Corporate corruption, anyone? "The Federal Election Commission," the liberal media informs us, "disclosed yesterday it has imposed a record-setting $719,000 in fines against participants in the 1996 Democratic Party fundraising scandals involving contributions from China, Korea and other foreign sources."

A nice tidbit: "The total in fines would have been significantly higher except that some of the corporations have folded and others were dummy operations, with no assets, set up as conduits for money from China, Venezuela, Canada and other countries."

Here's the full story:

Dems Fined for Illegal Fundraising

I love ya William babe - and I do love it when we get ammunition to shoot back at the other side when ...BUT aren't we beating a very dead horse here. That's several yrs ago. Can we move on please?

thank you copman..well said. Maybe some of us need to switch to decaf.

[quote]Originally posted by copman:
I love ya William babe - and I do love it when we get ammunition to shoot back at the other side when ...BUT aren't we beating a very dead horse here. That's several yrs ago. Can we move on please?

---

No, we cannot, at least not according to the FEC. I mean, remember, it's not like I got out of bed Friday morning and said, "Hey, you know, I'm still pretty peeved about the Democrats fundraising in 1996. I think I'm going to fine them." I can do many wonderful and exciting things, but arbitrarily leveling fines against Democrats is, alas, not one of them. It's the FEC who's doing the beating here. I suppose they could have said, "Hey, Democrats broke the law but it was a while ago so let's move on," but I can't imagine you as a law enforcement officer would support such flippancy. But if it makes you feel any better, the FEC does seem to be moving on in some sense, inasmuch as they're throwing up their hands and conceding that many of the Democrats' activities were so illegal as to defy human understanding of law enforcement.

And before the chorus of "They all do it" kicks in, why hasn't Bob Dole been fined for raising illegal money through front corporations? Anyone? Anyone? Because he didn't do it, that's why!

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
Hey, Democrats broke the law but it was a while ago so let's move on," but I can't imagine you as a law enforcement officer would support such flippancy.

---

Well we do have statutes of limitations on our crimes.. I'm not aware of what the statute of limitations is on this particular crime.

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: copman ]

Speaking of Democratic sleazeballs, what on earth are we to do in New Jersey? It's either the robotic multimillionaire Doug Forrester, whose politics may either be moderate, moderately conservative or to the right of John Birch, depending on who's commenting on him, or the oleaginous, corrupt Bob Torricelli, who more than once tried to make life difficult for Bill Clinton, and who can't be trusted to walk across the street without making the wrong kinds of friends. I know he enjoyed dating supermodels and cutting various deals with his international friends, but he seems to have forgotten that he was required to operate under a range of legal and ethical constraints as a U.S. SENATOR!

What's a Democratic voter to do? We often have a libertarian, a democratic socialist, and someone from some random party running in New Jersey, so I'll have to see who else is politically acceptable. The one thing that's scary is that the election of Forrester could very well tip the Senate into Republican control, unless McCain and Chafee do the right thing and come aboard the Democratic ship (Zell Miller ought to become a Republican as Richard Shelby and Ben Campbell did a while ago).

The graft and corruption is spread pretty evenly here, especially in my county. Politicians seem to put in the extra effort to be corrupt here.

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
The one thing that's scary is that the election of Forrester could very well tip the Senate into Republican control, unless McCain and Chafee do the right thing and come aboard the Democratic ship (Zell Miller ought to become a Republican as Richard Shelby and Ben Campbell did a while ago).

---

McCain won't switch parties because as a Republican he's a maverick. As a Democrat, he'd just be another Democrat, unless he started giving the Democrats untold amounts of grief. Lots of people actually think he might not even run again for the Senate in 2004.

Chaffee might switch, but he would just look like a Jeffords wannabe. And I don't know that the Dems would be as generous with Chaffee as they were with Jeffords, since he is much younger and much less experienced than Jeffords. Also, the big thing with Jeffords was that his defection changed control of the Senate. If GOP is in charge by two or more seats, Chaffee's defection really wouldn't matter all that much.

Zell will not switch parties because he is definitely at the end of his road. It would not be statesmanlike to cap off a stellar career of public service by abandoning his party. I'm not sure, but I think his term ends in 2004. Coverdell was reelected in 1998. His term would have been up in 2004. Zell was appointed when Coverdell died and ran to complete Cdell's term in 2000. So even though he was elected in 2000, he's out in '04. Which means GA will have three consecutive Senate races, which is odd. Miller probably won't run again.

