« STAR TRIBUNE: “JUDGE DISMISSES DFL COMPLAINT OVER ADS TARGETING FRANKEN” | Home | MN GOP PRESS RELEASE: “REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA TO OFFER PRIZE TO ANYONE WHO CAN GET FRANKEN’S ACCOUNTANT TO EXPLAIN FRANKEN’S TAXES PRIOR TO 2003″ »
MN GOP PRESS RELEASE: “MADIA ABANDONS PLEDGE TO NOT ACCEPT CORPORATE PAC CONTRIBUTIONS”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | August 20, 2008
Ashwin Madia’s campaign, while claiming they won’t accept corporate PAC money, accepting a contribution from a PAC with “corporation federal PAC” in their name. Please read the complete release from the Republican Party of Minnesota.
###
St. Paul – Republican Party of Minnesota Chair Ron Carey today released the following statement regarding Ashwin Madia’s acceptance of corporate PAC donation
“Throughout his campaign, Ashwin Madia has spoken against taking money from corporate PACs, and has said his campaign would not take any money. However, campaign finance reports show his campaign received over $10,000 in corporate and business PAC contributions dating back to March 2008 – and he continued to say he wouldn’t take these contributions even after he had begun accepting them. Madia’s say one thing, do another approach to his own campaign finances shows he cannot be trusted.â€
Madia: “What I Haven’t Been Taking Money From Is Corporate PACs.†“What I haven’t been taking money from is corporate PACs. And the reason I haven’t is because I think right now that corporations exercise too much influence in Washington D.C…whether it’s the energy companies, insurance companies or the pharmaceutical companies… and I think it’s undeniable that they have effected policy by paying…by funding campaigns of both parties, and so I’m proud of the fact that I’m not taking money from them.” (Midday, Minnesota Public Radio, April 11, 2008)
August: Madia’s Campaign Manager Says He Will Not Accept Any Corporate PAC Money. “Madia has called for removing corporate tax breaks for oil companies, something Paulsen did not address in his presentation. Rosenberg said Madia will not accept any corporate PAC money from the energy industry or any other corporate political-action committee.†(Paul Wahl, “Paulsen Calls For Energy Plan That Boosts Use Of Wind, Solar And Nuclear,†MN Sun, August 13, 2008)
FEC Reports Show Over $10,000 Received From Corporate  And Business PACs
· Dorsey National Fund, $500.00 on 03/20/2008 (Madia For Congress April 2008 Quarterly, www.fec.gov, accessed August 19, 2008)
· Lockridge Grindal Nauen Political Fund, $1000.00 on 03/21/2008 (Madia For Congress April 2008 Quarterly, www.fec.gov, accessed August 19, 2008)
· Sterns & Weinroth A Professional Corporation Federal PAC, $500.00 on 06/19/2008 (Madia for Congress July 2008 Quarterly, www.fec.gov, accessed August 19, 2008)
· Lockridge Grindal Nauen Political Fund, $4000.00 on 05/27/2008 (Madia For Congress July 2008 Quarterly, www.fec.gov, accessed August 19, 2008)
· Robins Kaplan PAC, $2000.00 on 06/09/2008 (Madia For Congress July 2008 Quarterly, www.fec.gov, accessed August 19, 2008)
· Faegre And Benson P.L.L.P. Federal Political Committee, $500.00 on 06/18/2008 (Madia For Congress July 2008 Quarterly, www.fec.gov, accessed August 19, 2008)
· Dorsey National Fund, $2500.00 on 06/23/2008 (Madia For Congress July 2008 Quarterly, www.fec.gov, accessed August 19, 2008)
###
This is a reminder that I am a part-time research consultant to Erik Paulsen for Congress. Minnesota Democrats Exposed is my personal blog and it is not created, endorsed, sponsored, or authorized by any political party, candidate, or candidate’s committee.
Tags: Ashwin Madia, Uncategorized
Topics: Ashwin Madia, Uncategorized | 82 Comments »
82 Responses to “MN GOP PRESS RELEASE: “MADIA ABANDONS PLEDGE TO NOT ACCEPT CORPORATE PAC CONTRIBUTIONS””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:48 PM
I thought you were spokesman, Michael.
