The Washington Post recently reported that a clutch of PACs founded by Linda Chavez serve mainly to enrich the Chavez family. Of the $24.5 million raised by four Chavez PACs (above) from 2003 to 2006, $242,000—or 1 percent—was passed on to politicians. Even less—$151,236—was spent on independent political activity, like mailing pamphlets. For comparison, David Freddoso, a newly named staff reporter for NRO, reports that in 2005 and 2006, the National Right to Life PAC raised $3.1 million and spent $2.7 million on independent expenditures and candidate contributions, while the Susan B. Anthony List PAC raised $292,000 and spent $248,399 on such activities. In the same period, the Pro-Life Campaign Committee (PLCC), a PAC run by Chavez's husband, raised $1.95 million and spent $14,432.
Why don't Democrats have an Ames straw poll?
Time for some tough love toward Korean peninsula: let's end Seoul's military dependence on America, recommends Doug Bandow. Counterargument: independence would spur an arms race between the South and North. Do we really want another country to go nuclear?
Mitt Romney today became the fifth Republican presidential candidate to undergo the scrutiny of the Club for Growth. The Club's conclusion: "His record on trade, school choice, regulations and tort reform all indicate a strong respect for the power of market solutions. At the same time, Governor Romney’s history is marked by statements at odds with his gubernatorial record and his campaign rhetoric." Given this mixed assessment, Jonathan Martin induces that "unless [Fred] Thompson tells them what they want to hear, it seems like Rudy [my link] has the inside track on getting the Club's support."
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
The Daily Digest
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 Comments:
This blog is filled with lies. Not mistakes. LIES.
"The Washington Post recently reported that a clutch of PACs founded by Linda Chavez serve mainly to enrich the Chavez family."
Actually, the Washington Post reported just the opposite. The article made plainly clear in no uncertain terms that the PACs were not enriching Linda Chavez in any way. She and her 4 family members took in an average of $10,000 per year over a five year period, according to the article. That's hardly "enriching" by any standard.
In fact, the article also mentioned that Linda Chavez doesn't currently take any salary from any of her PACs.
So why did the blogger on this site write differently? He is lying.
Chavez herself disagrees with you: as she told the Post, "I guess you could call it the family business."
In any event, by "enrich," I didn't mean "to make wealthy," but to serve as a "steady source of income," as the Post puts it.
Finally, my point, again to quote the Post, is that "spending by Chavez PACs appears to depart from standard practices by some other issue-oriented groups, according to lawyers and ethics experts."
What do you think?