Currently viewing the tag: “Money”
USA Today |
Man: Scuffle With Dominique Wilkins Was Over Money
WSB Atlanta ATLANTA — The man arrested following a scuffle with former Atlanta Hawks star Dominique Wilkins said he was attacked first. Police said 36-year-old Rashan Michel attacked Wilkins and a Hawks security guard after the Hawks game at Philips Arena on … Dominique Wilkins' GNARLY Brawl — THE VIDEO Rashan Michel sued Wilkins over suits in 2010 Dominique Wilkins Not Done Giving Highlights Yet |
|
NFL Players Seek Order Barring Owners From Accessing Lockout-Related Money
Bloomberg National Football League players, as part of a lawsuit filed against the league in 1992, today asked a US judge to bar owners from accessing some labor lockout-related revenues until the current impasse … Players ask judge for damages in NFL TV case Players to ask for “substantial” damages award in “lockout insurance” case NFL Players Gain Victory Over League in Workers' Comp Dispute |
(Eugene Volokh)
Moreau v. Flanders (R.I. Mar. 29) has the long and complicated story. The decision is closely focused on Rhode Island statutes and constitutional rules, but my sense is that similar issues are likely to come up in other states.
Our guest blogger is Steve Lebowitz, a researcher and blogger based in Maryland. With additional reporting from Lee Fang.
In 2008, Steve Lonegan, the New Jersey state director for David Koch’s Americans for Prosperity group, announced a campaign to run for governor. Running as a Republican, Lonegan lost to Chris Christie (R-NJ) in the Republican primary, and Christie went on to win the general election later in 2009. But recent tax disclosures examined by ThinkProgress reveal that Lonegan, who used $ 2.7 million in taxpayer matching funds for his gubernatorial campaign, may have deceived public officials in order to collect the public money used for his campaign.
According to New Jersey state clean election law, recipients of public campaign funds cannot be “involved in any way in the management of” a political advocacy 501(c)(4) organization “unless the organization agrees to disclose the name of each of its contributors and the amount of each contribution and expenditure.” Americans for Prosperity has never disclosed its donors. Lonegan, who has served as the New Jersey Americans for Prosperity executive director for years, said the disclosure law didn’t apply to him because he was paid by Americans for Prosperity’s educational 501(c)(3) foundation rather than its 501(c)(4) lobbying and advocacy branch. He told reporters that he was only paid by Americans for Prosperity’s educational foundation, not its lobbying branch:
To avoid potential campaign conflicts, candidates who apply for matching money are required to tell the commission if they’ve previously managed issue-advocacy groups and list their donors and expenditures if they’ve recently run such a group. Lonegan said he is not subject to those reporting requirements because he was paid by the educational foundation of the anti-tax lobbying group, not its lobbying branch.
When Lonegan filed his request for public funds, he signed a certificate saying he was not “involved in any way in the management of an issue advocacy organization” for the period of 2005 to 2009.
When he applied for the taxpayer campaign funds, Lonegan reasoned that his Democratic opponent, then-Gov. Jon Corzine, was so wealthy that the campaign would be unfair. Ultimately, Lonegan collected $ 2.7 million in taxpayer money for his campaign. But recent tax disclosures reveal that Lonegan was in fact paid by Americans for Prosperity’s 501(c)(4) advocacy and lobbying arm, and that he deceived reporters, and possibly even New Jersey public officials when applying for the matching funds:
– The 2008 disclosures for Americans for Prosperty’s 501(c)(4) lobbying and advocacy branch reveal that the group paid Lonegan $ 24,500 in 2008 (see page 7) — the same period in which Lonegan began his gubernatorial campaign. This funding was in addition to the $ 108,000 Lonegan received from Americans for Prosperity’s 501(c)(3) education wing that year.
– Additionally, Lonegan was involved in other advocacy efforts on behalf of Americans for Prosperity. In 2007, Lonegan created the “Americans for Prosperity New Jersey Political Committee” to oppose ballot questions that year, listing himself as chairman and treasurer. He reported raising $ 455,000 for his “Americans for Prosperity New Jersey Political Committee” advocacy group.
We asked Phil Kerpen, Americans for Prosperity’s vice president, if Lonegan has a management role at the organization. Kerpen confirmed, saying yes, Lonegan is “autonomous,” but that the national organization “advises” him. Today, ThinkProgress contacted Lonegan about taking taxpayer funds for his election. Asked if he was paid by the Americans for Prosperity 501(c)(4) lobbying and advocacy wing, Lonegan said, “I don’t remember, I don’t know.” When told about the recent tax returns showing that he was indeed paid by the lobbying wing, in contrast to what he told reporters at the time in 2009, Lonegan said, “that’s old history.”
