Unlike for his first Inauguration, Obama has chosen to allow unlimited corporate contributions to fill the fund-raising coffers of the entity legally known as the Presidential Inaugural Committee. Last time around the block, Obama refused corporate contributions for the Inauguration Ceremony as “a commitment to change business as usual in Washington.”
|By: Steve Horn Monday January 21, 2013 10:10 am|
|By: Steve Horn Sunday November 18, 2012 7:45 am|
The Tar Sands Blockade of TransCanada Corporation’s “Keystone XL South” continues in Texas, but former members of the Clinton and George W. Bush cabinets believe the northern half will soon be green-lighted by President Barack Obama.
In a Nov. 13 conference call led by the Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), an oil and gas industry front group, CEA Counsel John Northington said he believes a “Keystone XL North” rubber stamp is in the works by the Obama Administration.
“I think the Keystone will be approved in fairly short order by the administration,” Northington said on the call.
|By: David Dayen Thursday September 27, 2012 6:30 pm|
MoveOn.org has sent a finding of fact to the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department, asking that they initiate an investigation into whether Mitt Romney lied on a federal financial disclosure form.
This is an issue that arose back in July, during the debate over precisely when Romney left his job at Bain Capital.
|By: David Dayen Wednesday August 22, 2012 3:30 pm|
Here’s a pretty incredible story out of South Florida. David Rivera, a GOP Congressman who already has an impressive history of corruption, paid the bills for a fake Democratic primary candidate for his House seat. There is evidence here of federal election crimes that carry jail terms.
|By: David Dayen Wednesday July 25, 2012 7:18 pm|
AP has another story out detailing meetings and involvement with Bain Capital after the time when he claims to have ceased all involvement with the firm. And that activitvy conflicts with his sworn statements the gave to the Federal Election Commission.
|By: David Dayen Monday July 16, 2012 7:00 am|
It seems to me that Ed Gillespie made the mistake of telling the truth yesterday about Mitt Romney’s departure from Bain Capital. He said that there “may have been a thought at the time that it could be part time, but it was not part time,” and that “He took a leave of absence and in fact he ended up not going back at all, and retired retroactively to 1999 as a result.”
This is probably exactly how it went down.
|By: David Dayen Friday July 13, 2012 3:17 pm|
Mitt Romney just gets into more and more trouble with his shifting stories around his departure time at Bain Capital. We have more evidence now that he committed some manner of felony when he told the FEC that he had “not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way” after 1999, when he reportedly left. But more information keeps cropping up that he did have dealings with Bain entities.
|By: David Dayen Friday July 13, 2012 7:21 am|
Mitt Romney’s problems over when precisely he left Bain Capital continue to pose a problem for him. He contradicted himself on two separate forms to two federal agencies, both of which carry a perjury statute. He told the SEC from 1999-2001 that he remained the CEO and sole shareholder of Bain Capital, and he told the FEC in a Financial Disclosure Form that he left Bain in 1999. I suppose there’s a way that both could be true, but it’s highly unlikely.
And now, there’s little reason to believe that the narrative the Romney campaign has pushed, that he left in 1999, is totally factual.
|By: MSPB Watch Saturday April 21, 2012 6:00 pm|
Dissenters’ Digest takes a look back at the week’s stories covering whistleblowers, watchdogs, and government accountability.
|By: David Dayen Tuesday April 3, 2012 8:40 am|
The Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision left open the ability of Congress to pass disclosure rules regarding campaign contributions. Now a ruling in a Federal Election Commission case would force some level of disclosure of those who fund campaign ads.