« MO-SEN: NRSC Sinks $1.3 Mil Into Ads Attacking McCaskill | Home | KY-04: GOP Rep. Davis Donates $1,000 Recieved From Foley To Child Advocay Agency »
CT-05: Nancy Johnson Returning Foley Money...To Foley
Here at Election Central, we're keeping track of which pols are keeping cash donated to them from Mark Foley's PAC and which ones are dumping it. The latest: Embattled GOP Rep Nancy Johnson is giving the cash back to Foley, the Associated Press reports. However, by simply returning the money to Foley, Johnson appears to be making it possible for Foley to potentially rechannel it for other purposes. By contrast, Virginia Senator George Allen and New Mexico Rep Heather Wilson have announced that they'll be donating the tainted cash to charity. View a full list of the candidates who've enjoyed Foley's generosity — and who have yet to say whether they'll give back the money — here.
Advertisement
AUTHOR: UnaHomer
EMAIL:
IP:
URL:
DATE: 10/03/2006 02:34:45 AM
AUTHOR: UnaHomer
DATE: 10/03/2006 02:34:45 AM
October 3, 2006 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll find a citation and more details later in the day, but I read that Rep. Tom Reynolds, (R) NY, co-chair of Foley's House committee on exploited children, benefitted from $330,000 from Foley. A large part of this money came during the period when Reynolds had been officially notified about the incriminating emails and was deciding whether to investigate. He subsequently decided not to investigate. This money was probably transferred from Foley's campaign chest to Reynold's NY campaign.
October 3, 2006 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
see also elsewhere on TPM:
Election Central NY-26: Dem Davis Opens Fire On Reynolds
here
This thread discusses Reynolds' culpability, quoting from the campaign of Reynolds' opponent, Jack Davis: "Reynolds should have been demanding accountability from Mark Foley. Instead, he was demanding a $100,000 campaign contribution -– and took it."
Marcf cites NYT as stating that Reynolds has $2,945,000 cash on hand, while Davis has only $63,000 cash.
Elsewhere the large sums from Foley were reported to be donations to the House Committee (on Missing and Exploited Children) rather than directly to Reynolds.
October 3, 2006 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW1141
I don't want Hastert or any other Republican leader connected to the Foley story to step down from their posts. Until the election, I want them to stay there as pinatas and symbols of today's brand of Republicanism. If any of them step down, especially Hastert, it may give a number of voters the notion
that the Republican party did the right thing so now its OK to vote Republican.
October 3, 2006 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does anybody else find this trend to give back contributions from tainted contributors a little bizarre? It's become practically a ritual now that any time someone is involved in a scandal, everybody rushes to give back any money they got from that person. I can see that when the money is itself tainted somehow -- i.e., the fruit of some improper activity (like, say, Abramoff's contributions). But Foley? It's not like he was contributing money he made off of his impropriety -- he wasn't running a child pornography ring or anything like that. And to the extent the issue is whether someone like Reynolds was turning a blind eye because of those campaign contributions, giving the money back doesn't do any good, right? The malfeasance on Reynolds' part (if there was any) is done, right?
This strange (IMO) new ritual seems to have two causes: One, politicians see it as an easy way of purporting to cleanse themselves of taint from a scandal (even though it shouldn't be seen as such); and two, the media (including TPM) clamor for it -- if you don't give the money back, it's proof of your complicity -- even though that argument doesn't really hold water, either.
October 3, 2006 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I don't see any real moral outrage on the part of any of these folks who were allied with Foley. The conservatives calling for Hastert to resign are the same ones who thought he was too moderate for the job in the first place. They see an opportunity to replace him with someone further to the right and get the appearance of responding strongly to the Foley mess at the same time.
October 3, 2006 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a bad move for Johnson. She should donate the money to a charity and not send it back.
October 3, 2006 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink