Former Rep. William Delahunt Pockets $90,000 From Earmarks

Former Rep. William Delahunt Pockets $90,000 From Earmarks

Written by Brian Koenig
Former Congressman William D. Delahunt (left) from Massachusetts established a lobbying firm, the Delahunt Group, soon after retiring as one of the federal legislature’s most liberal lawmakers. After claiming an office on the 16th floor of a Boston skyscraper, Delahunt launched his business, and one of his first clients was the small town of Hull, on Massachusetts Bay, which agreed to pay him $15,000 a month for assistance in launching a wind energy project.  Delahunt’s lawmaker-gone-lobbyist conversion last year has already reaped a generous bounty, as he stands to rake in at least $90,000 for six months of work for his client. And 80 percent of those earnings come from the earmarked funds he generated through two Energy Department grants administered in his final congressional term. Philip Lemnios, the city’s town manager, said local officials resolved last spring that a wind-driven power plant would be too expensive, so they began researching wind turbines, which convert kinetic energy from wind into mechanical energy that is convertible to electricity. Lemnios claimed the Delahunt Group would be the most strategic source for effectively pursuing this alternative. "Obviously he’s got connections into the federal government that we don’t have," Lemnios acknowledged in an interview. "We’re hoping he can open doors at the federal level that we could never open." Naturally, the former congressman’s advocacy has sprouted legal and ethical discussions, according to some legal experts, mainly due to regulations on the use of federal money for lobbying purposes. In fact, some experts who study federal earmarking — the practice of channeling federal money to a specific project — asserted that Delahunt’s shifty political behavior, in this incidence, is one of the worst cases they’ve observed in the history of earmark lobbying. Government watchdog organizations have already offered their ruling. "It may not be illegal, it may not be unethical, but it’s certainly another reason why taxpayers hold Congress and its members in such low esteem right now,’’ contended Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, a Washington-based government watchdog group. "It just adds to the perception that members are out to help themselves and not the taxpayers.’’ Schatz, whose organization publishes a "Congressional Pig Book" targeting federal earmarks, mentioned that congressional members had to sign a certification assuring that they would not benefit from an earmark they themselves request. "This is the first I have heard about a member benefiting after the fact from an earmark." However, Schatz added, the certification "does not say, ‘In the future they won’t see a benefit,’ but maybe it should be changed so it does." Mary Boyle, spokeswoman for the advocacy group Common Cause, added, "This looks like a self-made golden parachute. He appears to be another in a long line of people who leave Congress to cash in. It obviously raises the question of whether he had this in mind when he left Congress and who[m] was he advocating for: his constituents, or himself?" While Delahunt declined several interview requests, he said in a statement last Friday, "I want to be clear — I have no federal lobbying relationship with any past or current client. I have not lobbied anyone in Washington since leaving Congress. Further, while in Congress, I had no conversations with anybody regarding any future consulting contract, and I am extremely proud of our work and the assistance we were able to bring to many communities throughout our district." Lemnios rushed to Delahunt’s aid, countering that the city declined to offer the contract as a public bid because municipal light departments are immune from the state’s procurement laws. "[Delahunt] didn’t lobby for it; he didn’t come in and inform the town that he was looking for this work,’’ Lemnios said. "I was aware that he had formed a group, and as I thought about how to move the project forward, I thought about him and brought him to the [light plant] board.’’ But apparently, Hull is not Delahunt’s only political lobbying project, as he also capitalized on a relationship with the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe, when it paid the Delahunt Group about $40,000 to advocate the approval of a casino. The former congressman had strapped down $400,000 in earmarks for the tribe for a substance abuse program and other projects.  Further, the New York Times reported: The city of Quincy, Mass., meanwhile, brought on Mr. Delahunt last year to help deal with federal officials on a downtown redevelopment program. In 2008, Mr. Delahunt secured nearly $2.4 million in earmarks for the city on a separate tidal restoration project.  And a fishermen’s group on the elbow of Cape Cod hired Mr. Delahunt to navigate regulatory issues; he had helped the group get a low-interest, $500,000 federal loan in 2010, records show. The group, which thanked Mr. Delahunt, then a congressman, for his help getting the loan, used the money to renovate a historic coastal home as its headquarters.  If that’s not enough evidence to explicitly define Delahunt’s crony actions, noted Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner, then maybe this will be: In 2005 Rep. Bill Delahunt, a Democrat who represents Cape Cod, addressed the Washington Summit of the Travel Business Roundtable, and urged it to lobby more. Fed News reported, "The Congressman called on the industry to wage a more aggressive, bipartisan campaign." ...The Travel Business Roundtable registered as a lobbying organization in 2006, changed its name to the Discover America Partnership, and hired Steven Schwadron, Delahunt's longtime chief of staff, as its K Street lobbyist. "And then," Carney concluded, "Delahunt introduced a bill to subsidize the travel industry."

