There’s some good news and some bad news for Republican US Senate wannabe Mike?™ McGavick. The good news is that the story about his 1993 DUI and his less than candid confession may have finally run its course. The bad news is that the DUI story could be replaced by a potentially bigger, badder and more damaging scandal.
Last Thursday the FBI raided the offices of six Alaska legislators, hauling out crates of documents concerning oil field services giant VECO Corp and the generous campaign contributions and consulting fees it lavishes on politicians.
Turns out, one of those politicians is Mike?™ McGavick.
As first uncovered by Natasha at Pacific Views, and then expanded on by Noemie over at WashBlog, FEC reports show that McGavick has received contributions of at least $12,000 from VECO’s top six executives, including VECO President Peter Leathard, who seems to be at the center of the investigation.
Why? Why would an Alaska oil field services company have all its top executives contribute to a candidate seeking to represent the state of Washington? Because Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens told them to, that’s why. That’s why McGavick is the only federal candidate outside of Alaska to whom Leathard has contributed during the current election cycle… and I suppose it also explains why he and VECO Chairman & CEO Bill Allen have each contributed an additional $25,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Hmm. I wonder where that money is supposed to be spent?
Sen. Stevens is known to have close ties to VECO, a subcontractor on one of the Senator’s infamous bridges to nowhere, and at $76,750 his number two career contributor. One of the offices raided last week was that of Sen. Stevens’ son, Alaska state Senate President Ben Stevens, to whom VECO is reported to have paid more than $240,000 in consulting fees — and while the FBI did not volunteer specifics, at least one of Thursday’s 20 search warrants was executed in Girdwood Alaska, where Ted Stevens keeps a home and office.
So ingrained is the culture of corruption in Alaska politics that the legislators in question actually jokingly refer to themselves as the Corrupt Bastards Club, and even printed up hats proudly emblazoned with the letters “CBC”.
That is the type of crowd McGavick is running with, though it really shouldn’t come as much of a surprise considering the fact that McGavick’s entire career path has run straight through the same revolving door between government and big business that, legally or not, has enriched the likes of Ben Stevens. McGavick started as a campaign aide to Sen. Slade Gorton, later becoming his campaign manager and chief of staff, before trading in his access and connections to become a highly paid insurance industry lobbyist. From there he quickly rose to occupy Safeco’s executive suites, and now having “earned” tens of millions of dollars, he seeks to return to the other Washington, this time as a US Senator charged with writing the laws that regulate his corporate benefactors.
It is this revolving door that lies at the heart of the culture of corruption that is eating away at our body politic in Congress, the White House and in state houses throughout the nation. It is a culture in which McGavick is steeped — in which he has achieved wealth beyond most of our wildest dreams — and so it is not surprising that he fails to see the Corrupt Bastards Club for what it is: a club for corrupt bastards.
But as the VECO scandal continues to unfold, I’m not so sure that this is a club in which Mike?™ McGavick wants to be seen to be a member.
Apparently, the FBI search warrants even called for the seizure of the notorious CBC hats (maybe they can say they really intended this to mean “Canadian Broadcasting Company”?):
“In the warrant served on state Sen. Donald Olson, D-Nome, agents were also authorized to seize any documents related to fuel payments, landing strip fees, storage fees and similar aircraft costs. Olson owns a flying service.
A specific item named in the search for seizure: “Any physical garments (including hats) bearing any of the following logos or phrases: ‘CBC,’ ‘Corrupt Bastards Club,’ ‘Corrupt Bastards Caucus,’ ‘VECO.’””
http://www.adn.com/news/govern.....8526c.html
Ted Stevens apparently wants to get Maria Cantwell out to get closer cooperation between Alaska and Washington in legislative matters, particularly ANWR. I’ve heard nostalgic comment here about the good old days of Magnussen and Jackson in that regard, but they seem like dear dead days that needn’t be repeated, to me. Like membership in the CBC.
Whatever the corruption in Alaska, Mike! needs to explaing why VECO and Stevens are so eager to get him into the Senate, and I want to know what has promised to receive their support.
If there is smoke, there is fire. If it stinks, something is rotting. If Washington voters elect this corrupt, drunk special interest lout there should be drug testing before the next election for everyone who votes.
Perhaps one of our WingNut friends can explain this to me:
Bush approval rating slips to near all-time low in poll
John Hughes
Bloomberg News
Aug. 27, 2006 12:00 AM
President Bush’s job-approval rating fell last week to 36 percent, close to an all-time low, according to a new News-week magazine poll.
Bush’s approval rating was 38 percent in an Aug. 10-11 poll. The new poll of 1,002 adult Americans was conducted Aug. 24-25 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Just thought they would like to read that this morning.
McGavick should have run as an independent. He claims to be that…and the mood in this country would have supported that. His problem was associating with a mainstream party
McGavick’s problem is that he’s apparently a corrupt drunk
This should be right at the top of both the Times and the P-I’s websites and on the front page of both papers. Washington voters need to know who Mike? will really represent.
7 rwb:
A corrupt drunk who LIES!
What is it about our election process that allows the hollow men like McGavick to get elected. Good ole boys… You’d think the Republican Party would check people out — would care about its own legacy. Who’s running things in this world, anyway? Liars and cheats, it seems.
McGavick, another compelling argument for publicly funded campaigns: http://www.washclean.org
I agree Noemie, there should be system where the rich do not have an advantage. Where common folks can run. Where issues and not soundbites are what the voters have to decide on. Although, if looks were counted, John Edwards and Barack Obama would kick ass.
Jesus H. Christ!
Is there a fucking honest Republican ANYWHERE?
(Not that I really give a shit…they’re so much easier to beat this way!)
Goldy and Gang where is Dean Logan today when you need a fool to take a fall for Ron Sims and friends.Has King County fix it problems or made a bigger mess out of the election process? Did you require more ID checks of the minorities than the Whites, and will you disregard the military vote again because you mailed the ballots late? Goldy are you providing disinformation like a tabloids of Great Britain or real differences in political differences that really matter to the voters ? This election could show us a different way the Socialist Democrats can stuff a ballot box in order to win an election in King County.
http://www.nytimes.com/
EDITORIAL
In Search of Accurate Vote Totals
Published: September 5, 2006
It�s hard to believe that nearly six years after the disasters of Florida in 2000, states still haven�t mastered the art of counting votes accurately. Yet there are growing signs that the country is moving into another presidential election cycle in disarray.
The most troubling evidence comes from Ohio, a key swing state, whose electoral votes decided the 2004 presidential election. A recent government report details enormous flaws in the election system in Ohio�s biggest county, problems that may not be fixable before the 2008 election.
Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland, hired a consulting firm to review its election system. The county recently adopted Diebold electronic voting machines that produce a voter-verified paper record of every vote cast. The investigators compared the vote totals recorded on the machines after this year�s primary with the paper records produced by the machines. The numbers should have been the same, but often there were large and unexplained discrepancies. The report also found that nearly 10 percent of the paper records were destroyed, blank, illegible, or otherwise compromised.
This is seriously bad news even if, as Diebold insists, the report overstates the problem. Under Ohio law, the voter-verified paper record, not the voting machine total, is the official ballot for purposes of a recount. The error rates the report identified are an invitation to a meltdown in a close election.
The report also found an array of other problems. The county does not have a standardized method for conducting a manual recount. That is an invitation, as Florida 2000 showed, to chaos and litigation. And there is a serious need for better training of poll workers, and for more uniform voter ID policies. Disturbingly, the report found that 31 percent of blacks were asked for ID, while just 18 percent of others were.
Some of these problems may be explored further in a federal lawsuit challenging Ohio�s administration of its 2004 election. Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, who has been criticized for many decisions he made on election matters that year, recently agreed to help preserve the 2004 paper ballots for review in the lawsuit.
Did anyone catch this. Clinton wanted to expand �legal� wiretapping to help fight terror, and was blocked by REPUBLICANS. Reading this article could send a chill down any Red Blooded American�s spine.
Why shold Republicans fight terror, when they can play politics with every issue, and make Americans less safe every day.
Better read this.
Be sitting down.
http://americablog.blogspot.com/
Anyone that thinks Republicans would be better at fighting terror should be locked in a rubber room. For life!
