BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

Mark Karlin

Editor and Publisher

February 29, 2008

Let's explore two issues of potential unknown downsides for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

We'll start with Obama's Rezko association because we are well-steeped in Illinois politics, being in Chicago, and have been following the Rezko case with great interest.

The first item of interest to know is that the Rezko prosecution is being pursued by the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald -- yes, the same one who convicted Scooter Libby as a special prosecutor. The second thing to know is that Rezko is one of those perennial scumbags who gives large sums of money -- along with getting "business" acquaintances to do the same -- to politicians in the hope that eventually he will get a "pay-off" in terms of getting government contracts or state jobs for people, of which he gets a cutback. (We should qualify that although Rezko hasn't been convicted of anything and is thus presumed innocent, he has been indicted.)

The Clintons know this type of parasite well, since they have had to give back donations from such leeches on a number of occasions. Senator Clinton most recently had to fork up more than $800,000 in donations [1] from one Mr. Hsu, a felon on the lam, who had donated to her campaign.

A February 28th ABC News report [2]on one of the recent developments in the Rezko case states: "Obama is not considered a target of the federal corruption investigation, and his campaign staff says any contribution tied to Rezko has since been donated to charity."

Yes, Rezko's wife brought a thin corner lot -- which was recently sold to a third party -- adjacent to Obama's Hyde Park Chicago house. But the seller of the home, a physician, has indicated that the price of the home had nothing to do with the sale of the adjacent lot.

Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate in any of the long investigations of Rezko that Obama offered any quid pro quo for campaign contributions, similar to the situation that the Clintons have found themselves in when having to deal with rogue donors. The offering of a contract, job, or favorable government regulation is what makes such a donor-politician relationship a crime. If the mere receipt of money from unsavory operators were illegal, the Clintons and almost every other politician would have been in jail a long time ago.

Those of us in Illinois politics who have followed the course of the Rezko case through each new court filing and leak know that the Rezko case has a high profile target, and it is not Barack Obama, who is just a recipient of Rezko campaign funding and sycophancy (but with no indication whatsoever of any quid pro quo). The person that Patrick Fitzgerald is in pursuit of nailing is the Democratic Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, who is known as "Public Official A" in prosecution court filings. Whether it can be proven or not (depending upon whether Rezko and some other indicted schemers flip or not), it appears that Blagojevich's office -- including the Governor -- participated in a "pay to play" scheme on a large scale -- with Rezko receiving government contracts and jobs for himself and others.

Obama, like the Clintons with many of their past donors, appears just to be the recipient of largesse because very few politicians ask where donations are coming from, but return them when a donor is "outed."

As for Rezko's wife's involvement with the purchase of an adjacent lot to Obama's house, Obama has admitted a lapse in judgment and called it "boneheaded." Still, there is no indication of any investigation or breaking of the law in this much discussed home purchase.

The far more uncertain revelation that is hanging out there is what potentially explosive information is in the income tax returns of Senator Hillary and former President Bill Clinton. Barack Obama has released his income tax returns, rendering his financial situation utterly transparent. Senator Clinton, however, has refused to release her joint income tax returns until after she were to be nominated by the Democratic Party. When queried about this by Tim Russert during the Cleveland debate, Clinton was evasive and downright clumsy in her explanation. She told the nation that she hardly has time to sleep, let alone deal with a tax return. Are we to believe that Senator Clinton needs time to get her calculator out and do her own tax returns, as Bill sits by her side?

No, Senator Clinton is not releasing her tax returns because there is obviously something in them that she doesn't want to come out until -- and if -- she gets the nomination. People who worry about a ticking bombshell should sure be worried about that one, because she could release them now with one phone call to the accountants. The Clintons have gone from being millions of dollars in debt when they left office to having assets estimated up to $50 million now. And Bill is off receiving commissions on some financial dealings with shady world leaders and financiers. When will we know the details about these transactions? Since Senator Clinton lent her campaign $5 million, did some of the money come from Bill's "rainmaker" fees?

Well, Senator Clinton, as transparent and as vetted as she claims to be, isn't telling us.

Then there is the second issue of the incestuous relationship between contributors to Bill Clinton's library and charitable funds. It is rumored that he has accepted money from at least some foreign contributors who might be seeking favorable relationships in a Hillary Clinton administration. When asked about why these contributors are not revealed, Senator Clinton pulls a rope-a-dope and claims that it is a decision that is up to Bill, as if she is powerless to influence him. Once again, where is the transparency? If there is nothing to hide, why is it being hidden?

We know that the Clinton supporters who believe that Senator Clinton should be inoculated from any criticism will read this blog and immediately object that it could have been written by Chris Matthews, which is the standard response we receive to any valid criticism of the Senator. Frankly, we have denounced Matthews as misogynist and agree with Senator Clinton that MSNBC has not clamped down on a sexist "locker room" atmosphere.

But just as being unfairly attacked because of sexism is to be denounced; so is an attitude that says a person of either gender can do no wrong because of their gender.

