« MINNESOTA BUZZING WITH NEWS OF MCCAIN-PALIN RALLY | Home | COLEMAN FOR U.S. SENATE MEDIA ADVISORY: “COLEMAN FOR SENATE TO ANNOUNCE TRUTH SQUAD” »
MADIA WON’T RETURN RANGEL’S TAINTED MONEY, WON’T CALL ON RANGEL TO RESIGN CHAIRMANSHIP
By Michael B. Brodkorb | September 16, 2008
In response to yesterday’s press release from the Republican Party of Minnesota about Congressman Charlie Rangel’s ethics problems, Ashwin Madia’s campaign foolishly announced they will not be returning Rangle’s tainted money. Madia’s campaign will also not be joining the calls made by newspapers across the country for Rangel to resign his chairmanship of the Ways and Mean committee.
“‘It’s almost like dirty money here is what we’re dealing with,’ Paulsen’s Communication Director Stacey Johnson said. ‘He’s taking all this money from someone who’s obviously having some ethical issues.’
Rangel has admitted he failed to pay taxes on $75,000 he earned from a property he owns in the Dominican Republic. The House Ethics Committee is also investigating a charge that Rangel improperly used a rent stabilized Harlem apartment as a campaign office.” Source: MPR, September 15, 2008
Click here for the complete story.
Making matters worse for Madia’s campaign, their communications director provided this insightful comment:
“‘I do think there are people who will decide who to vote for in this race based on who is giving money to these candidates,’ Pollock said. ‘The way you raise money is a good indication of how you’ll conduct yourself in Congress.‘” Source: MPR, September 15, 2008
Click here for the complete story.
I agree with Mr. Pollock and Madia accepting money from the ethically challenged Rangel is a “good indication” how Madia will conduct himself in Congress.
###
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.
Topics: Ashwin Madia | 46 Comments »
46 Responses to “MADIA WON’T RETURN RANGEL’S TAINTED MONEY, WON’T CALL ON RANGEL TO RESIGN CHAIRMANSHIP”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Of course he won’t return the money – he’s a Democrat. When do Dems EVER return questionable finances?
-B. Clinton Chinese money (nope)
-W. Jefferson – frozen $93K (nope)
-B. Obama money from Chicago developer (nope)
-B. Obama money from William Ayers (nope)
Nancy Pelosi’s “culture of corruption” is at it again.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:39 am
So, Michael, you think Paulsen taking money from oil companies is a good indication of how he’s going to act while in Congress? You know, like an oil company? Oh, and you think Coleman’s going to act like an indicted crook? After all, he took money from one.
I eagerly await your attempt to spin out of your own spin.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:44 am
I thought Democrats liked paying taxes. Why do so many of them work so hard at avoiding paying taxes?
I guess Democrats think that taxes are just for us “little people” who have no power.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:46 am
“I guess Democrats think that taxes are just for us “little people†who have no power.”
I guess that would make those specific democrats a whole lot like every republican.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Plymouth: Nice distraction…Paulsen accepted a $1,000 contribution…Madia accepted tens of thousands of dollars from Rangel committees. This was a leadership test for Madia and he failed.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:04 am
“Nice distraction…Paulsen accepted a $1,000 contribution”
OHHH.. I get it Michael, so $1,000 isn’t enough to be a “good indication†how a candidate will conduct himself in Congress. I’m curious MIchael, what’s the amount where we hit that magic number? Is it the $3,000 or so he takes from banks? Is it the $5,000 he takes from alcohol distributors or health care providers?
.. and, let’s not even get started with Norm.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Before he hid $75,000 in tax free foreign income, Rangel was caught controlling 4 (FOUR!) rent-stabilized apartments in NYC. He pays half the market-rate for leasing those apartments… one of which is illegally leased because he uses it as an office, not as his primary residence.
Amazing that he can take FOUR rent-stabilized apartments for himself while complaining that there’s not enough affordable housing for people.
Hey Charlie, you alone could return 4 rent-controlled “affordable housing” units back to the market. I’m sure with your 5.7 million and the rental income you’ve got coming in from Punta Cana, you don’t need rent-controlled apartments anymore.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:13 am
What’s wrong with accepting contributions from an oil company? Nice faux outrage.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:19 am
One thing you’ve got to say about Madia, when he’s bought he stays bought.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:25 am
“What’s wrong with accepting contributions from an oil company? Nice faux outrage.”