Culture or corruption.
We don’t hear that enough these days…..
Culture or corruption.
Culture or corruption.
Do any of you care that Maria has a financial arrangement with a lobbyist? Since when is it good clean politics to loan someone money who has control of legislation brought before you as a lawmaker?
Explain the loan from Maria to Ron Dotzauer. He doesn’t remember what it was for, she isn’t filling in the blanks, but it was for a possible $50,000. Who forgets that kind of help?
It stinks, but no one will ask the tough questions. The Times just mentioned it and moved along.
If you can prove the campaign contributions to McGavick were illegal, then present the evidence. Otherwise it is just more blathering.
There is a huge difference.
The GOP is completely corrupt through and through.
No audits, no accountability, no investigations. (Except Abramoff and look what happened there)
The Democrats are a little rotten around the edges.
Which apple would be better.
Janet @ 17:
When you can prove the loan exists, let us know.
Klake @ 13:
Um, old news. The election is over.Cry in your beer and move on. The conspiracy does not exist. In November I can’t wait to hear the crying when you lose the HOR. Senate might go to at the rate y’all are going. Below 40% approval again.
Vote early, vote often, vote Democrat.
Hey Klake,
Roger is on vacation, he left you a message:
FUCK YOU!!!!
Left Foot – stop showing your ignorance, and read your local newspaper. Neither Dotzauer or Cantwell deny the existence of the loan. It is on her disclosure statements.
My point was prove it was ILLEGAL. PROVE IT WAS MORE THAN IT IS. At this point it is a loan. A very LEGAL loan. It is not I showing their ignorance.
Funny how you all believe the “local” paper when it serves your purpose, but mostly you rail at the “local” papers liberal bias.
You can’t have it both ways.
Left Foot, let me do your homework for you:
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/
This was in yesterday’s paper, fool.
Left Foot – stop showing your ignorance, and read your local newspaper. Neither Dotzauer or Cantwell deny the existence of the loan. It is on her disclosure statements.
Commentby Janet S— 9/5/06@ 8:17 am
Left Foot is still learning to communcate and forgot to listen. Untill then expect very little from him.
I didn’t say the loan is illegal. Goldy didn’t say the campaign contributions to McGavick were illegal. Are they inappropriate? Personal loans of thousands of dollars to a Washington lobbyist has a certain smell to it, no worse than getting publicly disclosed legal campaign contributions from people living in Alaska.
You complain about Blethen and the estate tax, does that mean you should stop reading the paper? They may be biased, but that doesn’t mean their news stories are made up. Your logic is a little weird this morning.
Speaking of fools, welcome back janet s., one of our favorite talking heads. A talking points ‘cut and paster’ from way out in ‘inbred wingnut land’
WASHINGTON- Tests of a deep-water well in the Gulf of Mexico could indicate a significant oil discovery, three companies announced Tuesday, in the first project to tap into a region that reportedly could boost U.S. oil and gas reserves by as much as 50 percent. *SNIP* The Journal said Chevron and Devon officials estimate that recent discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico’s lower-tertiary formations hold up to 15 billion barrels of oil and gas… [NO DRILLING for oil or gas in the Gulf, but…………………..if the Chicomms and Cubans drill and take the oil and gas, that’s OK because they are communist and “progressive”!!!! Oh……….Gasoline is expensive because of BUSH!!!! hehe, JCH]
I didn’t say the loan is illegal.
This is an interesting comment in light of this:
If you can prove the campaign contributions to McGavick were illegal, then present the evidence. Otherwise it is just more blathering.
So when you brought up the legal loan, you were just blathering?
once again Janet S whines, blathers and continues to confuse her talking points with reality…
Goldy brought up the donations to McGavick, the Seattle Times brought up the loan from Cantwell to a lobbyist. I was just comparing the two, and wondering why Goldy gets all huffy about one but ignores the other. (But I don’t spend much time wondering, I’m not that stupid.)
Drivel – can you find the websites were I cut and paste from? If not, the conclusion is that you can’t argue the points, so you’ll attack the person. Glad I can make your day happier.
Janet S.,
The loan to Dotzauer is really old news—the papers have mentioned it every year when they cover Cantwell’s senate financial disclosures forms.
“Personal loans of thousands of dollars to a Washington lobbyist…”
Ahhh…no. Cantwell lent the money to Dotzauer when he served as her campaign manager.
You are apparently trying to suggest that it is illegal or unethical to make a personal loan to a friend and confidant. So far, BushCo hasn’t snatched that right from us….
Janet, would you have a problem if Mike!™ made a smallish personal loan ($15,001 to $50,000) to his current campaign manager? Has Mike!™ given up that right by running for office or something?
If there was something “dirty” about making a personal loan to her campaign manager, one might guess that Cantwell would close out the loan, rather than diligently reporting it as an “asset” for five years in a row….
As to McGavick. Is it relevant that he has received large campaign contributions (legally, no doubt) from the top brass of a company suspeceted of “buying politicians?” Um…yeah. Every informed Washington voter should be aware of that.
Hey Klake,
Roger is on vacation, he left you a message:
FUCK YOU!!!!
Commentby My Left Foot [………Er, Carl, Are you Roger’s “boy” for the next two weeks?]
Darryl,
I just noticed your entertaining smackdown of Mike? from yesterday. Well done.
http://hominidviews.com/?p=505
Vote early, vote often, vote Democrat.
Commentby My Left Foot [……Carl, will you be passing out cartons of Marlboros, cans of King Cobra, and KFC “crispy” legs again this November?]
Yes, Daryl, that was a good one.
Thanks for the link, AnTJ.
“Do any of you care that Maria has a financial arrangement with a lobbyist? Since when is it good clean politics to loan someone money who has control of legislation brought before you as a lawmaker?” (Janet S at 14, above).
Gee, this really seems to be an out-of-right-field attempt to throw something at Cantwell everytime McGavick is vulnerable, regardless of its relevency or accuracy.
Who cares whether Cantwell loaned money to her campaign manager, who ultimately became a lobbyist? Its money which is going in the OTHER DIRECTION which is a problem. If a lobbyist owes her favors, he’s not going to be in much of a position to influence her unduly, is he?
As for the second part of the statement, “Since when is it good clean politics to loan someone money who has control of legislation brought before you as a lawmaker?”, it just goes to show how backwards the Republican are in understanding how the legislative process is supposed to work. For your information, Janet, lobbyist AREN’T SUPPOSED TO CONTROL LEGISLATION BROUGHT BEFORE THEM. Instead, the lawmakers are supposed to control the legislation.
I can understand your confusion, as the Abramohoff scandall and Tom Delay’s “K Streat Project” essentially made all lobbyist Republicans and then turned over the keys to the federal treasury to them, but that’s not the way it’s supposed to be.
Seems to me that if a lobbiest was making the loan to Cantwell, that would be a reason for concern. Lobbiests usually want things from politicians, not the other way around.
Janet has trouble with actual thought. If she has an original one, she runs it by her husband, JCH, who ultimately calls her a stupid bitch for thinking. At least he is half right.
JCH and Janet fail to recognize that they are playing with the big boys now. But they keep swinging.
“Do any of you care that Maria has a financial arrangement with a lobbyist? Since when is it good clean politics to loan someone money who has control of legislation brought before you as a lawmaker?” (Janet S at 14, above).
Gee, this really seems to be an out-of-right-field attempt to throw something at Cantwell everytime McGavick is vulnerable, regardless of its relevency or accuracy.
It’s particularly odd given the fact that Janet’s preferred solution is to *vote* for a lobbyist.
My gosh. After learning of all the baseless attacks on Cantwelll, she must be pretty clean. If the right wingers have no stones to throw, we all know they make stuff up.
Maria must be clean….
Just think. They spent $60,000,000 investigating Clinton, and brought no charges. They could spend $20 investigating Bush, and indict away.
Clinton must have been the cleanest politician ever…..
And this is what happened to Clinton when he tried to go after terrorists.
http://americablog.blogspot.com/
Republican = Hypocrite
Block every attempt of Clinton to go after terrorists, and claim to be “the secrurity party”. What a laugh.