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: William1865 ]

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Speaking of Democratic sleazeballs, what on earth are we to do in New Jersey?

---

Word's out that Torch is gonna quit the race. He's called a news conference for this afternoon. If so, he'll be replaced by another Dem. on the ballot, maybe Rep. Frank Pallone or Robert Menendez

Torricelli has set the news conference for 5:00 this afternoon to announce he's out of the race. The right thing to do would take it a step further and resign from the Senate.

Regardless of party affiliation, I don't think this seems quite cricket. The guy's obviously losing, so now the Dems up and say, "Hey, just kidding! Our real candidate is . . ." But apparently there is some question of whether Dems can replace Torch on the ticket. So we'll see.

I don't know, I just seen about a gazillion Torricelli for U.S. Senate signs recently put up, on my way to work this morning. If he announces he's out of the race (which, btw, is a good idea, but should have been done a while ago), a lot of new signs will have to be replaced. I guess the campaign strategy of, I'm corrupt, but the other candidate is wrong on a couple of issues, may not work, even in NJ. If he does quit, now maybe I can vote for the Democratic candidate. We'll see.

I'm curious though, does anybody know if placing 30 signs in a 100 square foot area actually helps a candidate?

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
[QB]Speaking of Democratic sleazeballs, what on earth are we to do in New Jersey?QB]

---

Now with Torricelli out, this question perfectly illustrates what happens when moderates give up on the GOP and go elsewhere. If a gay-friendly GOPer had toughed out all the criticism from the left and right and ended up as his party's nominee, we'd be sitting pretty instead of being saddled with a Hobson's choice!

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
Regardless of party affiliation, I don't think this seems quite cricket. The guy's obviously losing, so now the Dems up and say, "Hey, just kidding! Our real candidate is . . ." But apparently there is some question of whether Dems can replace Torch on the ticket. So we'll see.

---

I kind of agree. I would encourage Dems wanting the job to run as independents with the party endorsing no one, unless there is only one in the race.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
But apparently there is some question of whether Dems can replace Torch on the ticket. So we'll see.

---

I was reading about this today. From an AP article:

[quote]Republicans said they would contest any effort to have a substitute take Torricelli's place, saying such a move is barred by state law so close to an election. According to GOP lawyers, the only exception acknowledged by a court has been in the case of the death of a nominee.

"This is a cynical attempt by party bosses to manipulate democracy," said Mitch Bainwol, executive director of the Senate GOP campaign committee.

Under New Jersey law, a political party can replace a statewide nominee on the ballot if the person drops out at least 48 days before the election. But only 36 days remain until the election, meaning Democrats would have to seek approval from the state attorney general, a Democrat.

Party officials were considering a list of possible candidates including former Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Bill Bradley ( news - web sites) and current House members Bob Menendez, Frank Pallone and Rob Andrews, according to sources in Washington and New Jersey.

Lautenberg said he would "seriously consider serving again if asked." An associate said it was unlikely Bradley would accept.

The governor said a new candidate would be offered by Thursday.

---

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:


Now with Torricelli out, this question perfectly illustrates what happens when moderates give up on the GOP and go elsewhere. If a gay-friendly GOPer had toughed out all the criticism from the left and right and ended up as his party's nominee, we'd be sitting pretty instead of being saddled with a Hobson's choice!

---

Is Forrester anti-gay? It's my understanding from people working with the campaign that F is pretty moderate. That's why it was so tough for T to attack him, unlike the Dems against Brett Schundler.

I'm not sure Forrester is a moderate / liberal / conservative -- his entire platform up until yesterday was "I am not Bob Torricelli" -- the rest is a blank slate.

A look at his campaign website shows he's in favor of strong defense, better education, better health care and social security -- well Doug, go out on a limb there -- who isn't?

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
Regardless of party affiliation, I don't think this seems quite cricket. The guy's obviously losing, so now the Dems up and say, "Hey, just kidding! Our real candidate is . . ." But apparently there is some question of whether Dems can replace Torch on the ticket. So we'll see.