If he gave the New Jersey election law enforcement commission his compensation information from Americans for Prosperity’s educational foundation but not its lobbying and advocacy branch, and if he concealed his dual Americans for Prosperity salary from the commission, Lonegan and Americans for Prosperity could have some explaining to do. If the election commission decides to investigate the issue, it could hand down fines or other penalties to Lonegan.
Kansas City Star |
Former recruit says he got money at Michigan State, sex at OSU
Detroit Free Press The attractive and technically advanced * * * 2012 Ford Focus is my favorite car in the strong new… GM will build a sporty SS version of its new Cruze compact, but don't expect to see it in Chevrolet… The largest Rolls-Royce showroom in the world … Auburn Football Players Allege They Were Paid to Play Cubelic Responds to Auburn Allegations Former Auburn teammates question claims by McClover, others they got money … |
Hey, why muck about with the middleman when it comes to buying and selling state lawmakers? Florida is well on its way to making it legal. Howard Troxler of the St. Petersburg Times explains:
It is now legal in Florida for the leaders of our House and Senate, of both the Republican and Democratic parties, to operate what are laughably called “leadership funds.”
If you are an interest group in Florida, a corporation, a lobbyist seeking favor, you go to these “leadership” funds run by lawmakers …
And you pay them.
They will launder the money into local elections around the state, to keep electing more obedient followers.
This is so astonishing a corruption that it defies belief.The bill in question is House Bill 1207, passed in the 2010 legislative session.
Then-Gov. Charlie Crist vetoed it. Last Thursday the Legislature overrode the veto.
The House vote was 81-39. The Senate vote was 30-9.
The twisted logic used in the Capitol, and what your legislator will try to tell you, is that it’s better for the Legislature to be paid off directly.
See, they will write it down in a separate little report. So this is all about “informing the public” and “transparency.”
If they try to give you this line, just ask this question:
“So, is it legal to make unlimited payoffs to ‘leadership funds’ that are operated directly by the leaders of the Legislature, or not?”
Yes.
Nice work if you can get it. And now Florida lawmakers will be getting plenty of it: Cash. Everyone has their own personal slush fund. Unlimited money can be given to it. That’s “free speech” we have been told.
Lawmakers for sale. Get them while they’re hot.
(CNN) – Even freshman congressmen sometimes get the blues. Republican Rep. Sean Duffy told a constituent “I struggle to meet my bills right now,” at a town hall meeting in Amery, Wisconsin last week.
And when the questioner challenged his claims on the basis that Duffy makes “three times” his own salary, the congressman responded, “I guarantee most of you, I have more debt than all of you. With six kids, I still pay off my student loans. I still pay my mortgage. I drive a used minivan. If you think I’m living high off the hog, I’ve got one paycheck. So I struggle to meet my bills right now.”
The exploration of Duffy’s personal finances began as an explanation when a constituent asked the first-term congressman how much congressmen and senators make and whether he’d vote to cut his own salary in an effort to reduce the deficit.
Duffy initially danced around the question by recalling his time on the campaign trail in a video posted on ThinkProgress.org, the blog linked to liberal think tank Center for American Progress. He asserted that he went “roughly seven months with six kids and no paycheck” after resigning as the Ashland County D.A. to run for office.
After revealing that congressional members make $ 174,000 in annual salary, Duffy went on to lambast the health plan offered by the federal government in a diatribe intended to relate to the issues raised his constituent, who’d stated that his wife, a teacher, may face a salary cut if a budget-cutting Wisconsin bill is passed by state government.
“Now, some say I’ve taken an upgrade, some say I’ve taken a downgrade as a congressman,” Duffy responded. “I now pay $ 600 a month for my health insurance. I pay far more as a congressman than I did as a D.A. because the federal government doesn’t offer nearly as good of a plan as the state of Wisconsin does.”
Mike Tate, chair of the Wisconsin Democratic party, slammed Duffy’s comments in a statement saying, “Poor Hollywood Sean Duffy. He only makes four times the median family income in Wisconsin. This must explain why he is four times out-of-touch with the working families whose health care he would slash, whose Social Security he would erode, whose schools he would close and whose jobs he would ship to China.”