“Do any of you care that Maria has a financial arrangement with a lobbyist? Since when is it good clean politics to loan someone money who has control of legislation brought before you as a lawmaker?� (Janet S at 14, above).
God, it is right here in her drivel. Exactly what control does any lobbyist have over any legislation that is “brought” to any Senator. They don’t control the legislation. They are trying to influence VOTING on PENDING legislsation.
Dotzauer: Maria, I would like you to support the bill outlawing Janet S. from accessing the internet without supervision.
Cantwell: Well Ron, in this country we have freedom of speech and Janet is entitled to access the internet as all Americans are allowed to do. I can’t support the bill.
Dotzauer: Maria, you forced me into this. If you don’t vote I will never repay the $50,000 I owe you from that loan when I was your employee.
Cantwell: Ron, with all due respect, I will have to have my attorneys file an action against you to seek recovery of MY money. Security, please escort Mr. Dotzauer out of the building, Ms. smith (her personal assistant) Mr. Dotzauer is no longer on our visitor list and if he calls, I am busy.
Now, Janet S, that is how it would work. She OWES him nothing, There is no pressure of any kind that he can place on her. Please, pull your head out, wipe the shit out of your eyes (I know you were only looking for more to throw at Ms. Cantwell, but really woman, you have it all over you. Funny how that is working out.)
“I don’t belong to an organized political party. I’m a Democrat.” – Will Rogers.
Janet S wrote:
“Goldy brought up the donations to McGavick, the Seattle Times brought up the loan from Cantwell to a lobbyist. I was just comparing the two, and wondering why Goldy gets all huffy about one but ignores the other. (But I don’t spend much time wondering, I’m not that stupid.)”
For much the same reasons that Mr. Sharkanski over at unSP rants about the loans, but is wholly supportive of Mr. McGavick getting that little multi-million dollar “bonus” from which he is funding his desperate campaign against the other Republican candidates for the Senate. (yeah, right.)
There is the small difference that:
In Ms. Cantwell’s case, she loaned money to a long-time friend and collegue.
While in the case of Mr. McGavick, Safeco and VICO gave money to the candidate.
Somehow I have less concern when a Senator loans money to a lobbyist than when a lobbyist loans money to a Senator (or candidate).
Oh, and I would like to thank you for remaining calm and civil, despite some of the reaction you’ve gotten here. I used to occasionally post over at SP, and found that reasoned responses from the left were not welcome. (They were always happy to have liberals that cursed and ranted, but reasoned responses tended to threaten their world view.)
Some of those posters even came over here, just to give us their own particular brand of “wisdom”. (And yes, SR JCH. I do remember you from SP. You were wrong there, and you’re still wrong. I don’t remember the Naval Officer routine over there, however. Must be a recent addition to your resume.)
Janet has trouble with actual thought. If she has an original one, she runs it by her husband, JCH, who ultimately calls her a stupid bitch for thinking. At least he is half right.
JCH and Janet fail to recognize that they are playing with the big boys now. But they keep swinging.
Commentby My Left Foot [………….Janet, I think Carl hates women. That can happen when you marry a “JAP”.]
“Free Marlboros! Free KFC!! Free King Cobra!! Just get in the bus!” [Carl “Get out da mofo vote!” Grossman]
Cantwell wouldn’t talk about the issue. About the loan, Cantwell’s aide, Michael Meehan, said simply: “In 2000, Ron was going through a personal circumstance.”
vCantwell wouldn’t talk about the issue. About the loan, Cantwell’s aide, Michael Meehan, said simply: “In 2000, Ron was going through a personal circumstance.”
Cantwell wouldn’t talk about the issue. About the loan, Cantwell’s aide, Michael Meehan, said simply: “In 2000, Ron was going through a personal circumstance.”
Cantwell wouldn’t talk about the issue. About the loan, Cantwell’s aide, Michael Meehan, said simply: “In 2000, Ron was going through a personal circumstance.”
Cantwell wouldn’t talk about the issue. About the loan, Cantwell’s aide, Michael Meehan, said simply: “In 2000, Ron was going through a personal circumstance.”
Cantwell wouldn’t talk about the issue. About the loan, Cantwell’s aide, Michael Meehan, said simply: “In 2000, Ron was going through a personal circumstance.”
Cantwell wouldn’t talk about the issue. About the loan, Cantwell’s aide, Michael Meehan, said simply: “In 2000, Ron was going through a personal circumstance.”
Cantwell wouldn’t talk about the issue. About the loan, Cantwell’s aide, Michael Meehan, said simply: “In 2000, Ron was going through a personal circumstance.”
Cantwell wouldn’t talk about the issue. About the loan, Cantwell’s aide, Michael Meehan, said simply: “In 2000, Ron was going through a personal circumstance.”
Cantwell wouldn’t talk about the issue. About the loan, Cantwell’s aide, Michael Meehan, said simply: “In 2000, Ron was going through a personal circumstance.”
Cantwell wouldn’t talk about the issue. About the loan, Cantwell’s aide, Michael Meehan, said simply: “In 2000, Ron was going through a personal circumstance.”
Cantwell wouldn’t talk about the issue. About the loan, Cantwell’s aide, Michael Meehan, said simply: “In 2000, Ron was going through a personal circumstance.”
Cantwell wouldn’t talk about the issue. About the loan, Cantwell’s aide, Michael Meehan, said simply: “In 2000, Ron was going through a personal circumstance.”
Cantwell wouldn’t talk about the issue. About the loan, Cantwell’s aide, Michael Meehan, said simply: “In 2000, Ron was going through a personal circumstance.”
Yeah, this one is dead and done with. We’ll just see sputtering from wingnut R’s on this one. I just hope Cantwell keeps in the middle.
Well, it’s time to put a stop to the whining about income inequality and those big huge tax breaks the evil rich have received from George Bush. The Treasury Department is about to release the numbers for 2004, and as usual the highest achievers are taking it on the chin.
The Democrats, with no small amount of help from Republicans, are making headway on their goal of shifting the entire federal tax burden in this country onto a minority of income earners. In 2004 the bottom one-half of income earners paid only 3.3% of all federal income taxes. That’s down from the Clinton years. In fact, that’s the lowest share paid by the bottom half ever.
According to The Wall Street Journal, the majority of American families with incomes less than $40,000 pay no income taxes at all! When you factor in the welfare program known as the Earned Income Tax Credit, many of these families are coming close to getting a completely free ride!
OK … but what about the evil rich?
In 2004 the top 1% of all income earners earned about 19% of all income. So … the rich really are benefiting from Bush’s tax policies, aren’t they? Just 1% earning 19% of all income? Sorry to burst your bubble, but that figure was higher in the Clinton years. During the time Clinton was in office this figure went from 13.8% to nearly 21%. Funny how you didn’t read a lot of newspaper stories during the Clinton years about growing income inequality, isn’t it? Now, under bush, the share of total income earned by the wicked rich has fallen!
But what about the income taxes! Surely George Bush has all but wiped out income taxes for the nasty rich, hasn’t he?
Nope.
In 2004 the top 1% of income earners — that crowd that earned 19% of all income — paid 36.9% of all income taxes. The top 5% of income earners paid a whopping 57.1% of all income taxes. That’s an increase under Bush. So much for “tax cuts for the rich.”
OK .. well how about the super-rich? What about the top one-tenth of one percent of income earners? Lordy, I don’t even know how much you have to earn to be in this crowd. From 2002 to 2004, with the hated Bush tax cuts firmly in place, the top 0.1% of income earners saw their share of total income taxes paid go from 15.4% to 17.4%. That’s up a full 2% for those of you who went to government schools.
OK … that’s income taxes. But what about capital gains taxes and taxes on dividends? Bush cut those taxes too, didn’t he? That’s where the rich are making out like bandits, right? Well … glad you asked. Since Bush’s tax cuts the Imperial Federal Government has seen an increase of 79% in capital gains taxes, and 35% for taxes on dividends.
Just remember these figures the next time you see some Democrat whining about income inequality and the need to redistribute income. It looks like we’re doing quite a bit of redistribution as it is.
Interesting when folks on this blog don’t like the conversation, they pile on ad-hominem attacks on people like Janet. It would make a much more interesting forum if folks would respond with facts about the discussion rather than atacking the poster. The same mannerisms holds true for many other attacks on certain posters.
this is just chasing smoke.