Nice attempt to deflect. Michael agrees that wher you take your money in a good indication how you will act as a member of congress. He’s implying Madia will act like Rangel because he takes money from them. Paulsen, under that logic, can be expected to act like an oil company, bank, insurance company, etc. and let’s not forget Coleman can be expected to act like a senator who takes kick backs.
I understand that Chestnut thinks oil companies are great. But, I’d love to hear Paulsen campaign with the slogan “vote for me, I’ll act like an oil company.” It’d be honest, at least according to Michael.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:33 am
he should win the election before he starts kissing Charlie Rangel’s ass
September 16th, 2008 at 11:38 am
It’s pretty funny really. Dems fabricated this outrage over receiving campaign contributions from x, y or z business or industrial group. Then they get all worked up when one of two things happens:
1) It is discovered that they, in fact, are accepting contributions from the same parties. In this case, Democrats then say “well so are you”… neglecting the point that they are the only ones who said it was a bad thing to do so.
How dare we point out that they are accepting contributions from a group they alone have declared bad.
2) They keep the door open to a group that can be viewed as just as morally bankrupt as the ones they decry. This is just a case of “it depends on whose ox is being gored.”
For example, I find it more repulsive for Madia to have his campaign propped up by trial lawyer blood suckers and corporate law firms who are acting on behalf of their clients so as to conceal the source of his support, as well as by enviro-communists who wish only to drag down the U.S. economy and re-distribute wealth in the name of “environmentalism.” But I can accept his change of heart to believe that surrender in Iraq is a good policy. He’s wrong, but I can accept that he’s got that opinion.
Anyway I find those much more repulsive than I find the idea of someone like Paulson openly receiving contributions from industries that have legislation that affects up for consideration. And I have no problem with that because Paulson has been open about it… so I can decide if I like which industries he supports.
On that later point, I can understand why MouthDem can disagree. She may hate energy companies, healthcare organizations, etc. We just disagree.
Madia has been dishonest, and accepts a lot of cash from dishonest folks. If he’s really such a stand up guy, he should examine his conduct.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:39 am
MouthDem,
You’re the dummy who deflected from the conversation by bringing supposedly “bad contributions” from bad energy companies.
I mean, I know you make shit up as you go along, but can you at least pay attention to the garbage you’re spreading?
September 16th, 2008 at 11:43 am
This is just stupid: “under that logic, can [we] expected [Paulson] to act like an oil company, bank, insurance company, etc.”
How does one act like an oil company, bank, insurance company, etc.? Are you trying to say that Paulson will start selling oil, credit and insurance? I hope not. I imagine congressman is a full time job.
Or are you insinuating that how those companies act is “bad.” … if so, how? Also, juxtapose their “bad” behavior with the same acts committed on behalf of the trial lawyer blood suckers, corporate law firm lobbyists and inviro-socialists propping up Madia’s campaign.
What makes one group good, and one group bad?
September 16th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Maybe he will act like a public sector company that pays billions to shareholders, provides a fundamental service for all at a bargain rate and pay billions of dollars in taxes.
If only every politician acted like an oil company.
Not like a liberal talk radio network.
Rangel, IMO, has been a sleezeball for decades. ‘Bout time he was caught.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:45 am
“But, I’d love to hear Paulsen campaign with the slogan “vote for me, I’ll act like an oil company.â€
I’d love to hear you explain where you heard Paulsen use that slogan?
Hell, I’d like you to explain what it means.
I’d also like you to explain the difference between these two statements: A) “vote for me and I’ll act like a blood sucking trial lawyer;” and B) “vote for me and I’ll act like an oil company.”
How does an oil company “act.” Are they gregarious, or are they shy? Do they like dinner parties? Or are they home bodies.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Amen, ManGenius!
September 16th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Chestnut-
You have some fair points in your email- i.e. that you can disagree with someone but still respect the fact that they have a differing opinion.
But then you go and say something ludicrous like “enviro-communists who wish only to drag down the U.S. economy…” Really? That’s the only thing they want? You should learn more about http://www.kpcb.com/news/articles/2008_05_00.html Big-time capitalists looking to promote green-tech.
Also, regarding Madia, what on earth are you talking about? All of Madia’s contributions are public, just like all of Paulsen’s contributions. http://www.fec.gov. If you have any questions about which industries Madia would seek to benefit, check out his website. Madia has the guts to take a stand on issues. http://www.madiaforcongress.com
In contrast, Paulsen’s website STILL!!!!! says nothing about Iraq. http://www.paulsenforcongress.com/index.asp?keyword=iraq&searchSection=&SEC=%7B5D26CEF8-1334-423E-973E-E23DC047B350%7D&Type=SEARCH
Whether a candidate will take a stand on difficult issues is a test of leadership, and Paulsen’s refusal to say anything–ANYTHING AT ALL–about Iraq demonstrates that he is no leader.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:49 am
The difference between Rangel and “an oil company” is that apparently, Rangel is an affordable housing hoarding, tax cheat…. whereas an oil company produces goods and services, pays more taxes than they earn, and yet still deliver shareholder value.
I agree with ManGenius: If only every politician acted like an oil company.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:52 am
MinnVoter, how is my assertion about envirocommunists in conflict with businesses promoting “green-tech.”
It’s not.
If you can’t keep up with the conversation, just hit the “sleep” button. Spare us your silliness.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:54 am
“I’d love to hear you explain where you heard Paulsen use that slogan?
Hell, I’d like you to explain what it means.
I’d also like you to explain the difference between these two statements: A) “vote for me and I’ll act like a blood sucking trial lawyer;†and B) “vote for me and I’ll act like an oil company.â€
How does an oil company “act.†Are they gregarious, or are they shy? Do they like dinner parties? Or are they home bodies.”
Jesus Chestnut, can you not read today?
I said, despite your love for oil companies, I’d love to hear Paulsen say what Michael is saying on the campaign trail, that, in essence, he’d act like an oil company because that’s where he gets his money.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Yeah, I caught the error of that first question on a second reading. Sorry for the inconvenience MouthDem.
The rest of the questions stand.
I’d like you to explain what it means.
I’d also like you to explain the difference between these two statements: A) “vote for me and I’ll act like a blood sucking trial lawyer;†and B) “vote for me and I’ll act like an oil company.â€
How does an oil company “act.†Are they gregarious, or are they shy? Do they like dinner parties? Or are they home bodies.â€
September 16th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
And by the way, since oil companies produce necessary goods and services, employ millions, pay more taxes than they earn, and yet still deliver strong shareholder value, I agree with you — One of Paulsen’s top campaign slogans should be “I’ll act like an oil company!!!”
September 16th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Ashwin Madia folishly announced that Ashwin will be Chalie Rangel’s bitch if elected.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Madia probably figures that if PornORama can keep money stolen from kids, he’s on solid ground getting filthy luchre from a poverty pimp.
If you’ve got a Democrat in the house, check the kid’s piggy banks and your jewelry boxes.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Chestnut:
You wrote the following: “MinnVoter, how is my assertion about envirocommunists in conflict with businesses promoting “green-tech.†It’s not. If you can’t keep up with the conversation, just hit the “sleep†button. Spare us your silliness.”
Your ad hominem attack (look it up) is the first clue that your response is flimsy.
Your assertion about “envirocommunists” was not just that they exist generally, but that they are “propping up” Madia’s campaign. (Post #12 above.)
In my response to you (post #18 above), I was pointing out that the environmental groups supporting Madia’s campaign are mainstream green-tech businesspeople, not extremists.
Again, your arguments would be better if they relied on facts. Go to http://www.fec.gov. I challenge you to find me an “envirocommunist” (by any reasonable definition of that made-up word) that has contributed to Madia.
You seem to be forgetting that in this race, Madia is the moderate, and Paulsen is the ideological extremist. If there were a Creationism PAC, or a no-stem-cells-research PAC, it would contribute to Paulsen. The humans-don’t-cause-global-warming PACs have already contributed to Paulsen, i.e. the Petroleum Marketers Association and ExxonMobil.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Ashtray Madia’s just like the rest of these clowns. Absolutely zero conscience. Say one thing, do another. Say whatever it takes to fool voters and then vote and act the party line.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
‘I’d also like you to explain the difference between these two statements: A) “vote for me and I’ll act like a blood sucking trial lawyer;†and B) “vote for me and I’ll act like an oil company.‒
The question is no more relevant to Michael’s hypocrisies the second time you ask it. But, I’ll answer you.
