Common Cause - Holding Power ResponsibleCommon Cause - Holding Power Responsible

Topics
Our Issues
Money in Politics
Election Reform
Media and Democracy
Ethics in Government
Government Accountability
Press Center
Research Center
Register to Vote

Sign Up and join the Community - click here

Rep. Young reverses course on fishy donations

Since we're on the subject today, here's an update about the report that Rep. Don Young had received illegal campaign contributions from a seafood company.

It seems that Rep. Young has changed his mind about the donations.  You may recall that earlier he had said that though his campaign would pay back $2400 of the contributions, it would keep $3175 that came in before 2004, and were therefore outside of the statute of limitations.

Well, they're not giving an explanation, but now his office says they're paying back that $3175.  Maybe, in the face of all the other ethics questions Young is facing, they just decided that this was one problem with an easy fix.


Tags: Don Young, ethics in government, money in politics (all tags)


Display:

Don Young? How about Hillary?

I have researched this info for over two years and am doing the documentary film.  In 2000, Hillary Clinton illegally participated in the solicitation of a hard money in-kind contribution of $1.6.  She has never been held accountable.  She will be under oath this year in the historic civil case in Los Angeles, Paul v Clinton.  She has filed four false FEC reports, the latest of which was Jan. 2006.

Kelly Craighead, a White House employee joined others in a conference call on July 11, 2000 in the illegal solicitation.  We have a video of a conference call of July 17 with Hillary's audio showing her solicitation and acknowledging that Craighead was keeping her completely briefed.  For two years, a US atty held that evidence while investigations were proceeding.

http://hillcap.org
http://www.ejfa.org

by dougfromupland on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 08:32:52 PM EST


Re:

I haven't heard about this before, but I'll check out your websites - thanks.

by Kirstin Ellison on Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 01:46:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]


How about Hillary

I went to the Hillcap.org site and reviewed some, but not all, the material. I have two questions for dougfromupland : 1.) I didn't see any figures for how much money the fundraiser actually raised or what specific accounts that raised money was placed in. Do you have that information available ?
2.) Given the information you are displaying and the passion of your advocacy I would hope that you are in favor of public financing for our elections, both national and state, and that you have supported that program with equal passion. Is that true ?

by lindsey on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 06:43:17 AM EST


Re:

Excellent questions!

by Kirstin Ellison on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 09:15:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Kirsten Ellison is voting for Hillary Clinton??

Kirsten

        Aren't you planning on voting for Hillary Clinton yourself???  We all know your going to be voting for a Democrat and so is all of the other Common Cause writers. There be no need to pretend that your neutral.

by el profeta misterioso on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 12:11:08 AM EST


Just one question

Why do you ask provocative questions like this when you already know how I'm going to respond?  You really get a kick out of calling us Democrats, don't you?  I don't really understand the payoff, but to each his own, I suppose.

I don't have a horse in this race yet, on either side of the aisle.  When I do pick a candidate, I'll keep my opinion off the pages of this blog, which is not the proper forum.

by Kirstin Ellison on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:56:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Judicial Watch is on the Clinton 's Trail

Washington, DC - Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption announced today that it filed a lawsuit on July 16, 2007 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration to obtain access to the following records from the Clinton Presidential Library:  "First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's calendar, to include but not limited to her daily office diary, schedule, day planner, telephone log book, and chronological file."  The Archives, which operates and maintains Clinton Presidential Library records, failed to respond to Judicial Watch's April 5, 2006 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

"Judicial Watch has a clear statutory right to have the Library search for and produce all non-exempt records responsive to its April 5, 2206 FOIA request within the time frame required by the [law].  The Library also is required to produce an index of any responsive records it seeks to withhold from Judicial Watch under the claim of exemption," Judicial Watch wrote in its court filing.  "Although more than 15 months have passed since Judicial Watch served its request, the Library has failed to do either."

Judicial Watch is seeking Mrs. Clinton's records from January 1, 1993 to January 20, 2001, the approximate time period during which she served as First Lady.

On January 20, 2006, more than 80 million pages of documents and 20 million e-mails from the Clinton administration were supposed to be made available to the public, yet only a portion have been released.  Judicial Watch believes these documents potentially contain a treasure trove of previously undisclosed information. (Judicial Watch has made a number of requests to the Clinton Presidential Library concerning various Clinton administration scandals.)

"Given Mrs. Clinton's current status as a presidential candidate, if not the front-runner for the Democratic Party's nomination, the public interest in her tenure as First Lady is undeniable," Judicial Watch stated in its lawsuit.  "Because Mrs. Clinton seeks our nation's highest office and may well be the next President of the United States, the public interest weighs heavily in favor of enjoining the Library from continuing to withhold the records at issue."

"This lawsuit is a first step in obtaining access to new documents about Hillary Clinton's role in the Clinton White House.  With Hillary Clinton aggressively pursuing the presidency, uncovering the truth about her activities in the White House is just as relevant today as it was during the Clinton era," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  "The law requires the timely release of these and other Clinton White House documents.  The court should compel the Archives to comply with the Freedom of Information Act and quickly release these records."

I am sure that Common Cause supports Judicial Watch and their quest for the truth.

by el profeta misterioso on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 12:21:02 AM EST


Re:

I don't think this is something we've taken an official position on, but I don't personally see anything objectionable about it.  We certainly think that any candidates for elected office should be as open as possible, and that includes their public records.  Just because Clinton is a former First Lady doesn't mean she should be able to withhold documents that other candidates can't.

by Kirstin Ellison on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:09:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account just by filling out the form below. It's quick and free.


contact us | volunteer/intern programs | employment opportunities | site map | privacy policy