Disgraced CEOs' cash troubling for Kerry
By Andrew Miga / Boston Herald
Thursday, July 18, 2002
WASHINGTON - Underscoring the pitfalls of the huge fund-raising machine he is building for a possible presidential run, Sen. John F. Kerry yesterday pledged to give up a $1,000 contribution from disgraced former WorldCom CEO Bernard J. Ebbers.
Ebbers, embroiled in the nation's largest corporate accounting scandal, wrote the check to Kerry April 25, shortly after attending a D.C. fund-raiser for the junior senator, a Commerce Committee member.
Four days later, Ebbers resigned amid a Securities and Exchange Commission probe into WorldCom's finances, including $400 million in personal loans Ebbers got to pay off his stock losses.
WorldCom last month admitted cooking its books to hide $3.8 billion in losses - crippling millions of investors and sparking 17,000 layoffs.
``As soon as we discovered this contribution we decided it should be used to help the thousands of workers who have been victimized by unconscionable corporate abuse,'' said Kerry spokeswoman Kelley Benander.
Responding to a Herald inquiry, Kerry said he will donate the $1,000 to displaced WorldCom workers. U.S. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Malden), said he will make a similar donation with a $1,000 check Ebbers gave him Sept. 21, 2001.
Kerry, who has raised $1.4 million during the past three months and has a $3.4 million campaign account balance, has courted some of America's highest-flying execs - particularly in New York, Florida and California's Silicon Valley.
As the wave of corporate scandal intensifies and the roster of rogue CEOs seems to grow by the day, Kerry finds himself on the defensive, demanding reforms while scrambling to justify his money ties, including:
Some $11,810 records show he accepted from WorldCom execs since 1989.
A $1,000 check from a top executive at Enron, the bankrupted energy giant. Kerry gave the money to a fund for laid-off Enron workers in January.
cw-4 $5,800 from indicted ImClone Systems boss Samuel Waksal and his daughter for Kerry's 1996 race.
cw-3 Time magazine recently ran a photo of a grinning Kerry at a party flanked by Waksal and domesticity queen Martha Stewart, who also is ensnared in the ImClone case. Stewart gave $500 to Kerry's 1996 campaign.
$20,000 collected from execs at Global Crossing, the Bermuda-based telecom giant that went bust. Kerry's total take from Global Crossing since 1990 was fourth highest among senators.
Kerry also has relied heavily on wealthy donors and firms to raise money for his Citizen Soldier political action committee. He collected $250,000 for the latest quarter, ending June 30. Kerry uses the PAC to help elect other Democrats - a back-door means of boosting his presidential bid.
Among the $10,000 donors were insurance giant American International Group; the New York class-action law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershard and Lerach; financial software firm Intuit; and Boston Capital CEO John P. Manning.
**Looks like his promises not to spend his own money have sent him in the same bad directions he accuses his friends across the aisle of going.
This will certainly hamstring attempts to paint Bush with the Enron, corporate scandal brush.
For what it's worth - Al Sharpton, of New York fame, has announced an exploratory committee for the presidency, which I think lets me mention it here. I personally think he'd be an embarrassment, but this is supposedly a free country.
I like Kerry. He's got presence, intelligence, courage, and he's an individual. And I first ran into Howard Dean a year ago, and have been following him. Apparently, he's been a popular, activist governor.
I also have a theory about this next election. Chins were mentioned, and I agree with the importance of that. However, I think it's time for short. We've had tall presidents for a while now (although Bush isn't as tall as he'd like you to think), and the time has come for a short northerner.
Hello All!
My two cents ... None of them have what it takes to defeat Bush!!
Anon
fishin': You have the com and can do as you wish, but perhaps I misinterpreted your request for information both pro and CON on the candidates.
Granted, the site had some opinion, but it also had pertinent information regarding the Vermont governor.
http://www.thechamplainchannel.com/news/1747861/detail.html
Bearing in mind that the last candidate the Dems offered did not carry his home state, this is telling.
One additional note, it is difficult to not step over the line when it appears that it is moving, nicht wahr?
Quote:Looks like his promises not to spend his own money have sent him in the same bad directions he accuses his friends across the aisle of going.
This will certainly hamstring attempts to paint Bush with the Enron, corporate scandal brush.
Lash
Perhaps we could tip this precisely balanced scale with an assessment of either fellow's comments/behavior regarding campaign finance reform.
I think too that we might try to be a little careful about sources. There are some blatantly partisan sources out there, and it is difficult to consider them as being anything but that.
Not all newspapers can prevent some of their reporters from editorializing, but hopefully we'd be able to distinguish.
That said, it's only lately that they've begun writing on possible choices. The fact of Kerry's money has been discussed ad nauseum. He is married to the widow of John Heinz, of Heinz foods, and much of the wealth stems from that. On his own, he is hard-working. So far as soliciting funds - until we have true campaign finance reform, this remains a thorny problem. For everybody, regardless of affiliation. Right now Howard Dean is laughing about it, but he'll need it too.
Anon - whatever do you mean?
Max - ja, ja!
I agree with anon, though this fact is giving me a headache. 
I do think a Dem or two exists, who could give Bush a run for his money, but, IMO, they are not among the current pack.
And, any aficiandos of Presidential campaigns know: (To quote the brilliant and insightful Forrest Gump: "...you never know what you're gonna get..."
Skeletons, gaffes, incumbent boo-boos... My twisted thrill of campaign season may be summed up by another (fictional) American: "God, I love the smell of napalm in the morning."
Looking forward to seeing Sharpton's contributions.
Lash said:
Quote:I agree with anon, though this fact is giving me a headache.
Which got a very loud burst of laughter out of me.
I've been saying for a year now that Edwards is the man to watch.
Although I am originally a 'Bay Stater'* and I like John Kerry, I think Edwards has the right combination of political skills, and charisma to win.
As has been said elsewhere, Edwards will have had as much political experience as Bush by the election.
As far as his being a trial lawyer is concerned, I think it's preposterous to malign him for that.
It is true that the large corporate interests (who have the most to fear from trial lawyers) and 'their party' and allies such as Rush L. have been doing their darndest to turn 'Trial Lawyer' into an epithet (as they successfully did with the term 'liberal'). Nevertheless Edwards is too articulate and bright to let the opposition define him.
My guess is that Edwards is the potential candidate that Bush, Rove and Co. fear most.
* from Massachusetts
jjorge said:
Quote:As far as his being a trial lawyer is concerned, I think it's preposterous to malign him for that.
This will be a phenomenon to watch and despise...concerted and organized efforts to malign candidates through innuendo and ad hominem irrelevancies.
blatham wrote:jjorge said:
Quote:As far as his being a trial lawyer is concerned, I think it's preposterous to malign him for that.
This will be a phenomenon to watch and despise...concerted and organized efforts to malign candidates through innuendo and ad hominem irrelevancies.
It would be a miraculous thing to see a campaign that didn't delve into personal areas. I'm sure the Bush twins, and Noelle Bush didn't see how their gaffes and troubles were relevant.
It's so rampant that most of it doesn't stick. Remember when the Clinton team was on 'bimbo alert' a la Genifer Flowers? I didn't think he'd ever weather that one.
It's almost the hefty price they pay for running. It is overdone, however. (But, sometimes, entertaining.)
Lash
I appreciate the nature of your point...that both sides do it, and nothing I've read reveals the extent of that story more thoroughly than Joan Didion's 'Political Fictions' (which, if I was god, I'd have put in every christmas stocking).
But I think that Jefferson would have spoken out against this sort of low deceit, thus perhaps we all ought to demand more of these folks.
Al sharpton has announced his run. I have to say I'm more than a bit nervous about a reverend running for the presidency.
litlek - I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I mean, this has been the man's hope, ambition, and dream for years. And I honestly think it's a joke. He's been mixed up in so much.
And I'm beginning to cool on Edwards. Don't know why, something about him. Nothing to do with him being a lawyer. My father was one. Maybe a little arrogance there? Man didn't even vote til fairly recently.
I have always wondered why Representatives even bother running, when was the last time someone went to the oval office from the House?
Even JFK was elected a Senator, (though if memory serves, did not serve his full term) before the trip to the other side of Penn. Ave.
This leads me to believe that Gephardt (not a dumb guy) is probably interested in rounding out the ticket rather than leading it.
Gephardt--
Nothing overtly negative springs to mind.
Nothing positive, either.
I think he may be akin to Gore personality-wise. I don't think a lackluster personality should be a hindrance, but in reality, it is.
He's sort of a non-starter.
Maybe, he can show some verve in the debates.
maxsdadeo wrote:I have always wondered why Representatives even bother running, when was the last time someone went to the oval office from the House?
Even JFK was elected a Senator, (though if memory serves, did not serve his full term) before the trip to the other side of Penn. Ave.
This leads me to believe that Gephardt (not a dumb guy) is probably interested in rounding out the ticket rather than leading it.
FYI
JFK (having served six years in the House) defeated Henry Cabot Lodge the incumbent U.S. senator in 1952. His win was all the more impressive because Lodge was a popular incumbent and 1952 was the year of Dwight Eisenhower's election.
JFK was re-elected to the Senate by a wide margin in 1958 and had completed two years of his second term when he was elected President.
Thanks, jj, I sit corrected.
You also prove my point that the probability of making a jump from the house to POTUS is unprecedented, at least in the last 100 years.
So far I don't see a Bush-Beater in the lot. Before the Dems can field a credible candidate, they should develop a coherent proactive platform. As to Sharpton, I doubt he will stay the course. Dean may be the most promising, but he has as yet little recognition. Kerry, Gephardt, and Edwards offer considerable fodder for Republican cannons. I anticipate at the moment that Dean will fade, as will Edwards, perhaps setting up a slugging match between Gephardt and Kerry. Still, before they pick a pilot, the Dem's should concentrate on getting a plane.
timber