Senator Clinton's refusal to come clean on her income taxes and to get Bill to reveal donors to his post-presidential activities indicates that there is something that the Senator doesn't want us to know during the primaries.

The question is, if the Senator is utterly transparent and vetted, than why is she not being utterly transparent and vetted when it comes to her finances?

And would this potentially be a serious liability in the fall?

Good question, indeed.

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

Afternote from the Obama Campaign: [3]

During a recent MSNBC debate, Senator Clinton was asked if she would release her tax returns. She answered, “Well, I will do it as others have done it, upon becoming the nominee or even earlier.” But the very next day, her campaign backtracked, saying, “As is customary, as the Democratic nominee Sen. Clinton will release her tax information in April at tax time.”

But waiting until April is not customary. In the 2004 Democratic primary, Governor Dean, Rep. Kucinich, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Edwards released their tax returns in April of 2003 – a full year earlier in the primary process. Senator Kerry released his tax returns in December of 2003, and General Clark released his tax returns in January of 2004.

Senator Clinton’s refusal to make this very basic disclosure has raised a number of eyebrows among advocates for increased transparency. As her top Ohio supporter Governor Ted Strickland said in his 2006 campaign, if a candidate is not releasing his or her “tax return, what is he hiding? We should question what’s going on.”

Senator Clinton should explain why she believes voters in the upcoming primaries shouldn’t have access to the same information as voters in the general election.

Senator Obama has made a practice of releasing his tax returns (the summary and the schedules), because he believes that after seven years of secrecy from the Bush Administration, we need increased transparency in our government. Allowing voters to evaluate this information is good for the process, but this is particularly true when a candidate decides to use his or her own personal fortunes to fund their campaign, which Senator Clinton did when she loaned her campaign $5 million.

Senator Clinton’s refusal to release her tax returns is part of a pattern of secrecy that has imbued her campaign and raises questions about the sort of change she would be willing and able to bring to Washington.

Equally troubling is the fact that three years after Senator Clinton said all the record in the Clinton library would be available, less than 300,000 of the 78 million documents have been released.

In the debate, Senator Clinton tried to cast some of the blame on the White House for the delayed release of her records, saying, “Now, also, President Bush claims the right to look at anything that is released, and I would urge the Bush White House to move as quickly as possible.” But White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said that Clinton representatives have known since Jan. 31 that the documents – Senator Clinton's daily public schedule during her husband's presidency – have been deemed ready for public release by the National Archives. “To my knowledge, we have not been contacted by Mrs. Clinton or anyone else about moving more quickly with the review and release of Clinton material, specifically, her schedules.”

February 27 Washington Post Editorial: [4]

Time for Tax Returns
Why won't Hillary Clinton and John McCain disclose their filings?
Wednesday, February 27, 2008; A16

HERE'S ONE instructive difference among the leading presidential candidates: Only one, Sen. Barack Obama [5], has released his income tax returns. Mr. Obama's Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton [6], and the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain [7], have so far refused to do so. Most troubling, Mr. McCain isn't even pledging to release his returns once he becomes the nominee.

It might be possible, if unconvincing, for presidential candidates to draw a principled line at such an invasion of privacy. After all, candidates are required to file financial disclosure forms that outline their assets and liabilities, along with the amount and sources of their income -- although, notably, spouses are exempt from providing much detailed income information. This argument would be unconvincing because the stakes involved in picking a president allow for little in the way of a zone of privacy. It has become a given that presidents and vice presidents release their tax returns; why shouldn't the same be expected of someone applying for the job? In addition to filling the gaps in the financial disclosure requirements, tax returns provide insights and information that are not available elsewhere, such as the use of tax shelters or the amounts and kinds of charitable contributions.

Privacy is not, in any event, the argument that Ms. Clinton is making. "I've said that I'm going to release my tax returns when I'm the nominee," Ms. Clinton said at a forum this month. This is contrary to historical practice; Sen. John F. Kerry [8] released his returns in December 2003, long before winning the nomination; Vice President Al Gore [9]'s returns, of course, were already public. More important, the refusal is unsupported by any rationale: If it's legitimate for voters to expect nominees to disclose their returns, why not primary candidates, especially at this winnowed stage of the process? Indeed, Ms. Clinton's refusal to release her returns is exactly contrary to her campaign's argument that Mr. Obama has not been "fully vetted," as campaign adviser Harold Ickes [10] said Monday at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor [11]. When it comes to Ms. Clinton, Mr. Ickes said, "There's nothing left to vet." Really? Then show us the tax returns.

Mr. McCain's position is even more disturbing. He is the all-but-official GOP [12] nominee, yet his communications director, Jill Hazelbaker, told us in an e-mail that she had "not yet discussed" the matter with Mr. McCain. "He is not the nominee of the party at this time, and we're focused on winning primary contests and wrapping up the nomination," she wrote. "When the right time comes I will have that discussion and get you an answer to your questions." With all due respect, Mr. McCain, the right time is now.

 

Technorati Tags: EditorBlog [18] Obama [19] Clinton [20] Tax Return [21] Rezko [22] Clinton Library [23]