But a spokesman for the alum of MTV’s reality show “The Real World” fired back in a released statement.
“Our nation faces a real fiscal crisis and Congressman Duffy is committed to working with his colleagues in the House to face these challenges head on, not score cheap political points,” he said.
For moonbat glamour, not even Elton John can top congresscritter Sheila Jackson Lee:
From Michael Barry, the Czar of Texas Radio, on a tip from Bill T.
While recently outed anti-gay New York state Sen. Carl Kruger and his gynecologist boyfriend await trial on federal bribery and corruption charges, the New York Times examines what Kruger did with all that looted dough.
Federal corruption charges leveled against State Senator Carl Kruger this month described how he had helped provide luxuries to the two brothers with whom he lives in Brooklyn. The charges say Mr. Kruger, 61, a Democrat, used money from bribes for the mortgage of the waterfront mansion in Mill Basin where the three men live with the brothers’ 73-year-old mother. Then, the charges say, there is the Bentley driven by one of the brothers — bribe money paid for the lease. Also, according to the charges, bribe money went to their credit card bills as well as to mysterious “apparently personal payments.”
Mysterious “apparently personal payments”? Uh HUH. Wanna bet there’s a rentboy or ten on the other end of THAT little detail?
RELATED: The loathsome Kruger was one of the eight traitorous Senate Democrats who voted against same-sex marriage in 2009, leading gay activists to denounce him as a self-hating closet case and picket outside of his home. The mainstream media took little notice at the time, something they surely now regret.
UPDATE: Here’s the waterfront home paid for by Kruger’s crimes. The Times describes the house as “cruise-ship-meets-mob-mansion.” Its previous owner was a Luchese family mob boss who ordered a hit on the house’s architect. Not pictured is Kruger’s 49-foot yacht, Special Delivery.
Subscribe to Joe.My.God.![]()
By Ilya Shapiro
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Arizona matching-public-campaign-funding case, McComish v. Bennett, spearheaded by our friends at the Goldwater Institute and the Institute for Justice.
Here’s the background: In 1998, after years of scandals ranging from governors being indicted to legislators taking bribes, Arizona passed the Citizens Clean Elections Act. This law was intended to “clean up” state politics by creating a system for publicly funding campaigns. Participation in the public funding is not mandatory, however, and those who do not participate are subject to rules that match their “excess” private funds with disbursals to their opponent from the public fund. In short, if a privately funded candidate spends more than his publicly funded opponent, then the publicly funded candidate receives public “matching funds.”
Whatever the motivations behind the law, the effects have been to significantly chill political speech. Indeed, ample evidence introduced at trial showed that privately funded candidates changed their spending — and thus their speaking — as a result of the matching funds provisions. Notably, in a case where a privately funded candidate is running against more than one publicly assisted opponent, the matching funds act as a multiplier: if privately funded candidate A is running against publicly funded candidates B, C, and D, every dollar A spends will effectively fund his opposition three-fold. In elections where there is no effective speech without spending money, the matching funds provision unquestionably chills speech and thus is clearly unconstitutional. For more, see Roger Pilon’s policy forum featuring Goldwater lawyer Nick Dranias, which Cato hosted last week and you can view here.
The oral arguments were entertaining, if predictable. A nice debate opened up between Justices Scalia and Kagan about the burden that publicly financed speech imposes on candidats who trigger that sort of financing mechanism under Arizona law. Justice Kennedy then entered the fray, starting out in his usual place — open to both sides — but soon was laying into the Arizona’s counsel alongside Justice Alito and the Chief Justice.
The United States was granted argument time to support Arizona’s law, but Justice Alito walked the relatively young lawyer from the Solicitor General’s office right into what I consider to be his (Alito’s) best majority opinion to date, the federal “millionaire’s amendment” case (paraphrasing; here’s the transcript):
Alito: Do you agree that “leveling the playing field” is not a valid rationale for restricting speech?
US: Sort of.
Alito: Have you read FEC v. Davis?
Note to aspiring SCOTUS litigators: try not to finesse away direct precedent written by a sitting justice.
My prediction is that the Court will decide this as they did Davis, 5-4, with Alito writing the opinion striking down the law and upholding free speech. Cato’s amicus briefs in this case, which you can read here and here, focused on the similarities to Davis, so I’m keeping my fingers crossed that we’ll get cited.