---

File this under "Be careful what you ask for"
Sept 27, 2002:
"Mr. Torricelli has disgraced himself and New Jersey," Forrester declared yesterday. "The people of New Jersey deserve better. I reiterate my call for Mr. Torricelli to resign his office and apologize to the people of New Jersey."

The Dems. may have to settle for a write-in campaign. Their argument in court will be (we'll see if it holds water):

if the 51-day deadline were strictly enforced, "New Jersey voters would be deprived of the opportunity to make a choice between the two major political parties, an opportunity which is paramount under our election laws."

from the Newark Star-Ledger:
Last year the New Jersey Supreme Court allowed the Republicans who then controlled Trenton to reschedule the primary election so that acting Gov. Donald DiFrancesco -- plagued by questions about his ethics -- could drop out of the race and allow Rep. Robert Franks to take his place.

Franks lost the Republican primary to Bret Schundler, who in turn lost the general election to Democrat James McGreevey.

But Schundler's unsuccessful court battle to keep Franks off the ballot raised the same issues as this newest legal skirmish, pitting strict adherence to the rules against the chance for voters to have a meaningful choice.

Ridgewood lawyer John Carbone, an expert in New Jersey election law and counsel to the 21 county clerks, predicted that, once again, the state's courts will conclude "voters must be offered a choice."

Carbone said the courts may not be happy with the Democrats and might order them to pay the cost of reprinting ballots. But in the end, "they will not allow this to be a coronation without challenge."

But Frank Askin, founder of the constitutional litigation clinic at Rutgers Law School in Newark, said getting the courts to waive the 51-day deadline is "a long shot for the Democrats. I'd be shocked if they win." He said Democrats may have to wage a write-in campaign on behalf of their new candidate.

Sheridan said the Democrats' bid to replace Torricelli is "very different" from the GOP's maneuver replacing DiFrancesco last year. Then, he said, the Legislature itself acted to change the election date and filing deadlines, something that has not happened this year. Furthermore, those ballots had not yet been printed.

By law, county clerks were required to have ballots ready for printing by Sept. 23, but Genova argued in court papers that is simply the starting point in the printing process.

Carbone said those ballots will have to reprinted in any case, if a bill changing the polling hours becomes law. He said Republicans "should worry more" about what Torricelli is allowed to do with his campaign war chest, which was more than $6 million when he filed his latest report at the end of June."

Looks like the Torch's seat is a lost cause right now. Too bad the Dems didn't have the guts to tell him he was off the team in late July when this all became inevitable.

Why is it only the Dem crooks who seem to get caught? Or in the case of the Resident and Veep, no one cares when the Republicans are exposed? Could it be the media's right-wing bias?

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: Bill W ]

Torricelli's statement to the effect of "I will not be responsible for the loss of the Democratic majority in the Senate," shows just what a self-centered creep he is. That's right, Governor Pilate, wash your hands of the whole affair. We're all better off without this guy around - and the reasons just keep growing!

So . . . in Arkansas can Republicans take out Tim Hutchinson and replace him with his (as far as we know) less morally-challenged brother Asa? In California . . . can the GOP just take out Bill Simon and run Riordan instead? I suspect Democrats would cry foul, just a little bit. In New Hampshire, can the GOP take out Bob Smith and run Sununu instead? Oh, wait, we did that . . . in the primary, because that's what primaries are for. I think at some point there becomes a good-faith agreement that one candidate is running against another. Forrester has been campaigning against Torricelli for months now because Torch, baggage and all, was the Dems' selection. What the Dems are saying now is, "You idiot, you've been running against the wrong guy!" Bad, bad form.

Having said all that, I suspect the Democrats have some trick up their sleeve, because I don't know that they would have gotten Torricelli out without having some sort of backup plan. Have judges been paid, bribed, etc.?

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
So . . . in Arkansas can Republicans take out Tim Hutchinson and replace him with his (as far as we know) less morally-challenged brother Asa? In California . . . can the GOP just take out Bill Simon and run Riordan instead? I suspect Democrats would cry foul, just a little bit. In New Hampshire, can the GOP take out Bob Smith and run Sununu instead? Oh, wait, we did that . . . in the primary, because that's what primaries are for. I think at some point there becomes a good-faith agreement that one candidate is running against another. Forrester has been campaigning against Torricelli for months now because Torch, baggage and all, was the Dems' selection. What the Dems are saying now is, "You idiot, you've been running against the wrong guy!" Bad, bad form.