Can’t Team Paulsen get their story straight?
August 20th, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Ouch. Another Dem caught in a blatant lie.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Clearly Big Law loves Ashwin Madia.
No wonder he opposed FISA reform.
The former former lawyer sure knows where his bread is buttered.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Once again, the MN GOP can’t shoot straight.
There is a clear difference in campaign finance law between corporate PACs (e.g., a Fortune 500 company) and partnership PACs (e.g., a law firm).
True to his pledge, Madia has not taken any money from corporate PACs.
The contributions listed above are all from partnership PACs.
If Erik Paulsen has this much trouble understanding basic campaign finance law, why on earth would the Third District send him to DC as a lawmaker?
August 20th, 2008 at 1:09 PM
MinnVoter: Your dead wrong. Please note that Madia’s campaign accepted a PAC check from Sterns & Weinroth A Professional Corporation Federal PAC, $500.00 on 06/19/2008 (Madia for Congress July 2008 Quarterly, http://www.fec.gov, accessed August 19, 2008).
August 20th, 2008 at 1:10 PM
“Clearly Big Law loves Ashwin Madia.”
And clearly, after the GOP holding the levers of power this decade, the GreedOverPrinciples party hats the rule of law.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Yeah, the biggest difference between a Corporate Pack and a Partnership PAC is the name.
Holy crap, does anyone really buy a lame ass excuse that PAC contributions from a series of contributions multi-million dollar law firms is any better than a series of contributions from businesses?
Law firms are businesses. They’re also corporations, to a great extent.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Sterns & Weinroth is a professional corporation, not a partnership.
“Professional corporations (PCs) and professional limited liability companies (PLLCs) are corporations and limited liability companies organized for the purpose of providing professional services.”
August 20th, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Clearly Tommy loves Cheetos!
http://www.oculon.org/animatedgif/cheeto.jpg
August 20th, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Clearly Chestnut loves republiCon bloggers!
August 20th, 2008 at 1:47 PM
This is absurd.
Everyone of these organizations are law firms not corporations. One of them is his former law firm, and the almost every other one of them are local law firms — most of which have also given to Paulsen.
A law firm, by nature of the rules of professional responsibility, cannot act in the fashion of a corporation.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:49 PM
“Holy crap, does anyone really buy a lame ass excuse that PAC contributions from a series of contributions multi-million dollar law firms is any better than a series of contributions from businesses?”
Well, for one, there’s not a lot of law firm tax credits such as the oil company tax credits.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:51 PM
PD, technically you’re probably right about the distinction between law firms and corporations themselves.
But a law firm PAC is the same as a corporate PAC.
And it’s pretty clear that Madia has accepted at least one corporate PAC contribution, in addition to numerous law firm PAC contributions.
Eh. It’s not like he’s the first DFL politician to tell a fist full of lies. Dishonesty worked pretty well for DFLers in 2006. Ya can’t blame them for giving it a full run again in 2008.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Could one of your liberals tell me why it is ok to take money from a PAC from a law firm but not ok to take money from a corporate PAC? Considering that they both are out to benefit themselves when they give money why would he consider it ok to accept money from any PAC?
August 20th, 2008 at 1:52 PM
“there’s not a lot of law firm tax credits”
No, they’re just free to extort cash unfettered.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:55 PM
“Everyone of these organizations are law firms not corporations”
You are incorrect sir.
Sterns & Weinroth identifies itself as “A Professional Corporation” right on it’s website.
LLPs are corporations without a board. The partners run the corporation instead of a board. Other than that, they are corporations.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:00 PM
PlymouthDem: Ashwin Madia’s campaign, while claiming they won’t accept corporate PAC money, accepting a contribution from a PAC with “corporation federal PAC†in their name.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Madia had better keep his running shoes at the ready..he’s got some ‘splainin’ to do!
August 20th, 2008 at 2:06 PM
I did some checking; and it appears that Michael’s just stepping in temporarily while Paulsen’s new spokesperson is traveling to the place some folk actually think practics “Minnesota Nice.”