NB: I got to the Court too late to get into the courtroom today but live-tweeted (@ishapiro) the oral arguments from the (overflow) bar members’ lounge, which has a live audio feed. I was later informed that such a practice violates the Court rules, however — ironic given how pro-free-speech this Court is – so I will not be repeating the short-lived experiment. (That said, you should still follow me on Twitter — and also be sure to follow our friends @IJ and @GoldwaterInst!)
If the Government Gives Your Election Opponent More Money the More Money You Spend, It Burdens Your Speech is a post from Cato @ Liberty – Cato Institute Blog
Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) has made some pretty absurd comments over the years. Most notably, perhaps, was her quip that “we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what is in it.” But comments sent out in a press release yesterday rival that condescending statement. In a release concerning House Speaker John Boehner’s (R–OH) efforts to repeal Obamacare, Pelosi added:
Speaker Boehner plans to bring to the floor his own legislation that moves to privatize public education in the District of Columbia. … [It] is an ideological effort to recreate a program that was ended years ago because it did not work.
Where to begin? The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (DCOSP) has been a resounding success. Congressionally mandated evaluations of the scholarship program by the U.S. Department of Education revealed that DCOSP children are making gains in academic achievement, particularly reading achievement. Notably, students who received a voucher and used it to attend private school had a 91 percent graduation rate. Graduation rates in D.C. Public Schools stand at just around 55 percent. Clearly, the program works.
Moreover, the scholarships were not ended; they were placed on life support when Senator Richard Durbin (D–IL) placed language into an omnibus spending bill in 2009 prohibiting new students from entering the program. Ask the nearly 1,100 students who are currently benefiting from vouchers to attend private school whether the program was “ended,” as Pelosi claims.
Instead, Boehner and Senator Joe Lieberman (ID–CT) have introduced a bill to reauthorize the DCOSP, and to lift the prohibition on new students from entering. The proposal would take the program off life support and ensure that quality school choice options exist for low-income families in D.C.
In what could be the most consequential education vote of the year, Boehner’s Scholarships for Opportunity and Results (SOAR) Act will be voted on in the House tomorrow. A sign of the importance the Speaker places on school choice, it’s the only bill he plans to sponsor this year.
Pelosi’s intimation that providing school choice to low-income children in the nation’s capitol creates some sort of fiscal burden is also woefully incorrect. The DCOSP is a fiscally responsible plan to ensure that low-income students in the nation’s capitol have access to a quality education. The DCOSP:
- Restores original alignment to D.C. educational improvement. Since 2004, the highly successful and popular DCOSP has been funded as part of a three-sector approach to improving education in Washington, D.C. That plan had provided equal amounts of funding for the DCOSP, D.C. Public Charter Schools, and D.C. Public Schools (DCPS). But in 2009, Congress upset the balance of the three-sector approach by tripling the appropriation for DCPS while simultaneously starting to phase out the DCOSP.
- Reduces spending and prioritizes choice. The proposal to restore and expand the DCOSP also reduces spending for the three-sector approach by $ 15.4 million. The $ 60 million authorization being proposed is $ 15.4 million less than the current baseline appropriation of $ 75.4 million for fiscal year 2010.
- Shifts funds to what works. Proposals to restore the DCOSP would reduce overall funding for the three-sector approach and shift money to what works: parental choice in education. Under the proposal, each of the sectors would receive $ 20 million in funding.
The $ 7,500 scholarships offered through the DCOSP are also a far more cost-effective and efficient way to spend precious taxpayer resources:
- DCPS has among the highest per-pupil expenditures in the country yet ranks 51st in terms of academic achievement. It also has a poor school safety record.
- Per-pupil spending in DCPS now exceeds $ 17,600—more than twice the amount of the DCOSP. While the House and Senate reauthorization bills would increase the scholarships to $ 8,000 and $ 12,000 for elementary and secondary students, respectively, the vouchers would still be significantly less than per-pupil spending in DCPS.
Providing school choice to children living in the nation’s capital should be a priority for any lawmaker who cares about equality of opportunity, parental empowerment, and increasing education outcomes. The icing on the cake of the DCOSP is that it’s a fiscally responsible plan to accomplish those goals.
Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) has made some pretty absurd comments over the years. Most notably, perhaps, was her quip that “we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what is in it.” But comments sent out in a press release yesterday rival that condescending statement. In a release concerning House Speaker John Boehner’s (R–OH) efforts to repeal Obamacare, Pelosi added:
Speaker Boehner plans to bring to the floor his own legislation that moves to privatize public education in the District of Columbia. … [It] is an ideological effort to recreate a program that was ended years ago because it did not work.