Lawyers know law, I’d kinda like my congressman to act like he knows what they do. Oil companies do make profits, ENORMOUS profits. They do so, however, because they shiv consumers and collective massive tax breaks. We’ll see those huge profits again this quarter EVEN THOUGH their previous excuse (oil is expensive) is out the window. They just are keeping the cost of gas high.
“How does an oil company “act.†Are they gregarious, or are they shy? Do they like dinner parties? Or are they home bodies.—
They line their pockets with cash. I’m sure Paulsen will keep the ball rolling by further cutting their taxes and increasing their access to the commodities they need to stick it to consumers and prolong a real alternative.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Average Joe:
If you had been paying attention to this race at all, you would have known that in the DFL endorsement process, Madia refused to tell the DFL activists what they wanted to hear, i.e. that the U.S. should pull out of Iraq entirely, immediately.
Instead, he told them what he believes: that we do need to reduce our presence there, but we need to do it responsibly. Meanwhile, Madia’s main DFL opponent told the activists what they wanted to hear.
The activists respected Madia’s honesty. That is one of the key reasons he won the endorsement.
You clearly have an ax to grind with Democrats. Fine. But get your facts straight.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
“Lawyers know law, I’d kinda like my congressman to act like he knows what they do. Oil companies do make profits, ENORMOUS profits.”
Thank GOD oil companies make enormous profits! Good for them! But as a percentage of revenues, their profitability is pretty sad. In fact, they make less percentage in profits than professional services firms, e.g., law firms. Oil companies have about a 7 to 8 percent margin. Law firms have about a 30 to 50 percent margin.
The company I work for, which provides information to professional services firms takes home 35 percent margins.
Whose evil now?
“They do so, however, because they shiv consumers and collective massive tax breaks.”
This is bullshit. In fact, what oil companies pay in taxes is about 300 percent higher than the amount they take in as profits.
With only 7-8 percent margin, there’s not a lot of profit cutting that will make gasoline any less expensive. In fact, if you took all of their profit away, 3.60/gal of gas would be 3.33/gal.
Cut with the bullshit talking points, MouthDem. I know you can’t think for yourself, but why parade it so proudly.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
… and by the way, no group of interests is better at lining their pockets with cash than the corporate/lobbyist law firms and trial lawyers propping up Madia’s campaign.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
“Lawyers know law, I’d kinda like my congressman to act like he knows what they do.”
So you’ll be voting for Norm Coleman, who was a lawyer, over Al Franken, who is a thief.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
The most overlooked line in the post:
“It’s almost like dirty money here is what we’re dealing with”
The second word out of Paulsen’s campaign spokesperson really sums this whole thing up.
ALMOST. As in, “Even we admit that this is not dirty money, but since we are following the republican lead of not campaigning on any issues, this is as good as we could get against the democratic candidate whose support is trouncing our own.”
September 16th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
There are too many ignorant folk who equate success and profit with greed. Unfortunately, this means they don’t recognize actual greed, even as it is kicking them in the face.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
“They [oil companies] line their pockets with cash.”
Right. But only after they line your gasoline tank with fuel.
For all of the cash they line their pockets with, what do lawyers line us up with? What do they produce? How do they contribute to America’s GNP?
September 16th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Congress makes more money off of oil than oil companies do! 18.4 cents per gallon is a hefty profit margin compared to the 7-8 cents per gallon that the oil companies make bringing a product to market. Furthermore, add the various levels of taxation, then R&D for more exploration, and the net gain for oil companies is about a penny a gallon.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
The lack of any response from Average Joe and Chestnut to my posts (#26/#29) in which I called them out by name suggests one of two things:
1. Chestnut is still scouring that FEC report looking for contributions from the “envirocommunists” who are “propping up” Madia’s campaign. (Keep scouring….)
OR
2. Chestnut and Average Joe have realized that while they can disagree with Madia over policy, they have no reason to question a Marine’s integrity.
I’m putting my money on #2.
