[NYCFarmboy]

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho...s/3594772.html

WASHINGTON -- The money that led to the indictment this week of two Las Vegas pastors and the wife of one of them came from federal grants arranged by Sen. Harry Reid in September 2001, a Reid spokeswoman said Wednesday.

Moving to distance Reid from a possible scandal, aide Tessa Hafen said the senator sought the money on behalf of a nonprofit social services agency and not for the churches or persons who have been accused of mishandling the money.

Advertisement

"The money was administered by the Department of Justice, and it went to the agency in Nevada (Alliance Collegiums Association of Nevada)," Hafen said.

The Rev. Willie Davis, the longtime pastor of Second Baptist Church, and his wife, Emma, were indicted Tuesday on fraud charges with an associate minister, the Rev. McTheron Jones.

They are accused of spending $330,000 from federal grants on themselves although the money was intended for halfway houses for prison inmates in Southern Nevada.

The indictment identifies Willie Davis as president of the Alliance Collegiums Association of Nevada board of directors.

In late 2002, Emma Davis became executive director, and Jones was assistant director.

According to the indictment, a grant of $423,000 was approved for the alliance in September 2002.

The indictment charges the defendants of using the grant money to benefit themselves.

A Reid relationship with the Second Baptist Church surfaced in 1997, when the senator donated $250 to the church where Davis was and still is pastor.

The money came from John Huang, who was convicted of making illegal contributions to the 1996 re-election campaign of President Clinton.

At about the same time, Reid donated another $250 from Huang to the First African Methodist Episcopal Church in Las Vegas.

Reid said he made the contributions to the churches instead of returning the money to Huang because he did not think Huang deserved it.

Hafen said Reid has not made contributions to Davis or his church since 1997.

Reid has attended services at the Second Baptist Church "about three or four times" since 1997, Hafen said.

"He says hello to the pastor (Davis) when he goes to the church, but apart from that, the only other time he has seen him was in May when he met with about 30 or 40 ministers to organize a faith-based summit," Hafen said.




..........

throwing stones in glass houses ... I don't think the Democrats realize what they have done by politicizing the indicment process in Texas..... it is going to get so nasty.

[Y3a]

I guess this is a forced vacation for both house leaders? LOL

[smacintush]

The money came from John Huang, who was convicted of making illegal contributions to the 1996 re-election campaign of President Clinton.

Linky

[spacefreak]

Don't forget about Pelosi...

"A controversial fundraising committee run by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was slapped with a $21,000 fine by the Federal Election Commission for enabling Pelosi to funnel more than $100,000 in illegal contributions to Democratic candidates in late 2002 as she was vying to become Democratic leader." More details here..

As for Reid, there's plenty more where that came from, like here...

"As he introduced (the bill), Nevada's senior U.S. senator, Democrat Harry Reid, assured colleagues that his bill was a bipartisan measure to protect the environment and help the economy in America's fastest-growing state.

What Reid did not explain was that the bill promised a cavalcade of benefits to real estate developers, corporations and local institutions that were paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying fees to his sons' and son-in-law's firms, federal lobbyist reports show."

[spacefreak]

Check out this LA Times PDF on Reid.

One highlight... his son-in law is a pricipal at the McClure consulting firm. Here are just some of the windfalls they've gotten as a result of Reid-driven legislation...

$300,000 to McClure firm
$220,000 to McClure firm
$ 80,000 to McClure firm
$180,000 to McClure firm
$320,000 to McClure firm
$320,000 to McClure firm
$140,000 to McClure firm

[Dork.]

Maybe we should just fire the whole lot of 'em and start fresh....

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho...s/3594772.html

SNIP
..........

throwing stones in glass houses ... I don't think the Democrats realize what they have done by politicizing the indicment process in Texas..... it is going to get so nasty.

Well, if by nasty you mean that those engaging in unethical and/or illegal funding/fund-raising practices get their asses handed to them? Then I say "Good!" I would like to see a lot more members of Congress get indicted for questionable fund-raising practices. Maybe, just maybe, the huge sums of corporate money that flow into and out of political campaigns will be reduced a bit. I am not optimistic enough to think it would reduce the undue influence on the political process held by large corporations--Politicians will ALWAYS find a way to get to the money--but, I think it will be beneficial if the American public starts to see how crass and blatantly indifferent their political leaders are to their needs.

[spacefreak]

Well, it is the American public who actually votes. If their needs aren't being met, they''ll vote accordingly.

Instead of whining about corporate political donations, why not instead push for legislation? Personally, I'd rather have a company like Sears, who employs thousands and thousands of people and pays millions in taxes, be able to support candidates who will affect policy in a way that makes their business climate more favorable... I'd much rather that then see a guy like George Soros donate tens of millions of dollars to political "non-profit" groups.

It's ridiculously telling and transparent to see certain people bitch about a $35,000 or $25,000 corporate donation while conveniently igonoring an individual donating $15,000,000.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Well, it is the American public who actually votes. If their needs aren't being met, they''ll vote accordingly.

Instead of whining about corporate political donations, why not instead push for legislation? Personally, I'd rather have a company like Sears, who employs thousands and thousands of people and pays millions in taxes, be able to support candidates who will affect policy in a way that makes their business climate more favorable... I'd much rather that then see a guy like George Soros donate tens of millions of dollars to political "non-profit" groups.

