Reply
Wed 25 Feb, 2004 01:24 pm
Kerry Lobbied for Contractor Who Made Illegal Contributions[/u]
From The Los Angeles Times
By Lisa Getter and Tony Perry, Times Staff Writers
February 19, 2004
WASHINGTON - Sen. John F. Kerry sent 28 letters in behalf of a San Diego defense contractor who pleaded guilty last week to illegally funneling campaign contributions to the Massachusetts senator and four other congressmen.
Members of Congress often write letters supporting constituent businesses and favored projects. But as the Democratic presidential front-runner, Kerry has promoted himself as a candidate who has never been beholden to campaign contributors and special interests.
Between 1996 and 1999, Kerry participated in a letter-writing campaign to free up federal funds for a guided missile system that defense contractor Parthasarathi "Bob" Majumder was trying to build for U.S. warplanes.
Kerry's letters were sent to fellow members of Congress - and to the Pentagon - while Majumder and his employees were donating money to the senator, court records show. During the three-year period, Kerry received about $25,000 from Majumder and his employees, according to Dwight L. Morris & Associates, which tracks campaign donations.
Court documents say the contractor told his employees they needed to make political contributions in order for him to gain influence with members of Congress. He then reimbursed them with proceeds from government contracts.
Federal prosecutors initially determined that $13,000 of the donations were illegally reimbursed, but they now say that nearly all of the money was tainted. They said there was no evidence Kerry or other members of Congress would have known that.
Asked what he did to repay the money, Kerry's campaign said Wednesday he had donated $13,000 to charity on Feb. 9 - which was two days before Majumder's guilty plea.
Campaign senior advisor Michael Meehan said Kerry was concerned that the military project was on hold and might jeopardize work for people in his home state.
Kerry sent at least 21 letters to the secretary of the Navy, the secretary of Defense, the Defense Department comptroller and to members of the House and the Senate committees that control and finance military contracts.
All include Kerry's appeal that the project be funded, and each year, the letters seemed to produce results. The federal money followed.
"It obviously raises questions about whether the campaign contributions bought action from Kerry," said Steven Weiss, communications director of the Center for Responsive Politics
Last week Majumder, 52, pleaded guilty to two counts of illegal campaign contributions. He could be sentenced to six years in prison. The government dropped 38 other counts.
Majumder admitted giving illegal contributions to Kerry and Reps. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-San Diego), Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon), John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and former Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-Fla.), totaling more than $95,000. To settle a civil suit, Majumder has agreed to repay $3 million to the federal government.
Majumder, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in India, began working on the missile program in 1989 - and established his company - with a $50,000 grant from the federal government. Federal funding increased over time. But in 1996, the Defense Department proposed rescinding $35 million for the project and not funding it in the future.
Kerry joined with other senators to protest. Congress reinserted the money into the budget, but the Navy held onto the funds.
In 1997, funding for the program was put on hold again. Kerry joined Sens. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Dianne Feinstein of California in writing to then-Undersecretary of Defense John Hamre on March 10, 1997.
The letter from the three Democrats seemed to work. On March 27, Hamre wrote back to say he had released the money.
Kerry wrote other letters to Republican and Democratic senators on the appropriations committee, asking that they include $55 million in the 1998 spending bill for "an important military research and development program that will greatly improve the self-protection capability of our close air support aircraft."
He wrote again in 1998, urging that senators give the program an additional $15 million.
Meehan, his campaign advisor, said Wednesday that Kerry felt that, as a Massachusetts lawmaker, he should question why the money was being held up.
John Valkus, a close friend of Majumder, said the contractor turned to making political contributions "so he could play in the same league as the big boys: Lockheed and Raytheon."
Majumder told his employees, subcontractors and friends that he would pay them back for their contributions, which is illegal.
The Majumder case isn't the first time that Kerry received tainted campaign money.
In September 1996, Taiwanese American entrepreneur Johnny Chung held a fundraiser for Kerry in Beverly Hills. He later pleaded guilty to making illegal campaign contributions, including $8,000 raised at the Beverly Hills event.
Kerry's Senate office arranged a high-level meeting for Chung at the Securities and Exchange Commission within a few days of the fundraiser.
The contract to Majumder's firm involved an effort to improve technology to allow missiles to destroy ground-based radar systems even after those systems have been switched off and are no longer emitting radiation.
I agree. The things that politicians do these days is rather boring.
So many skeletons, so little time.
I love when the Dems attack every little failing and foible of the Republicans with a viciousness usually reserved as the personal purview of rabid pit bulls, and yet when one of their own commits an error or in this case a crime, they drape a blanket over it and do their best Chief Wiggum/Officer BarBrady imitation:
"Nothing to see here, move along"[/i]
The absolute hypocrisy of the Left is amazing in its scope and its ability to bring self-denial to an art form.