Chestnut & Average Joe, yell and scream all you want about Democrats this and Democrats that, but when you question the integrity of a good man like Ashwin Madia–who despite being a young man has already served his country in many ways–I will call you out every single time.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Stay classy, Democrats!
September 16th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Ahhh, Chestnut. You are a poet AND a gentleman.
September 16th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Hey Shiftee, how much does it cost you these days to line your hair with oil?
September 16th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
“This is bullshit. In fact, what oil companies pay in taxes is about 300 percent higher than the amount they take in as profits.”
Wrong.
Let’s take Exxon. They paid ~$27 in taxes last year. Based on your calculation, that means that their profit was ~9 billion? In reality, they had a profit of close to $40 billion after taxes.
“With only 7-8 percent margin, there’s not a lot of profit cutting that will make gasoline any less expensive”
Also wrong. Exxon took in close to 345 billion in revenues. Given ~40B in profits, that means they have closer to an 11% margin, pretty incredibly high and right in line with the likes of McDonalds or GE. Wal-Mart, the king of efficiently, pulls in somewhere around 3$ margins. But, more importantly, it’s pulling in those margins on INSANE revenues.
September 16th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
MouthDem,
Do you know the difference between annual results and quarterly results? And do you know that you shouldn’t list one, then list the other?
Exxon paid about $30 billion in taxes in 2007.
September 16th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
BTW, if you would like Exxon to take in fewer revenues, you should purchase less gasoline and petroleum products.
September 16th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Moreover, MouthDem, your erroneous figures neglect to include fuel taxes, which you and I pay. Outright, the oil industry pays as much in taxes on revenue as they make in profit. In addition, the local, state and federal governments take considerably more money.
For example:
Between 1977 and 2004, the 29 largest domestic energy firms earned a collective $630 billion after adjusting for inflation. In contrast, the taxes paid or remitted by domestic oil companies have been consistently far greater than their profits and now total more than $2.2 trillion over the same period.
The largest share of those taxes is federal and state gasoline excise taxes. In 2004, governments collected $58 billion in gasoline excise taxes. Overall, governments have collected $1.34 trillion in gasoline excise taxes since 1977.
Today, U.S. consumers pay an average of 45.9 cents per gallon in gasoline taxes. The federal gasoline excise tax is 18.4 cents per gallon while the average state and local tax is 27.5 cents.
Federal and state governments also collect a substantial amount of excise tax from the sale of diesel fuel. In today’s dollars, governments have collected $160 billion in diesel fuel excise taxes since 1977.
In contrast to excise taxes, corporate income tax payments vary as widely as industry profits. Domestic energy companies earned a total of $630 billion in post-tax profits between 1977 and 2004. Tax Foundation economists estimate that companies paid $518 billion in corporate income taxes to federal and state governments during the same period.
In review, corporate taxes paid by oil companies are slightly less than their profitability. Add excise to corporate taxes, and governments rake in 350 percent more in taxes than the oil industry takes in profits.
There’s your lesson for the day, you idiot.
September 17th, 2008 at 7:45 am
“MouthDem,
Do you know the difference between annual results and quarterly results? And do you know that you shouldn’t list one, then list the other? Exxon paid about $30 billion in taxes in 2007.”
Once again, Chestnut has serious issues with his/her ability to read.
I said they paid ~$27 billion in taxes. How is that a quarterly result (especially since your number is $30B)? I then applied your “they pay 300% of their profits in taxes” logic to arrive at the crazy $9B number YOUR CALCULATION would result in. THEN, to show how wrong you were, I told you their actual annual profit for 2007, ~$40B post taxes.
September 17th, 2008 at 7:58 am
“Moreover, MouthDem, your erroneous figures neglect to include fuel taxes”
This is the dumbest argument I’ve ever heard you make.
What, should GM be allowed to claim it pays the sales tax, registration, and property taxes its customers pay related to the cars it sells? Does Wal-Mart’s tax burden include the sales tax that its customers pay on toothpaste? How about tobacco and alcohol companies?
“Domestic energy companies earned a total of $630 billion in post-tax profits between 1977 and 2004. Tax Foundation economists estimate that companies paid $518 billion in corporate income taxes to federal and state governments during the same period.”
Assuming I even grant you your whack ball “Tax Foundation” economist estimates as accurate, that means they pay about a 40% tax rate on their profits. So?