The State of the Union? At least we are out of Iraq (sorta)

I got one paragraph into the State of the Union address before I literally laughed out loud and looked to the DVR and found Mondays episode of "The Bachelor". I figured if I'm going to watch some superficial, shallow empty suit lie to me about something; I prefer it be about how much in awe he is over some 20-year old bimbo's  on national TV looking for true love rather than the (sorry) state of our beloved nation. 

The President was at it again, trying to appeal to every segment of the population without offending none all the while detailing ideas that basically amounted to nothing more than, well... nothing. But for our commander in Chief to lead off with Iraq, sums up his tenure at President. Uninspiring.

For a President who promised and represented so much, especially in the name of transparency; his failures have been catastrophic. Iraq is no exception. This is what Mr Obama said from the very top.

Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq. Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought – and several thousand gave their lives.

We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world. For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq.

It made me remember an article I read a month ago at Salon.com. Its surprising the President didnt mention the private contractors still stationed over there, all 3,000 - 5,000 of them. Names like Triple Canopy, Global, SOC Inc and Academi (formerly known as Blackwater) are private American security contractors that do not have to be held to the US Military rules of engagement, yet there they still remain just as the giant embassy and its 15,000 people to run it. How about those "fellow citizens"? But hey, we are out of there... I guess.

Yawn...another war on concept announced: The "war on women".

I was emailed a link the other day from a friend of mine who frequents the Huffington Post. Him being a self described Marxist and uber liberal and myself as a Libertarian; we do share some commonalities on various points of view across the political spectrum.

So, it’s only natural that abortion is a topic we speak of from time to time. Now, my personal view of abortion is different from my political view of abortion; I am pro life. However, I wouldn’t dream of making that choice for another through legislation (or at gunpoint i.e. the State).

With that said, this article she forwarded was written by a Nancy Keenan, President of NARAL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws) Pro choice America. Quite the mouthful it is, no doubt. Its important to note the name: “Pro choice America” after the acronym “NARAL” for later in this exercise.

NARAL was formed in the late 60’s and had a lot to do with the woman’s movement regarding the right to choose. Of course on January 22, 1973, Roe v Wade gave the woman the right to choose and the rest is history as we have had no encroachments on the legislation since. I applaud the activism and rightfully so, a woman’s choice is just that. Right after the decision on that fateful day in January is where it gets sticky for this author.

Being that abortion laws were in fact repealed thus eliminating the use for half of the acronym in NARAL; those on the board of NARAL decided to keep the “N” for National and shit can the rest. So they replaced ‘Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws’ with ‘Abortion Rights Action League’. Trouble is abortion rights were already secure… so 20+ years later they became ‘National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League - Pro choice America’. This constant reshuffling of the deck basically sums up the message, that you’re no longer relevant… but I have no problem with organizations collectively standing up for things they think are important.

Where I do have a problem is with the hyperbole used by this organization and others like it to inflame fires that don’t exist (non-profit or not). Its simply a distraction from much more pressing issues. To illustrate this point lets look at the first few paragraphs of this piece with my comments after each paragraph.

2011 was the year of the War on Women. Anti-choice politicians ignored the American people's call to focus on jobs and the economy, and instead made attacking a woman's right to make personal, private medical decisions one of their "highest legislative priorities."  

“2011 was the year of the War on Women” is complete nonsense. Much like the war on drugs or the war on poverty or the war on terror or hunger etc etc etc… etc. This type of language is used to instantly garner support to eradicate a perceived threat to an enemy that cannot ever lose. Thus the funding is always needed, and that is the point.  

The U.S. House of Representatives held more choice-related votes in 2011 than in any year since 2000, and states enacted 69 anti-choice measures -- one shy of the record number set in 1999. In the more than 30 years I've spent defending a woman's right to choose, I can't recall a time when politicians have been more out of touch with our nation's values and priorities. And we're not out of the woods yet. The very same politicians behind the War on Women are ready to resume the legislative attacks in 2012 here in Washington, D.C. and in state legislatures throughout the country.

2011 was the year of the “War on women” yet by this authors own statistics, the years 2000 and 1999 were more egregious… wouldn’t at least one of those two years been the War on Women? Then the author says “I can't recall a time when politicians have been more out of touch” and I hate to beat a dead horse but again, 1999 and 2000 were worse, so…? Lastly, to my point about using specific monikers to evoke passion to defeat a concept that will never lose thus creating endless needs for funding and job security for staff isn’t this following quote indicative of that?

The very same politicians behind the War on Women are ready to resume the legislative attacks in 2012

I had posted a much more condensed version of this rant on the Huffington Post but my comment never made it out of the “pending remarks”. I guess they missed it?

Chris Dodd - Most expensive whore money can buy

Chris Dodd is truly one of, if not the biggest scumbag to crawl out of the gutters of DC since Trent Lott. I would contend that the two of them could be pitted into a classic MTV staple (when it was still semi music television) Celebrity Death match as each being the biggest whores from their respective party’s in the last decade, which would be great theater. Two vile - spineless lawyers clawing each others eyes out for a stack of dollars is must see TV.

From his controversy surrounding his dealings with Countrywide getting sweetheart loans to his contributions and support for Frannie and Freddie even as the two were facing collapse to his AIG bonus “reversal”; Chris Dodd has always taken the sleazy route. I would assume it’s safe to say, the path of most lucrative assistance for sure, no doubt. So its of no surprise he would become a lobbyist after he left office.

He is a lawyer, but I can’t find any record he even practiced. He was in the Peace Corps and then the Army Reserve (thus excluding him from being sent to Vietnam) so what’s a 66 year old man with no job experience supposed to do? Kinda late in the game to take an entry level position… and with the amount of slime dripping off his torso; who would hire him anyway? Enter M.P.A.A.

Dodd (who spent 36 consecutive years in office) is on record saying he wouldn’t go through Washington’s "revolving door”. "No lobbying, no lobbying" was his answer to a question when facing "retirement". That however wouldn’t last long as he was tapped to replace Dan Glickman; a former nine time Congressmen (imagine that) as President of the Motion Picture Association of America last march for a reported cool 1.5 million annually. Within six months came SOPA. You have to tip your cap to the MPAA. You talk about fast-tracked? Six months and you got a bill with overwhelming support brewing? Money well spent, do doubt.

But we know SOPA failed. The grassroots movement is what makes the internet dangerous. It takes the power out of the elite and puts it back in the hands of the masses. And the representatives listened. This is what our Republic is about, is it not? Constituents prodding their elected leaders for changes they want... not their elected leaders beholden to corporate interests. 

The establishment was furious and Dodd led the charge; saying that websites that participated in the blackouts were somehow guilty of: "abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace." Dodd, then assumed it was a timing issue. He had the nerve to assume a “Slow timeline” would have produced different results. Code word for: If we rammed this bill through faster, maybe on the eve of a holiday or as a rider on another bill we would have been fine. Transparency is not something Dodd has to worry about anymore, as if.  

To top this off and the most despicable of all was Dodd’s message to Congress and the Senate. In a moment of stupidity or some might say clarity, Dodd summarizes the rotten core of politics today in one fell swoop of a paragraph.  

“Those who count on quote ‘Hollywood’ for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who’s going to stand up for them when their job is at stake," Dodd said. "Don’t ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don’t pay any attention to me when my job is at stake.” 

I loathe lobbying, but what I loathe even more so is former elected leaders lobbying and talking out of both sides of their mouth. This issue is the single most treacherous and destructive action against our Republic today and in the days to come. Special interest and “K-Street” will bring this country to its knees before they suck every last dollar out of the public’s jugular without any constraint or admission of guilt. If this isnt an example of how in drastic need we are of strict term limits, what is?