Having said all that, I suspect the Democrats have some trick up their sleeve, because I don't know that they would have gotten Torricelli out without having some sort of backup plan. Have judges been paid, bribed, etc.?

---

File this under "Be careful what you ask for"
Sept 27, 2002:
"Mr. Torricelli has disgraced himself and New Jersey," Forrester declared yesterday. "The people of New Jersey deserve better. I reiterate my call for Mr. Torricelli to resign his office and apologize to the people of New Jersey."

The problem, RazorbackTX, with that quote, is that Torch didn't resign -- he is just not running for reelection.

There's a big difference ... from what I understand, had he resigned yesterday, the Gov. of NJ could have named a replacement not only for the Senate seat but also on the ballot.

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
Why is it only the Dem crooks who seem to get caught? Or in the case of the Resident and Veep, no one cares when the Republicans are expose? Could it be the media's right-wing bias?

---

At least in NJ, Republicans get caught as well. One of the GOP county chairman (and a W. elector) is sitting in jail right now for a few years. I think a couple others are in jail too, except they may have gotten off by pointing fingers in the "right" direction.

An editorial from the Phila. Daily News with the headline "TORRICELLI WIMPS OUT":

[quote]SINCE WHEN did democracy and our form of elections adopt the designated hitter rule?

It hasn't been that great for baseball, so why consider it for elections? Yet that's essentially what New Jersey Sen. Robert Torricelli is asking the courts to do as the embattled Democrat yesterday quit his bid to be re-elected.

Finding the current race against GOP unknown Doug Forrester a little too tough, the normally combative senator is now asking the New Jersey Supreme Court for a do-over. Let someone else stand in my place, Torricelli is saying.

Tough nuts, the courts should reply.

He's the candidate on the ballot. There was an opportunity to drop out and give another Democrat a clean shot at his seat back in mid-September, the legal deadline for getting on the Jersey ballot.

Now, with only 35 days left before the Nov. 5 general election, only the courts can assign a replacement, and you can bet the Republicans will be fighting it, tooth and nail, as they should.

Despite the beating he's getting in current polls, Torricelli should have waited for the only official poll that matters - the one given on Election Day - before delivering any concession speeches.

"I will not be responsible for the loss of the Democratic majority in the United States Senate," Torricelli told reporters. So he's going to let another Democrat, carrying the stench of this retreat, take that distinction? If the Democrats lose this seat, the fault won't lie with Frank Lautenberg, Bob Menendez or any other pol the party decides to throw into the breach. The fault will be Torricelli's.

We don't say this with any glee. Torricelli was our kind of Democrat, a liberal progressive. And we would prefer to see the Senate remain in the hands of the Democrats, if for no other reason than to balance the power the Republicans have in the House of Representatives and the White House. We recognize that there is a cold, hard pragmatism to Torricelli's decision.

And Torricelli obviously was a man in pain as he announced his intent to withdraw from the race. He alluded to the ethical mishaps that have dogged his re-election almost from the beginning and wondered where's the forgiveness.

But there are some things more important than the Democrats, and that's democracy and fair elections. Torricelli has damaged them all.

---

Torch should have gone weeks ago. Its up to the NJ Court to decide now - isn't it?

William, your comments made me laugh out loud! The Democrats may just have a trick up their sleeve, given that this is New Jersey. I don't think they do, however. Also, Torricelli LOATHES Frank Lautenberg, and has protested loudly about his possibly stepping in. If they are able to get the courts to go along with this, then Frank Pallone, a suitably liberal Democrat, may get the nod. I don't think it's kosher, though, except that New Jersey mandates that voters have a choice. Bradley or Lautenberg have very good chances, as might Menendez, whom I dislike because of his anti-Castroite obsession. Castro is highly problematic, and yes, I understand Menendez's fixation, but he really should be focusing on the problems of north Jersey.