***
Cantor Staffer Leaving
Tue, August 19, 2008 – 12:28 PM
Rep. Eric Cantor’s press secretary Stacey Johnson is taking a leave of absence from the Virginia Republican’s office to work on another campaign – and it’s not the Cantor for V.P. campaign.
In what may be a sign that McCain is no longer looking at Cantor as potential running mate, the Cantor spokeswoman will begin her leave this week.
Johnson said she will drive to Minnesota Saturday, where she’ll coordinate the media effort for Republican State Senator Erik Paulsen’s congressional bid. Paulsen faces Democrat Ashwin Madia in the race for Minnesota’s third congressional district seat being vacated by Republican Rep. Jim Ramstad.
–Neil Simon
August 20th, 2008 at 2:06 PM
“Sterns & Weinroth identifies itself as “A Professional Corporation†right on it’s website.
P.C.s are special beasts distinct from general corporations. In particular, they are designed to abide, in part, with the requirements that law firms cannot be corporations (ie, run by non-outside lawyers). However, unlike a straight up partnership, a P.C. shields other partners from the misconduct of their other partners. They work, in essence, like an L.L.P. But, unlike a corporation, it does not shield the individual partner from the consequence of the misconduct. It also ensures that the firm is not impacted by outside managerial influence that can create conflicts.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Anyone who thinks that law firms don’t get as many benefits and have a more dangerous conflict of interest than oil companies or any other private businesses is either intentionally ignorant or just a plain old moron. Hello – their business is directly related to lawmaking…the more complex and obtuse Ashwin and his buddies make laws, the more money attorneys get…it’s that simple.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:10 PM
So let me get this straight… is Madia for or against accepting money from PACs?
August 20th, 2008 at 2:10 PM
… or does it depend on what the definition of “is” is?
August 20th, 2008 at 2:12 PM
“PlymouthDem: Ashwin Madia’s campaign, while claiming they won’t accept corporate PAC money, accepting a contribution from a PAC with “corporation federal PAC†in their name.”
Michael,
Your lack of grasp is often shocking. That law firm is no more a “corporation” than say a couple of doctors who are organized as a P.C. It is a specialized type of relationship between the owners that is distinct from a typical corporation. Namely, in a P.C. (or L.L.P., or partnership) you can’t hide behind the corporate veil to avoid malfeasance. At the end of the day, that’s the whole reason to incorporate in the first place. Lawyers, doctors, accountant, etc. don’t get that luxury. Corporate CEOs typically do.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:13 PM
“So let me get this straight… is Madia for or against accepting money from PACs?”
When has he ever taken a position on PACs generally? He’s clearly taken money from PACs. He has said he hasn’t taken money from corporations.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Gold medal awarded to PlymouthDem for his gymnastics trying to explain how a professional corporation isn’t referred to as a corporation!
From wikipedia bro…
“Professional corporations (abbreviated as PC or P.C.) are those corporate entities for which many corporation statutes make special provision, regulating the use of the corporate form by licensed professionals such as attorneys, architects, and doctors.”
key quote: USE OF THE CORPORATE FORM BY LISCENSED PROFESSIONALS SUCH AS ATTORNEYS
August 20th, 2008 at 2:19 PM
PlymouthDem: The MN GOP’s press release establishes that Madia has since broken that pledge. A professional corporation is still a corporation.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:19 PM
You’d think that Democrats might get tired of having to continually make asses of themselves in order to blow smoke on behalf of their lying, lowlife candidates.
So Madia didn’t take PAC money, until he did. Really, these leftist scumbags deserve a bitchslap for the way they treat the voters.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:22 PM
“From wikipedia bro…”
You got me with your devastating highly qualified wikipedia reference.
Let me translate: in the case of a P.C. regulating a law firm, the corporate statutes essentially neuter the protections afforded corporations so that those rendering services (accountants, lawyers, etc.) can access some of the benefits of a corporation.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:24 PM
PlymouthDem,
And your qualifications are what exactly?
Jackass.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:24 PM
“So Madia didn’t take PAC money, until he did. Really, these leftist scumbags deserve a bitchslap for the way they treat the voters.”
Madia never said he wouldn’t take PAC money. He’s taken PAC money from democratic political groups, law firms, and unions from the beginning. You can take issue with what, if any, conflicts that causes all you want.
Madia has attacked Paulsen for taking big oil, big health, insurance, and big corporation money. None of these law firms are big oil, health, insurance or corporates.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:27 PM
“You’d think that republiCons might get tired of having to continually make asses of themselves in order to blow smoke on behalf of their lying, lowlife candidates.
So Coleman is open and transparent about his rent and his utilities, until he isn’t” . Really, these
RightWingNutJobs deserve a bitchslap for the way they treat the voters.”
Good job, Scrotee!!!
August 20th, 2008 at 2:28 PM
PlymouthDem: The MN GOP’s press release establishes that Madia has since broken that pledge. A professional corporation is still a corporation.
Also, do you have any connection to Madia’s campaign? Volunteer or paid?
August 20th, 2008 at 2:31 PM
“None of these law firms are big oil, health, insurance or corporates.”
Slow learner I see. Write this down on flash card and take your time with it.
professional corporation n. a corporation formed for the purpose of conducting a profession which requires a license to practice, including attorneys, physicians, dentists, certified public accountants, architects, and real estate brokers. Most states provide for such corporations under special statutes which allow the corporation to operate with a single director, who is a professional. However, unlike other corporations, the organization does not provide a shield for liability for any professional negligence (malpractice) by the licensed professionals.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:32 PM
You know what they say PD, if you’re explaining, your losing.
Keep explaining. Pretty soon, you’ll just be a twisted wreck like Tommy Johnson, unable to decipher between the voices in your head and reality, taking orders from your dachshund, and imagining grand conspiracies.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:32 PM
“None of these law firms are big oil, health, insurance or corporates.”
Yeah, those are those law firms’ clients.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:34 PM
“None of these law firms are big oil, health, insurance or corporates.â€
Yeah, and unlike Madia’s law firms, those special interests contribute to society.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:35 PM
“PlymouthDem: The MN GOP’s press release establishes that Madia has since broken that pledge. A professional corporation is still a corporation.”
Even if I concede that a P.C. is a corporation (I’m not), it’s not, you are basing this on a single $500 continuation, is a LAW FIRM? In that case I guess you are “technically correct” but, as the judge indicated yesterday, MnGOP is quite good at being technically right but completely misleading.
“Also, do you have any connection to Madia’s campaign? Volunteer or paid?”
No. Unless you count sub-caucusing.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:37 PM
“You know what they say PD, if you’re explaining, your losing.”
Or your audience needs explaining.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Michael, it doesn’t “establish”; it “claims”.
And keep in mind, republiCon Ron isn’t exactly the most trustworthy spokesman the MnGOP has; after all, it was GOP employees that claim under republiCon Ron’s “stewardship” employee payroll deductions weren’t properly deposited in employee accounts but instead were used to pay party operating expenses.
That’s “GOP employees” questioning Ron Carey’s ethics and legal activities, Michael.
So, no – it has NOT been “established”; it’s been alleged. There’s a legal difference, not that legality has been a major concern of the GOP this decade….oh, wait – it’s only GOP’s activities where the GOP has shown disdain and contempt for legalities.
BTW – do you know when republiCon Ron is going to address the party faithful with the results of the BrainCave audit into GOP party finances?
August 20th, 2008 at 2:40 PM
“professional corporation n. a corporation formed for the purpose of conducting a profession which requires a license to practice, including attorneys, physicians, dentists, certified public accountants, architects, and real estate brokers. Most states provide for such corporations under special statutes which allow the corporation to operate with a single director, who is a professional. However, unlike other corporations, the organization does not provide a shield for liability for any professional negligence (malpractice) by the licensed professionals.”
Exactly, a neutered corporation. In the context of a law firm it means no outside management and no corporate veil for personal liability.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:42 PM
“Or your audience needs explaining.”
The headline on this, PD, is “Madia accepts PAC contributions, breaks pledge.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:48 PM
It is highly amusing to watch our resident lefty idiots “run around” in here wearing their candidates dirty underwear on their heads!
HAAHAHahaha!
August 20th, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Moreover, the explanation of what kind of corporation is a bona fide corporation, per your candidate’s definition (or the FEC for that matter) is a waste of time…
Frankly, it was a stupid pledge for Madia — or any candidate — to make.
A better pledge, would be only to accept contributions from individuals and PACs that are Minnesota-based, or which have a compelling interest in Minnesota as a place of operations.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:49 PM
“Exactly, a neutered corporation. In the context of a law firm it means no outside management and no corporate veil for personal liability.”
Exactly, a [neutered] corporation.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:55 PM
“Frankly, it was a stupid pledge for Madia — or any candidate — to make. A better pledge, would be only to accept contributions from individuals and PACs that are Minnesota-based, or which have a compelling interest in Minnesota as a place of operations.”
I can’t disagree with this.
PACs undoubtedly are merely a tool for individuals to funnel excessive amounts of money into campaigns. But, it’s also not realistic for candidates to make this pledge.
And, I think candidates must accept the baggage with accepting money from PACs — namely that it creates a presumption of being in the PACs pocket. Madia needs to live with his contributions from big law and unions. But, Paulsen needs to live with his contributions from Big law, oil, insurance, etc.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Paulsen never tried to make the public believe he wasn’t taking corporate PAC money.
Madia tried to make the public believe he wasn’t taking corporate PAC money when he was.
In this instance, Madia lied.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:01 PM
This kind of serial lying is old hat for lefty’s.
Anyone remember when Paul Wellstoned! promised not to run for a third term, until he did?
Listen, these dirtballs have no integrity…they’re Democrats; QED. But I have to say that until we had dedicated American hero’s like Mike Brodkorb out here shining his spotlight into the Dem’s dirty little corners people had an excuse for voting Democrat.
Now that the plain truth is available to see, anyone that continues to throw their allegience behind a lying Democrat candidate is either criminally stupid, or criminally inclined.
Thanks MDE, for all you do buddy!
August 20th, 2008 at 3:02 PM
“Madia needs to live with his contributions from big law and unions. But, Paulsen needs to live with his contributions from Big law, oil, insurance, etc.”
Fair enough… but at the end of the day, Madia can’t hammer anyone over the source of their PAC money. This is not a distinction for his campaign.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:03 PM
My point: accept or don’t accept contributions from PACs. That’s your choice. If you accept money from some PACs, you may as well accept from all comers.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:06 PM
GOPers:
I know you want an easy sound-bite, but making laws is not about sound-bites.
As PD has been saying, a law firm that exists as a “professional corporation” (usually referred to as a P.C.) has different a different legal structure and different legal responsibilities than a company that is incorporated, or is an LLP, or is an LLC.
As an example, when Erik Paulsen took his contribution from ExxonMobil’s PAC, that was from ExxonMobil, Inc., not ExxonMobil, P.C.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:12 PM
“Anyone remember when Gil Gutnecht PROMISED to abide by term limits, until he didn’t?”
Damn, you’re a (cheney)in’ hypocrite, Scrotee. Go back to what you do “best”, ya pervert.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:14 PM
GOP, what’s your point? A professional corporation is a corporation in its very definition. Madia said he didn’t take corporate PACs, but he did.
Stop trying to squirm your way out of it.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:15 PM
ha! #54 was in response to MinnVoter. whoops.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:24 PM
PDem and Minnvoter, at best you are splitting hairs.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:27 PM
I’m astounded at the AUDACITY of the Dems here to HOPE that somehow taking PAC money from the one of the largest law firms in this country (Dorsey & Whitney) and many others isn’t considered taking corporate PAC money.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:38 PM
madia is like obama; they make a promise about how campaign funding, then renege on their pledge. in obama’s case he said he would accept public financing; then, when he found out he could outraise mccain probably 2:1, he decided public financing was not a viable funding source. i don’t blame him for going this route, but of course obama could not be honest about it–he spun it that there were numerous special interest groups out there (like there are no lib special interest groups????) so public financing would not be adequate. no wonder the polls are showing he cannot be trusted.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Bowhuntdude-
Yes, you are very clever to have worked “Audacity” and “Hope” into your comment. But remind me never to vote for you for Congress, since you seem unable to grasp a very simple legal concept: a partnership (like Dorsey & Whitney) is not a corporation.