Where to begin? The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (DCOSP) has been a resounding success. Congressionally mandated evaluations of the scholarship program by the U.S. Department of Education revealed that DCOSP children are making gains in academic achievement, particularly reading achievement. Notably, students who received a voucher and used it to attend private school had a 91 percent graduation rate. Graduation rates in D.C. Public Schools stand at just around 55 percent. Clearly, the program works.
Moreover, the scholarships were not ended; they were placed on life support when Senator Richard Durbin (D–IL) placed language into an omnibus spending bill in 2009 prohibiting new students from entering the program. Ask the nearly 1,100 students who are currently benefiting from vouchers to attend private school whether the program was “ended,” as Pelosi claims.
Instead, Boehner and Senator Joe Lieberman (ID–CT) have introduced a bill to reauthorize the DCOSP, and to lift the prohibition on new students from entering. The proposal would take the program off life support and ensure that quality school choice options exist for low-income families in D.C.
In what could be the most consequential education vote of the year, Boehner’s Scholarships for Opportunity and Results (SOAR) Act will be voted on in the House tomorrow. A sign of the importance the Speaker places on school choice, it’s the only bill he plans to sponsor this year.
Pelosi’s intimation that providing school choice to low-income children in the nation’s capitol creates some sort of fiscal burden is also woefully incorrect. The DCOSP is a fiscally responsible plan to ensure that low-income students in the nation’s capitol have access to a quality education. The DCOSP:
- Restores original alignment to D.C. educational improvement. Since 2004, the highly successful and popular DCOSP has been funded as part of a three-sector approach to improving education in Washington, D.C. That plan had provided equal amounts of funding for the DCOSP, D.C. Public Charter Schools, and D.C. Public Schools (DCPS). But in 2009, Congress upset the balance of the three-sector approach by tripling the appropriation for DCPS while simultaneously starting to phase out the DCOSP.
- Reduces spending and prioritizes choice. The proposal to restore and expand the DCOSP also reduces spending for the three-sector approach by $ 15.4 million. The $ 60 million authorization being proposed is $ 15.4 million less than the current baseline appropriation of $ 75.4 million for fiscal year 2010.
- Shifts funds to what works. Proposals to restore the DCOSP would reduce overall funding for the three-sector approach and shift money to what works: parental choice in education. Under the proposal, each of the sectors would receive $ 20 million in funding.
The $ 7,500 scholarships offered through the DCOSP are also a far more cost-effective and efficient way to spend precious taxpayer resources:
- DCPS has among the highest per-pupil expenditures in the country yet ranks 51st in terms of academic achievement. It also has a poor school safety record.
- Per-pupil spending in DCPS now exceeds $ 17,600—more than twice the amount of the DCOSP. While the House and Senate reauthorization bills would increase the scholarships to $ 8,000 and $ 12,000 for elementary and secondary students, respectively, the vouchers would still be significantly less than per-pupil spending in DCPS.
Providing school choice to children living in the nation’s capital should be a priority for any lawmaker who cares about equality of opportunity, parental empowerment, and increasing education outcomes. The icing on the cake of the DCOSP is that it’s a fiscally responsible plan to accomplish those goals.
America’s finest news source explains:
In a move that media executives, economic forecasters and business analysts alike are calling “extremely bold,” NYTimes.com put into place a groundbreaking new business model today in which the news website will charge people money to consume the goods and services it provides. “The whole idea of an American business trying to make a profit off of a product its hired professionals create on a daily basis is a truly brave and intrepid strategy,” said media analyst Steve Messner, adding that NYTimes.com’s extremely risky new approach to commerce — wherein legal tender must be exchanged in order to receive a desired service — could drastically reduce the publication’s readership.
Ezra Klein
America’s finest news source explains:
In a move that media executives, economic forecasters and business analysts alike are calling “extremely bold,” NYTimes.com put into place a groundbreaking new business model today in which the news website will charge people money to consume the goods and services it provides. “The whole idea of an American business trying to make a profit off of a product its hired professionals create on a daily basis is a truly brave and intrepid strategy,” said media analyst Steve Messner, adding that NYTimes.com’s extremely risky new approach to commerce — wherein legal tender must be exchanged in order to receive a desired service — could drastically reduce the publication’s readership.
Ezra Klein
