Charlie Rangel violated ethics rules to defend ethics
By Brian Kirwin | Monday, November 15th, 2010 | PolicyRep Charlie Rangel, who New York voters re-elected with 80% of the vote, begins his trial on violating House ethics rules today.
To defend himself, looks like Charlie violated MORE ethics rules.
To pay his legal bills, he raided a Democrat Leadership PAC to the tune of nearly $400,000.
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, D.C., 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.” Leadership PACs are typically used by politicians to donate money to other candidates.
Rangel said he never intended to violate the rules in the many charges he is being tried for in his House Ethics trial.
Wonder what he’ll say about this charge? House rules explicitly state that expenses like this may be paid by “funds of his or her principal campaign committee — not the funds of a leadership PAC.”
What’s the biggest outrage? That his voters keep sending this arrogant flouter of rules back to Washington year after year, or that he’s willing to break ethics rules to defend against ethics charges.
Need a poster for term limits? Here he is!
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
16 Responses to "Charlie Rangel violated ethics rules to defend ethics"
Oh, he didn’t “intend” to violate the rules. No, more like he was hoping he wouldn’t get caught. He needs to be booted out of office. What a sleazeball.
No politician is a virgin so don’t expect miracles.. or integrity. Rangel is guilty but he is O.J. guilty. The problem is the double standards of special interests that are swaying voters, not the scammers they re-elected. The congressional black caucus warned lawmakers against rushing to judgment on whether Rangel is guilty of ethics violations. “attempts by Republicans and Democrats to presume guilt violates the core American principle of the presumption of innocence.” So, the CBC membership has some splainin to do.. Do they expect to be taken seriously by the non cbc members? I know there are some cbc members furious about this and wish I heard their voices. Is Rangel getting a pass because of the color of his skin? I bet Rangels base would let him get lynched if he were an aging white republican.. It sure looks that way. Yes I said that, those are my words, calling it like I see it.
I see hypocracy, don’t you?
Term limits never looked so good. I would be fine with 1 and done. The founders never intended elected office to be a career.
James, “special interests” had nothing to do with this. Rangel is in a seat where he will win regardless of what he does for as long as he wants to run. Absent the House policing itself, he will not lose that seat until they put him in the ground.
This has nothing to do with black or white. It has everything to do with partisan politics. In a district as Democratic as his, he has no reason to worry about ever losing that seat.
Term limits means that the real power in the Congress shifts to unelected staff. If that’s what you want, I’d say that’s an even greater corruption of the founders vision.
Brian, we can agree to disagree but the man is a crook.. he was not forced to commit his crimes that he violated.. If appearances are worth anything, the aging race card has been played. As an octegenarian minority with 40 years seniority he is the poster fodder of the virtually untouchable class of DC insiders that have wrecked this country. In his universe of influence any attempt to push him out will result in that narrow stack of influential cards to play themselves for him. If justice prevails he will be forced to live in rent controlled Harlem.. Maybe Eric Holder should suggest Rangel let the PAC pay his rent too?
Brian, this is 2010, it is ok to call it the way you see it with confidence. Rangel is playing the race, age and seniority cards, the deck is stacked. As for the staffs, term limits should apply to them as well. If congress were all freshman all the time I suspect we would have an easier time keeping corrupt seniors leaders out. Yes I said that. I stand by my words.
No term limits, we have corrupt Congressman with corrupt staffers.
With term limits, we have corrupt staffers.
Still looks like an improvement.
Except that with term limits, lobbyist are even more empowered.
The problem with term limits is that they take rights away from citizens — the right to vote for whoever I want to represent me.
The House is term-limited to two years. Every two years the congressman has to convince the people to re-elect him. If they do, well then that’s the will of the district.
Unless of course, the guy is convicted of something criminal, which I’m not rulling out in this case.
Steve, you can vote for whomever you want to. It’s called a write-in.
And if you think Congress is term-limited, you’re too insane to be allowed to vote.
Rangel is becoming a symbol of the arrogance of power from the White House through the Senate and House of Representatives. This would be an opportunity to set the Constitutional bar for impeachment of a sitting Congressman under Article II, Section 4 – “high crimes and misdemeanors” instead of a simple expulsion where Rangel could run again and hold the office.
They fact that we don’t often USE the limits doesn’t mean they don’t exist. What it means is that, for the most part, people are pretty happy with the representation that they’ve got. When they aren’t, as in this year’s election, we see more turnover.
Term limits are using a hammer to kill a fly. Less partisan gerrymandering in drawing the districts would do a lot more to make representatives more responsive to the voters, if people think that’s a good idea.
James, I agree with you that Rangel is a crook. But not everyone who spends a long career in Congress is a crook. Not everyone who has a long political career in a variety of offices is a crook. Rangel isn’t a crook because he’s black, or because he’s in his 80s, or because he’s a Democrat.
He’s a crook because he’s a crook. He chose to break the law because he thought he was above it. Who is complicit? Well, the folks who voted for him, regardless of ethnicity. They seem to not care that he’s a crook.
So if we’re going to get rid of him, the House is going to have to do it. I’m happy to see them not let him get away with his BS “give me more time to find some lawyers” routine.
There are plenty of one term Congressmen who aren’t going back to Washington who were as complicit in the “wrecking of the country” as Rangel. It doesn’t take 40 years in office to make bad decisions.
Brian, corrupt staffers are far worse than corrupt Congressmen. At least the Congressmen are elected – there is a chance we can get rid of them. You can’t vote out staff.
Steve, what’s wrong with killing a fly with a hammer if you have been unable to kill the fly?
Brian, but what’s worse? Corrupt staff with corrupt politicians, or just corrupt staff?
Steve,
Less partisan gerry-mandering?
Wishful thinking and reality: the liberal dilemma.
I think corrupt staff is worse – they’re unaccountable.
Scott: That system could be fixed. It would just take the political will to do it. Which would have to come from voters who make it clear that they want to pick their legislators rather than have them pick us. I grant you that’s it’s unlikely, because the average voter doesn’t know or care about those kind of “inside baseball” issues.
Seems like the process worked. A Democrat-controlled ethics committee found him guilty on nearly every charge. I guess the issue now is censure or expulsion. Expulsion seems merited.
Why do “We the people” still tolerate illegal activity amongst our law makers? If I got caught doing what Rangell did I would be in federal prison and have my military pension taken away. “I can not afford a lawyer” is a lame excuse coming from a multi-millionaire slum lord. Since Charlie helped write the laws, he should stand up and defend what he approved for us to live by.
Leave your response