Once you Dems can clean your own house, THEN and only then can you point to the trash in our yard.
If you choose not to follow this, you can expect a large amount of articles of this nature and as many commercials as the 200 million that the Republican Party has raised from its members to keep your candidate out of the White House.
Come on guys, Let's talk about Kerry's "alleged" war record again.
It's much more interesting.
Why don't we talk more about what Kerry did AFTER the war.
Like when he came home and was part of one of the largest anti war propaganda machines (Winter Warrior campaign) and made and supported lies about the conduct of American soldiers in Vietnam. (After investigations by Congress, independent investigators and numerous journalists, none of which was found to be true.)
Or, to quote Thomas Sowell:
Benedict Arnold was a war hero, wounded in battle -- before he turned against his country. Hitler was likewise a decorated and wounded veteran of the First World War. Being a war hero is not a lifetime "get out of jail free" card, exempting you from responsibility for what you do thereafter.
*gasp*! Are you comparing John F. Kerry to Hitler?!
Fedral wrote:Or, to quote Thomas Sowell:
Benedict Arnold was a war hero, wounded in battle -- before he turned against his country. Hitler was likewise a decorated and wounded veteran of the First World War. Being a war hero is not a lifetime "get out of jail free" card, exempting you from responsibility for what you do thereafter.
But
NOT bothering to turn up for your military duty is!!
Land of the Knave, Home of the Spree! With the sort of 'talent' you lot attract to the big jobs I can see why letting the Supreme Court pick the President is the safest bet!
<aahhh> much better!
You all keep talking amongst yourselves. My job here is done.
Just like a Liberal, someone points out a fact you don't want to hear, you ignore it.
If they keep bringing it up, change the subject.
You still don't get it, your precious Kerry is a crook and as, if not more, beholden to special interests as any Republican you can point to.
When you decide to run a clean candidate with an unblemished record, then you can speak to us about our candidates flaws and foibles.
Until then ...
I get it Fedral.
By the way, I was wondering ... "Was Kerry a crook when he was fighting in Vietnam?"
More likely when he was throwing anothers soldiers medals over the white house fence.
I heard he was awarded a "silver star" could that have been what he threw over the fence?
Only if the soldier who gave him the medals to throw over the fence did. Kerry says he didn't throw his own.
ebrown_p wrote:I get it Fedral.
By the way, I was wondering ... "Was Kerry a crook when he was fighting in Vietnam?"
If you noticed the title of this thread and the point of the article was about Kerry's accepting of illegal campaign contributions.
It was ebrown and Mr Stillwater who decided to take the thread off topic because they were unwilling to accept the truth when it was presented to them.
Speaking for myself, normally a charge like that would cause me concern, but then I think of the alternative. For me that is all that matters this time and it has nothing to do with the 2000 election. To tell the truth I wasn't even all that wild about Gore and even considered voting for McCain very seriously. But we all know what happened there. I even forgave Bush for Ashcroft, though the man makes my skin crawl in revulsion, after the 9/11. But I think what happened was that the country gave him too much leeway in our united ness and he and the administration and the republican congress (that managed to win the majority because the democrats became silent in order to be united) has been going wild with all the power they have and has been trying to turn this country back thirty years. Like Trent Lott said at Truman's birthday bash, he wished that we were still in the age of segregation. That is what it is all about, it is not about Kerry or just spirit for our party or anything like that, it is deeper and it is real and it is going to last even if Bush gets elected this time. We have no choice in the matter unless we are willing to just quietly without a fight see the country go down the tubes under the cloak of self righteousness. The whole crowd makes me think of the roundheads when they were trying to turn England into puritans.
Actually, the whole "illegal contribution" thing bothers me a good amount.
However, there are SOOOOO many terrible things about Bush in regards to what he's done and what he's doing, that it FAR outweighs the things that bother me about Kerry.
We're going to have to choose between the lesser of two evils, and at the rate Bush is working at, Kerry will have to practically start killing kittens on national television for me to vote Bush this election.
The only truth here is that one politician, decorated in the Vietnam War, may have been compromised by the company he keeps whilst another who did nothing in the Vietnam War except hide, has a long, long history of being compromised. He's owned from head to toe by the Oil Industry and their shills. You could ask the very pertinent question:
'Would Candidate A or B or C running for the Presidency, the highest office in the currently most powerful nation in the world, do things X or Y or Z? And if they had/did should I vote for them?"
In the case of the incumbent, he already has.
And before you all get too het up, I will say it again. I am an Australian. I have no input on the electoral process of the United States of America as a citizen or candidate*, apart from the notion that if GW Bush is the best you can find to fill the top job, you weren't looking hard enough.
*Neither do another 6 billion other human beings, so I am not in a minority.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace