Delay paid his wife out of his PAC
Tom Delay put his wife and daughter on the payroll of his PAC.
WASHINGTON, April 5 - The wife and daughter of Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, have been paid more than $500,000 since 2001 by Mr. DeLay's political action and campaign committees, according to a detailed review of disclosure statements filed with the Federal Election Commission and separate fund-raising records in Mr. DeLay's home state, Texas.
See ya,Tom.
posted by Chris Dykstra @ 12:50 AM |
| 
15 Comments:
Sorry cris but $500,000 from 2001 untill now isn't that much money to pay employees. Did you read the story? You should. Why don't you go fly to the next pile of shit and post about that tomorrow.
Anonymous-
1. Please check the rules of engagement in the right column. You need to sign your posts with a name.
2. In the article, Larry Noble from the Center for Responsive Politics said that "questions are raised anytime a politician puts close family members on the payroll." $500,000 breaks down to about $63,000 each per year over a four year period. That's certainly not chump change. Perhaps this isn't the final nail in the coffin for Delay, but I'd fair to guess that if a Democrat were in the same position as Delay, the right would be all over this.
I think that anonymous guy is right, though. You'd have to pay me a hell of a lot more than 70,000 to work for DeLay. And you'd have to pay me in the millions to claim him as family.
i'm sure those poor women earned every penny.
Anon:
I am sure in Delayland 500k isn't that much. The point isn't really how much of his supporters' money Delay is sticking in his personal bank account by paying his family members, it could be $1.00 it could be $10 million. The point is it's illegal. It amounts to stealing and he'll go down for it.
And I won't be posting about how 500k isn't really that much money any time soon. I am a member of the reality-based community, see. In the real world 500k is a hell of a lot of money - more than many people make in their careers. So stuff it.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
anonymous, please feel free to repost your comments, but sign them this time. See the rules of engagement below. You can either (a) type your name or nym after you have typed your comment, or (b) click on "other" in the Choose-an-identity option, fill in the blanks, then type your comment.
If you insist on continuing to comment anonymously and without signing, then you should give a reason (other than cowardice).
No personal attacks are allowed.
Whining about censorship makes me trigger happy.
This is our place, you have to follow our rules if you want to comment here.
And that's exactly why liberalism is dying. Can't play to anyone but your own, and even there you you can't tolerate diversity.
I did follow your rules, I signed my posts and I didn't attack. I offered your words as evidence you did.
Signed,
Censored
We welcome intelligent comments that respectfully disagree with our opinion. It makes the site more interesting.
But after a particularly nasty episode of trolling, we realized we needed to have some ground rules. Now that you know about them, I hope you follow them. Otherwise, we'll just keep deleting your posts.
Actually I prefer to have the opposition comment here than any dittoing fellow liberals.
It just baffles me why a supposedly thick-skinned conservative opponent would be so cowardly and banana-spined as to insist on commenting anonymously... any explanations?
Mark,
I challenge you to review the deleted posts. They were factual.
I pointed out Chris is a hypocrit, and that Luke, despite his defense of "no personal attacks" did exactly that in his next post.
The posts were signed, in accordance with your "rules" for posting.
Finally, your words,
"supposedly thick-skinned"
"cowardly"
"banana-spined"
are IMHO more of a personal attack than what I wrote. The fact your post is evident and mine has been deleted is representative of your words,
"We welcome intelligent comments that respectfully disagree with our opinion."
Being in blatent disagreement with your actions.
Signed (in accordance with your rules)
-Censored
Anonymous,
As Chuck memorably put it, we are not the Borg Mind: all of us here have varying tolerance (not to mention definitions) of "personal attack", and I think my tolerance is rather high, and my definition very narrow. Anyway, unsigned posts strike me as objectively cowardly, by any normal standard, so that's no attack, just a fact.
I think we do all find trolls to be a foul-smelling nuisance though, and most unsigned anonymous posts are just trolls lookin' for a little action. Convince me you're not a troll and I'll be happy to join in a fierce debate...
Its interesting that despite "signing" my posts you and the rest of the clowns continue to persist in denying this.
And I do think you are clowns. Hence by your standard it is a "fact."
I have chosen the moniker "Censored." Its within your rules of dialogue, ((a) type your name or nym after you have typed your comment) The site permits it. So why call me Anonymous?
Could it be that addressing me as Censored you'd have to acknowledge your own actions? Hit a little too close to home?
Signed,
Censored
(not be confused with Anonymous)
Sorry Censored, for some preposterous reason I thought you were the same bloke who was signing yourself "anonymous" earlier in this thread. My bad.
Post a Comment
<< Home