Partnership PAC money is not corporate PAC money.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:58 PM
MinnLib,
You seem unable able to grasp that a professional corporation is in fact a corporation.
If you want to learn, there’s a definition in comment #34.
You’ve lost this one man.
August 20th, 2008 at 4:32 PM
MinnVoter, Partnership PAC money is PAC money. There’s no difference in it’s agenda.
If anything, a corporate PAC is cleaner in its source of financing and its intent than any law firm PAC.
Either way, Madia loses this one.
August 20th, 2008 at 4:34 PM
BowHuntDude:
In comment #34, you quoted a random definition from the internet.
If you had googled more intelligently, you would have found this:
https://www.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/treasury/revenue/dcr/filing/page1.cgi
It’s the NJ state government page listing the types of corporate entities that exist in that state. (NJ because the contribution at issue came from a law firm in that state.)
Click on the pull-down tab. One choice is “for-profit corporation.” Another is “professional corporation.” They are different entities.
Sure, there are some things in common between them. But they are not the same thing.
With your argument, you’re essentially saying that a canoe is a jet ski. In reality, though, a canoe and a jet ski have some things in common, but they are very different in other ways. They are not the same thing.
August 20th, 2008 at 4:55 PM
I suggest we forget trying to discuss this topic with the moonbats.
Some of these people are not stupid (and of course some set new standards of stupidity…right, Cheeto boy?), they know that Madia has lied. But they are Democrats, they will never admit the truth, and even if they did it wouldn’t change their minds.
Don’t forget, this is the same group of people that continue to support Porn-O-Rama Franken and so many despicable people just like him. They have effectively numbed themselves to any reasonable standard of decency…they really don’t care.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:02 PM
“MinnVoter, Partnership PAC money is PAC money. There’s no difference in it’s agenda.
If anything, a corporate PAC is cleaner in its source of financing and its intent than any law firm PAC.
Either way, Madia loses this one.”
I think this is mixing issues. Can Madia be held to account for taking money from Big Law? Yes. But, PACs really only track back to agenda they want to promote. Law firms’ agendas are far different than oil companies which are far different than unions which are far different than insurance company PACs. Both candidates must accept some hit in terms of aligning themselves with certain organizations. I personally have less of a problem with law firms than I do oil companies. But, I’m a lawyer not an oil tycoon. Others may have a different view.
This debate, however, is whether Madia went against his statement that he won’t take money from corporations. I think it’s a semantic stretch to say a single $500 contribution from a law firm which is structured as a P.C. (not a general for-profit corporation) means he’s broken some promise. Law firms by ABA standards cannot be a corporation in the traditional sense of the word. That’s why a special status (P.C.) had to be created. We should be able to agree that this specific law firm is far more like an L.L.P. than it is an incorporated company. It’s certainly more like a LAW FIRM than it is Wal-Mart or Exxon.
At best, this is another example of the GOP AT BEST telling only part of the truth and in so doing, misleading.
Feel free to say Madia says he won’t take corporate PAC money but he takes it from unions, law firms, and political PACs. But, it’s misleading to say a single law firm contribution suddenly means he’s abandoned his pledge to not take money from corporations (ie, oil, insurance, bank, etc. PACs).
August 20th, 2008 at 5:23 PM
MinnLib and PlymouthDem are being misleading here, not MN GOP. Of course, that’s what they have to do to cover for their candidate.
for-profit corporation and professional corporation are two types of corporations. Nothing more. In addition, every law firm classified as a professional corporation or LLP or LLC exists as a for-profit entity.
Ashwin’s pledge off corporate PAC money was to avoid it’s influence. Yet he won’t refuse corporate PAC money from law firms. The large law firms that donated to him are corporate entities whether they are classified as professional corporations or LLPs or LLCs. They exist to make money and by donating could influence politicians in their favor.
Ashwin lied to the public about this and therefore his word cannot be trusted. The FACT is that he did take money from one law firm currently identified as a professional corporation, and others which are classified as LLPs.