There are so many contributions goign in all directions that have nothing to do with bribery or fraud that just raising the specter of deceit is not enough to show the intention of wrong doing.
But have fun with it. All it will do is prompt more calls to examine Maria’s contribution list.
I just find it perplexing that Maria gave Don a large sum of money several years ago, and he has made no attempt to pay it back, and neither “remembers” why it was given in the first place. Why doesn’t he just pay it off? Why doesn’t she either forgive it or demand payment, so she can clean up her disclosure form?
No one forgets why they took a large sum of money from someone else.
Gee, may he does not wish his private life to become fodder for Janet’s evil pen. He is not a politician, he gets to keep his privacy.
Janet, how about you post your financial dealings here for all of us to see.
“I don’t belong to an organized political party. I’m a Democrat.” – Will Rogers.
Janet S wrote:
I just find it perplexing that Maria gave Don a large sum of money several years ago, and he has made no attempt to pay it back, and neither “remembers” why it was given in the first place. Why doesn’t he just pay it off? Why doesn’t she either forgive it or demand payment, so she can clean up her disclosure form?
Because they are still friends, and apparently Mr. Dotzauer was going through some sort of personal issue where he needed the money. Mr. Donzauer is not a public servant, and as long as they are legal, his sources of funds are none of my business. If he runs for office, or accepts an appointment to a government position, I will have to reevaluate my opinion. Until then, it’s not my concern.
Remember, this is not a lobbyist giving money to a politician. That is a cause for concern, as we expect our politicians to legislate fairly, uninfluenced by people giving them large loans. (Hey, I can dream, can’t I?)
I have no problem with a lobbyist being beholden to a Senator. I have a large problem with a Senator being beholden to a lobbyist.
Now, you could, I suppose, argue that Ms. Cantwell may have bought the assistance of Mr. Dotzauer with this loan. Apparently, Mr. Dotzauer’s wife appeared as a witness in the hearings that brought the light of day to the Enron scandal.
There is no doubt that Ms. Cantwell and Mr. Dotzauer are friends, that Mr. Dotzauer has helped Ms. Cantwell many times over the years, most recently by acting as her campaign manager in 2000. Because of that help and friendship, Mr. Dotzauer is able to gain the ear of Ms. Cantwell. Frankly, while I do not see anything illegal or even unethical about that.
I’m still not very happy about it, however. Mr. Dotzauer is currently a lobbyist for the US Chamber of Commerce, which, despite its innocuous name, is a very right-wing organization. He has apparently helped to convince Ms. Cantwell that she should vote for some legislation that I’m not happy with.
From the Seattle Times:
Dotzauer was indirectly retained by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s most powerful business group, to persuade Congress to make it harder to sue big corporations.
In October 2003, a Republican-backed legal-liability bill died in the Senate. Both Cantwell and Democratic Sen. Patty Murray cast votes that helped kill the measure.
At the time, Dotzauer’s firm, now called Strategies 360, was working to energize the state’s business community to lobby elected officials on the bill.
In January 2004, the Association of Washington Business (AWB) touted a new group called the Class Action Lawsuit Reform Coalition, co-chaired by Dotzauer’s partner, former Democratic Gov. Gardner, and AWB President Don Brunell.
From the beginning, Brunell said, the effort targeted Cantwell.
The work paid off. Cantwell and other Senate Democrats opposed to the earlier legislation switched positions, and in February 2005 the Senate voted 72-26 to limit the ability of people to file class-action lawsuits. Murray still voted no.
So, while there was certainly not any sort of “payoff” here, I really wish Ms. Cantwell would be a bit more selective of whom she takes advice from. As for who she chooses as friends, well, I have some Republican friends, too. Nobody’s perfect.
slotland slotland
From 2002 to 2004, with the hated Bush tax cuts firmly in place, the top 0.1% of income earners saw their share of total income taxes paid go from 15.4% to 17.4%. That’s up a full 2% for those of you who went to government schools.
Gee, you’d almost think their NET WORTH went up even MORE THAN 2%, wooden ya?
PAWN3D!!!!