As to the comments about moderates and Republicans, if there were more moderate Republicans who were independent-minded enough to vote against the Right Wing juggernaut, I'd vote for them. If the Republicans had nominated someone of the ideological stripe of Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins, or even John McCain, s/he'd have gotten my vote over Torricelli. New Jersey even has some moderate Republicans like Bob Franks, and the patricians Rodney Frelinghuysen and former governor Tom Kean (whose families have run or run in the state since the colonial era). But the thought that electing the cipher Forrester might enable an extremist ignoramus like Trent Lott to march an anti-gay, anti-environment, anti-choice, anti-working-class, anti-union agenda through led to me consider voting for Sleazicelli.

Torricelli really should have either dropped out in June or stayed in the race till the end. He may even have beaten Forrester by a thread--who knows? There are a lot of registered cemeteries in Hudson, Essex and Bergen Counties.... (Just joking!)

But voters had a choice. They chose Torricelli to run against Forrester. Shouldn't we have another primary rather than just letting the party choose another candidate? If it's Pallone, what about his House race? Should voters not have a choice there? Perhaps some Democrats are so great, voters should get to choose them twice. Who knows? Anyway, voters can still have the choice of writing in the candidate of their choice. That's two choices! I just don't think the Democrat Party should have the choice of changing the rules of the election just because they're losing. But I suppose none of us should be surprised by now that silly little things like laws don't apply to Democrats.

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: William1865 ]

Apparently Pallone and Menendez have both said "thanks, but no thanks." The case goes to the New Jersey Supreme Court tomorrow. The court has a Democratic majority.

Actually, I heard it was Menendez and Bradley that said no. It sounded as if Pallone and Lautenberg may be interested if asked.

Side note: The last time a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in NJ won an election was 1972.

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: pat125 ]

Update: Lautenberg was chosen by the Democrats. Now it's up to the courts, NJ Supreme Court, and perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court, to decide if he can be on the ballot.

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: pat125 ]

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
So . . . in Arkansas can Republicans take out Tim Hutchinson and replace him with his (as far as we know) less morally-challenged brother Asa?

---

William - I heard that Asa was headed to Florida to try to track down Noelle Bush's crack dealer.

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:


William - I heard that Asa was headed to Florida to try to track down Noelle Bush's crack dealer.

---

Ummm... gee, good one, Raze!! --- (W1865 patting Raze on the head). When you're smiling, the whole world smiles with you. (See Seinfeld episode featuring Mel Torme for context.)

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:


Ummm... gee, good one, Raze!! --- (W1865 patting Raze on the head). When you're smiling, the whole world smiles with you. (See Seinfeld episode featuring Mel Torme for context.)

---

I know that one well, its one of my favorites.
Jimmy likes Elaine
Jimmy's gonna get Kramer

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:


William - I heard that Asa was headed to Florida to try to track down Noelle Bush's crack dealer.

---

Hi Raze, a judge conveniently ruled just a few days ago that the police can't go after little Noelle, since she's in a treatment center. Crack or no crack, mysterious pills on her person or not. What next? They find her with more crack and pipe, her daddy will ask for "privacy," she'll do little time and get a slap on the wrist and...maybe Bill McBride'll be governor at least as this sorry saga continues!

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:


Hi Raze, a judge conveniently ruled just a few days ago that the police can't go after little Noelle, since she's in a treatment center. Crack or no crack, mysterious pills on her person or not. What next?

---

If I'm not mistaken, the ruling was that the counselors in the treatment center do not have to answer questions about her because of privacy rules. It didn't say police can't go after her.

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:


Hi Raze, a judge conveniently ruled just a few days ago that the police can't go after little Noelle, since she's in a treatment center. Crack or no crack, mysterious pills on her person or not. What next? They find her with more crack and pipe, her daddy will ask for "privacy," she'll do little time and get a slap on the wrist and...maybe Bill McBride'll be governor at least as this sorry saga continues!

---

With the Bush kids its 45 strikes and you're out!

[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly:


If I'm not mistaken, the ruling was that the counselors in the treatment center do not have to answer questions about her because of privacy rules. It didn't say police can't go after her.

---

Hi Joe, yes, but Judge Belvin Perry's ruling hinders the police's ability to investigate the crack possession charge. I guess they could still press ahead, but since a supervisor forced the employeed who'd written up a statement about the crack possession to tear it up, the police really won't be able to investigate the charge.