MinnLib and PlymouthDem can split hairs on this all they want in an attempt to defend their candidate, but the fact remains; Madia did take money from the PACs of several large law firms which are corporate entities whether they are classified as a professional corporation or LLP or LLC. He said he didn’t take any corporate PAC money which is a lie.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:35 PM
bowhuntdude,
By your logic, any for-profit entity is a corporate entity? A lemonade stand is a corporate entity? It’s not only ridiculous, it’s simply not legally accurate. There are numerous for-profit, even business entities that are not corporate entitles.
An L.L.P. is certainly not a corporation. Even MnGOP admits that in choosing their words closely: “his campaign received over $10,000 in corporate AND BUSINESS PAC.” They needed to add “and business” because they know $9,500 of the contributions can at best be labeled business not corporate contributions.
What’s at issue is a single $500 contribution from a law firm organized as a N.J. P.C.
Call it splitting hairs all you want, a P.C. is by definition not a general corporation as it differs in substantive ways. But, even if it were a “corporation” MnGOP is going to have a hard time pinning a single $500 law firm contribution as being a contribution that should rattle the public’s trust in his honesty.
If he starts taking money from the likes of Exxon, or Wal-Mart, or Blue Cross than you can wave your red flags. But, this is a petty attack which have been the hallmark of Paulsen’s strategy.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:36 PM
BowHuntDude:
You have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to campaign finance law. You’re just plain wrong.
Some advice: don’t post any more ill-informed blog posts about campaign finance law regulating corporations until you do some research. Try http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_pac.shtml for starters.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:48 PM
“Can Madia be held to account for taking money from Big Law? Yes. But, PACs really only track back to agenda they want to promote.”
Well that’s exactly the point, right. A PAC is a PAC is a PAC. In this case, Madia is more than comfortable to be in the pocket of the trial lawyers, professional lobbyists, union thugs and organized crime — the most powerful thieves who take what they earn at considerable cost to the rest of us, and with no accountability to shareholders or anyone else.
I find that more considerably more offensive than taking a few bucks from Nike or SunCo.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:56 PM
Madia made grand statements about rejecting “corporate” PAC money. Oooooo the bogey corporate man.
Like I said, Corporate PACs are at least easy to figure out where the money comes from and what agenda their driving. Law firm PACs, not so much.
How much you want to bet that Madia’s Law Firm PACs funnel money from the firm’s corporate clients? Or at a minimum, from the practice groups representing the industries you stupid DFLers despise?
Beyond that, what are the other primary businesses law firms engage in after frivolous litigation?
Outside corporate counsel to ooooo Big Oil, Pharma, Insurance, et. al. … and if that ain’t enough, those law firms are full of … ooooo LOBBYISTS!!!!!
Huh… I wonder why they want to buy Madia? It’s a good thing he’s for sale to them, and not to those evil businesses.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:59 PM
“trial lawyers, professional lobbyists, union thugs and organized crime ”
The only one on that list that isn’t on Paulsen’s list are specific unions. To the extent you have any evidence that any of those unions on Madia’s list are connected to organized crime I’d LOVE to hear it.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:17 PM
The fact that we are arguing such fine points of what is a corporate PAC and what is a partnership PAC tells me that this is all semantics. Madia is collecting special interest money just like every other guy running for Congress.
Let’s not forget the amount he has received from the Labor bosses….
August 20th, 2008 at 7:13 PM
“You have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to campaign finance law. You’re just plain wrong.”
Nothing about this has to do with campaign finance law. All the contributions made were entirely legal. This has to do with what Madia says and what he actually does.
Nice try to obfuscate the issue though!
August 20th, 2008 at 7:18 PM
“a P.C. is by definition not a general corporation”
Here’s a list of definitions for you. You’ll see that each one says a professional corporation is a corporation.
A professional corporation is a corporation that is formed for the purpose of providing a professional service that by law a for-profit or nonprofit corporation is prohibited from rendering.
professional corporation n. a corporation formed for the purpose of conducting a profession which requires a license to practice, including attorneys, physicians, dentists, certified public accountants, architects, and real estate brokers.
