., would Obama have received $400K of benefit? It's a close analogy.
It's not a good analogy. If Rezko bought a $400K car so that Obama could buy a separate $400K car (the two cars of which the owner was only willing to sell at the same time) and Rezko never drove his car, would Obama have received $400K of benefit?
Ooops, wrong. Good try, though! The right answer was, no. Since Rezko owns the car and Obama doesn't, that $400K wasn't given to Obama. Nice of Rezko, though, to buy that car so that Obama could buy a different car.
None of these issues is enough to change anyone's vote, but they are important because they give a window to the ethical soul of the candidates. But we have to look also at the facts underlying the issue--not all scandals or accusations of unethical behavior are the same--and the amount of time that has passed since it occurred. I don't really care about Keating; a lot of time has passed. Some people, though, still hold a grudge against Kennedy for that car accident. Palin's behavior is only relevant because it is so close to the present, and it appears as if she held no regard for the duties of a public servant from the moment she took office. If it happened five years ago, and she had done nothing since that smelled of unethical conduct, I certainly wouldn't have cared.
But what if the seller is asking $800,000 for the two, is only willing to sell them together, but decides he will take a reduced offer of $700K for the pair. Rezko pays $400K and Obama pays $300K. Obama benefits because he gets a car he wants, but couldn't afford if he had to buy both, and he gets all of the savings on the reduced price. The Rezko deal stinks no matter how you spin it.
Obama benefits, but still didn't receive a gift. Rezko certainly did him a favour, but as I said: this is common among the connected across all fields, not just the political sphere. Using your connections to gain favours. Obama is allowed to accept personal favours and offer personal favours, he just can't accept or offer favours related to the exercise of his political power. The fact that he accepted this favour from Rezko is not unethical or illegal. If he accepted the favour as a quid pro quo for doing Rezko a political favour, then it is both unethical and illegal. But there's no evidence of that. At least, none that I've seen presented.