It's ridiculously telling and transparent to see certain people bitch about a $35,000 or $25,000 corporate donation while conveniently igonoring an individual donating $15,000,000.

In case it wasn't clear, this article posted by NYCfarmboy was about questionable donations from corporations. So I talked about corporations in my post. I would be just as opposed to George Soros giving large sums of money to candidates he favored in a questionable manner.

But he did not give money directly, or indirectly to candidates in a questionable manner--charges against both DeLay and Reid. While you may not like the way, and to whom, Soros gave his money--I am sure you are referencing the $5,000,000 to Move-On.org--it was in fact legal. Just as legal as if the donation went to any of the other 527 interest groups that exist all over the political spectrum.

So, to recap, certain congressman--let's call them DeLay and Reid for now, but we all know there are many, many more--took donations from corporations in an illegal manner. What was illegal was the way in which the accounting of the funds was manipulated to hide their true source. Those same corporations could have given the money to a 527 group that would have indirectly benefitted their chosen candidates but that was not done. The money was given, and accepted, in such a manner as to benefit the candidates directly, which is illegal.

What George Soros did was give money, in a public and legal fashion, to a 527 group that favored his candidates and his causes. Now, your complaint about individuals giving large sums of money to influence the election are valid--I don't like the fact anyone can give large sums of money even indirectly to a candidate or cause--but that is a topic for another thread. The topic of this thread is the illegality of Harry Reid's actions in improperly accepting/using donations from large corporations. And by extension, or simple coincidence, the topic of this thread is also about Tom DeLay and his improper acceptance/use of campaign donations from large corporations.

Oh, and one more thing, you're right about the American public voting to have their needs met. I would suggest that if you are opposed to individuals giving large sums of money to 527 groups--and remember, for legal purposes any corporation large or small is considered to have legal personhood equivalent to that of an individual--you vote accordingly in the next election and vote for a candidate who seeks to do away with 527 groups. This way, individuals--both as a human entity and as a legal entity--cannot influence the election process with large donations.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

What George Soros did was give money, in a public and legal fashion, to a 527 group that favored his candidates and his causes.

And if acquitted, Delay's actions would be deemed perfectly legal.

An overwhelming majority of legal analysts I've heard discuss the indictment have stated that everything here looks fine and dandy as per the letter of the law. Delay was in charge of maintaining primarily 2 national election accounts. One is for administrative costs, which come from corporate donations, and the other is for general campaign expenses, which comes from personal donations. He doles out the monies accordingly. As long as the 2 accounts are maintained properly (which most suggest is the case), everything is perfectly legal.

The fact that there were 2 different accounts was withheld from this grand jury, and it couldn't be introduced to them at a later date because the grand jury was conveniently convened on the last day of its session. Also of note is the fact that Earle tried to get an indictment passed unsuccessfully with 5 previous grand juries. Only this 6th one returned an indictment.

Another interesting thing is Delay's waiving of the statute of limitations. He was asked by a reporter why he did this, and he said that Earle asked him to waive it because he wanted to ask Delay additional questions. The question-asking session never happened, replaced instead by this indictment.

We'll see. The Delay folks want the trial to be held ASAP. Ealre oddly wants to wait longer, but it seems the first appearance date is set for late October. I just hope a sooner-rather-than-later trial date is determined at that appearance.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

And if acquitted, Delay's actions would be deemed perfectly legal.

Wrong!!!

If he is acquitted it does not mean his actions are legal, it means there was not sufficient evidence to convince a jury his actions were illegal.

Lack of conviction != lack of guilt

Or do you think OJ was innocent?


But, you seem to be hung up on Tom DeLay instead of addressing the issues as it relates to Harry Reid or our political leaders as a whole. If you are bothered by Tom DeLays indictment for questionable campaign financing practices are you not equally bothered by Harry Reid's indictment for questionable campaign financing practices? Or do you only care about this issue when it effects someone whose political beliefs you agree with and are indifferent to the issue when it is someone whoe political beliefs you disagree with?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

I would suggest that if you are opposed to individuals giving large sums of money to 527 groups... you vote accordingly in the next election and vote for a candidate who seeks to do away with 527 groups. This way, individuals--both as a human entity and as a legal entity--cannot influence the election process with large donations.

That's actually a big reason why I didn't support McCain-Feingold. Too many loopholes. Unfortunately, none of the candidates who have run opined against this campaign finance reform bill/law - probably because public perception of such stance was deemeded by their team(s) as undesireable.

If there is one thing Bush should have vetoed, it's this. Most seem to think that he was counting on the courts to squash the legislation. I don't know... I think he likes to provide an environment that encourages liberal democrats to overplay their hands. Whether or not his signage of this legislation was focused along those lines is undeterminable to me at this point in time.

[Chuckit]

Here is a picture of Reid caught in the act, courtesy of Google Images:

[malvolio]

Apparently a lot of you have reading comprehension problems.
NONE of the referenced material says anything about Reid funneling illegal corporate contributions to other pols. Reid passed along a few illegally contributed bucks to a church, rather than returning the money to the illegal contributor.
Years later, the folks who run that church have been charged (not convicted, guys) of misusing funds from a Federal grant that Reid helped them get. No mention of any wrongdoing on Reid's part.
But of course the Bushies are gonna whoop it up over this, in hopes of diverting attention from Frist, DeLay, Halliburton, etc.