Professional corporations (abbreviated as PC or P.C.) are those corporate entities for which many corporation statutes make special provision, regulating the use of the corporate form by licensed professionals such as attorneys, architects, and doctors.
So he did take corporate PAC money from a corporation, a professional corporation by the name of Sterns & Weinroth. And he said he didn’t.
I will not explain this to you again Plymouth.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:31 PM
And I won’t explain this to you again either. A P.C. is structurally different than a corporation. Your own first definition says a P.C. is created for individual offering services where “by law a for-profit or non-profit corporation is prohibited from rendering.” Law firms can’t be corporations. Therefore, to offer some of the benefits of a corporation, some states (New Jersey included) created a new entity and just happened to call it a P.C.
At the end of the day, Sterns & Weinroth is a law firm, not a general corporation.
I would enjoy Paulsen making an argument to the chamber tomorrow that a single $500 contribution from a law firm means Madia has abandoned his pledge not to take money from CORPORATIONS.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:42 PM
The fact is that a professional corporation is defined as a corporation that employs attorneys, etc.
I would enjoy Madia explaining to CD3 residents how when he’s been out saying he doesn’t take corporate PAC money, the contribution on his FEC report listed as “Sterns & Weinroth A Professional Corporation Federal PAC” isn’t a corporation.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:56 PM
Two questions clear the whole thing up.
1) Did Madia make statements rejecting PAC money?
2) Did Madia accept PAC money.
What constitutes a corporation and what does not and who the source of PAC money is irrelevant.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:58 PM
“1) Did Madia make statements rejecting PAC money?”
No. Only corporate PAC money.
“2) Did Madia accept PAC money.”
Yes. Not corporate PAC money.
Chestnut is right, that cleared everything up.
The debate has always been over the semantics over ONE $500 contribution.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:04 PM
PlymouthDem: The record is clear: Madia accepted corporate PAC contribution, breaking a previous pledge not to accept corporate PAC contributions.
In fact, Madia’s campaign accepted a PAC check from Sterns & Weinroth A Professional Corporation Federal PAC, $500.00 on 06/19/2008 (Madia for Congress July 2008 Quarterly, http://www.fec.gov, accessed August 19, 2008).
The words “professional corporation PAC” is in the name of the PAC.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:28 PM
“PlymouthDem: The record is clear: Madia accepted corporate PAC contribution, breaking a previous pledge not to accept corporate PAC contributions.”
Michael,
Why do you always think just cutting and pasting something you previously wrote is a response? It’s bad enough that you rarely can post anything that’s not fed to you by MnGOP.
The best you have is a semantic argument about him accepting a SINGLE $500 contribution from a law firm.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:07 PM
Eh, Madia is hungry for the PAC money, just like every other politician.
He just is more hungry for the law firm, lobbyist, union, organized crime PAC money than he is for the legitimate corporate PAC money.
Net net: There’s nothing special about Madia.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:10 PM
… and before you say it again, WMD/PD, I could give a shit less that Paulsen has contributors from the same type of list. Paulsen isn’t the jackass who made PAC contributions the issue. Madia is that jackass.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Madia is a crafty politician. He wanted to be able to accept special interest money, but he also wanted to mislead the voters into thinking he did not. So he came up with the position that he would not accept “Corporate†PAC money. I’m sure he thought this was a brilliant position on his part, because Corporations wouldn’t be interested in donating to him anyway, and most of the voters would not notice the distinction he was making between different kinds of special interest money. They would think he was making some bold stance against special interest, when in fact he was giving up nothing.
Then Madia ran into a little problem with his cleaver plan, some law firms are actually Corporations, and one even had “Corporate PAC†in its name. This being exposed is a nightmare for Madia, because not only does it show him as an obvious liar, it also point out that he was playing word games to deceive voters in the first place. Madia is your classic slick politician trying to deceive by telling half-truths. But he is not even good a being slick, because he forgot to make sure their was at least some truth in his half-truths.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:46 PM
[...] corporate PAC check in response to the Republican Party of Minnesota’s (MN GOP) press release from earlier today. The MN GOP’s press release detailed that while pledging not to accept corporate PAC [...]