Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Breaking ethics rules while under ethics investigation.

by Mike_Hanks / November 14, 2010 5:25 AM PST

"Rangel tapped his National Leadership PAC for $293,000 to pay his main legal-defense team this year. He took another $100,000 from the PAC in 2009 to pay lawyer Lanny Davis.

Two legal experts told The Post such spending is against House rules... "It's a breach of congressional ethics," one campaign-finance lawyer said... Washington, DC, political lawyer Cleta Mitchell said there is "no authority for a member to use leadership PAC funds as a slush fund to pay for personal or official expenses."

..."Accepting money or payment for legal expenses from any other source, including a PAC, would be a gift and is barred by the House rules," the lawyer said."


Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Breaking ethics rules while under ethics investigation.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Breaking ethics rules while under ethics investigation.
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
You mean the swamp hasn't been drained yet?
by EdHannigan / November 14, 2010 9:50 PM PST

Republicans have their work cut out for them next year.

Collapse -
If the Republicans got out of the swamp
by JP Bill / November 14, 2010 9:57 PM PST

and they each took one person from the other side with them...

The swamp would be clean.

And ready for some new inhabitants after the next election.

Collapse -
Not so. They would have to take ...
by Edward ODaniel / November 15, 2010 10:20 PM PST

at least 1.5 people from "the other side" and even then it would be murky.

(and that is AFTER it already got "new inhabitants")

Collapse -
Not sure I agree with any law against this
by James Denison / November 14, 2010 11:02 PM PST

Isn't this a PAC that is under his direct control? Wouldn't that make it same as campaign funds? Since such funds are intended to help a person gain office, then why should such funds not also be used for any legal defense which would defend him on matters which could impact his remaining in such office? Under such an understanding they are still serving the purpose of not just helping him gain such office, but to defend his ability to remain in such office.

Collapse -
A PAC is considered a seperate entity...
by EdHannigan / November 14, 2010 11:23 PM PST

and is not allowed to give him gifts. Their legal purpose is to be political activists, only. Ostensibly they are "independent."

Collapse -
I realize the law, but
by James Denison / November 14, 2010 11:47 PM PST

...saying such shouldn't be considered a "gift" since it's still a form of support for him not just attaining office, but enabling a defense in order to remain in office. That's a lot different than use the funds to build a new wing onto his house, or provide a nice vacation somewhere.

Collapse -
It might seem a lot different, but...
by EdHannigan / November 14, 2010 11:54 PM PST
In reply to: I realize the law, but

it's a thing of value that he is being given which is not connected to him being elected. Without it he would have to spend his own money and not be able to build a new wing. In the eyes of the law it IS the same thing.

Definitely NOT political action.

Collapse -
(NT) Otherwise a PAC would just be a slush fund
by Mike_Hanks / November 15, 2010 10:38 PM PST
Collapse -
by EdHannigan / November 16, 2010 2:20 AM PST

But not of the gift violation, amazingly.

The full ethics committee -- known as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct -- will now recommend a punishment for Rangel to the House of Representatives. The penalty can can range from a fine to expulsion. Most observers believe Rangel is likely to be reprimanded but not expelled.

That's s shame. They should kick him out, ASAP.

That's a shamne. He shoud be kicjed out
Collapse -
The shame is that for 2 1/2 years
by Mike_Hanks / November 16, 2010 8:04 AM PST
In reply to: GUILTY!

The democrat leadership did little to remove him and the democrat base did NOTHING to remove him.

I suspect a wrist slap will be in order, but he will make another fine Democrat albatross.

Collapse -
We can certainly agree
by Roger NC / November 16, 2010 11:38 AM PST
In reply to: GUILTY!

this is one character in my opinion should have been gone long before now for his shenanigans.

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!