DeLay’s K Street buddies want their money back

One side note to the [tag]Tom DeLay[/tag] resignation story that didn’t get much attention last week was the fact that [tag]DeLay[/tag] was poised to step down for quite a while, but had to pretend to be interested in keeping his seat, in part for financial reasons.

An additional impetus for putting off the resignation until now was suggested by John Feehery, a former aide to DeLay and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). “He needed to raise money for the [tag]defense fund[/tag]. That was the bottom line,” Feehery said. “He wanted to make sure he could take care of himself in the court of law.”

In other words, DeLay was raising money from suckers supporters under false pretenses. He asked contributors for financial support, telling them that he needed the money to help with his campaign, when in reality, DeLay knew he’d have to resign and he wanted the donations for his legal defense. DeLay’s con is legal, but obviously dishonest.

With this in mind, it’s not terribly surprising that some of these donors would like their [tag]money[/tag] back.

A few lobbyists who helped raise money for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) — all of them outside the inner circle of the former Majority Leader — say they’d like the outgoing Congressman to offer them their money back. […]

His re-election kitty, probably worth upwards of $1 million, is widely expected to be shifted into a fund to pay his mounting legal bills. While these lobbyists didn’t mind cutting checks to the Majority Leader, or even a member of the Appropriations Committee, they aren’t so energized about spreading their generosity to DeLay’s legal team because, well, what’s in it for them?

“If I wanted to give to a legal fund, I would’ve done it directly,” snarled one GOP lobbyist who refused to have his name attached to such callous-sounding sentiments, even if DeLay is leaving Congress.

Another lobbyist who gives to Members on both sides of the aisle said, “It’s nauseating to think about” his campaign contribution going to fund DeLay’s legal team. “I’m realistic about it. He wouldn’t resign for no reason,” this lobbyist said, noting that the timing of DeLay’s departure came awfully close to the announcement of a plea agreement by his former aide Tony Rudy. “That all this money will go to the legal defense fund, it sickens me,” he added. “I have to pay for that?”

Apparently so. As K Street lobbyists should realize by now, sometimes, when you lay with dogs, you get fleas.

“…they’d like the outgoing Congressman to offer them their money back.”

They must not know the Congressman very well.

  • I was thinking the same thing, CB–these guys knew they were dealing with an out-and-out crook. And now we’re supposed to feel sorry because DeLay punk’d them like they were a bunch of rubes fresh from the turnip patch?

    Maybe the lobbyists will think twice about making the pathological crooks the ones who broker their deals in Congress. Of course, that would require that the lobbyists themselves be a little less greedy and a little more ethical.

  • “If I wanted to give to a legal fund, I would’ve done it directly,” snarled one GOP lobbyist who refused to have his name attached to such callous-sounding sentiments, even if DeLay is leaving Congress.

    Another lunidentified lobbiest said, “Damnit, give me my money back I thought I was buying a Congressman not a defendent.”(snark)

  • say they’d like the outgoing Congressman to offer them their money back.

    Presumably, they wrote a check. Right? Well, unless the check’s cleared can’t they just cancel the check?

  • Wouldn’t it be funny if the lobbyists filed suit against DeLay for “solicitation under false pretenses” or something like that?

  • Here’s a classic lose/lose situation. On the one hand, I can’t stand DeLay and seeing him gain $$ under false pretenses to fund his defense sickens me, probably more so than it sickens the lobbyist.

    On the other hand, lobbyists should be the first against the wall when the revolution comes, so to speak. So when they lose their funds to a crooked congressman, I have very little sympathy.

    Perhaps the best solution would be to force DeLay to turn the money over to a charity (not one of his creation) and brought up on (additional) charges of fraud, while having the lobbyists disbarred/fired by their organization/client.

    Now THAT would be a win/win for the American people. 🙂

  • WTF?? Why is it legal for any politician’s campaign contributions to be shifted to his legal defense after he’s no longer a candidate? What is the legal justification for this? That money was donated in good faith that it would be used to help elect a candidate.

  • Apparently those are the rules– the only other thing they can use campaign contributions for other than a campaign is their legal defense relating to allegations that stem from their office and/or election. It sort of makes sense, in a twisted way. Running for office exposes you to people combing through your background in a way that could bring up lawsuits, either deserved or frivilous.

    However, if DeLay decided a while ago to drop out but timed this so he could have the max amount of campaign-related money for his legal defense, he should be charged with fraud.

  • The irony is sweet, however, they are idiots for giving a crook like DeLay money. Did they really believe DeLay’s protestations of innocence?

    Or believe that he could still run his seat from the hoosegow?

    Are the lobbyists so corrupt as to think that DeLay (and as a further extention Bush) will never be indicted (or impeached) for their crimes?

    That they could continue to lie, cheat and steal into eternity, as long as they held all three branches?

  • “As K Street lobbyists should realize by now, sometimes, when you lay with dogs, you get fleas.” …What an awesome way to sum up this situation!

    I guess from K Street’s perspective, shouldn’t there be SOME honor among thieves?

  • HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

    A lying Republican? What were the odds, fellas?

  • They got what they deserved!!!! “when you lay with dogs, you get fleas.” HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Rotten assholes.

  • I believe it’s “lie with dogs”, which works on more levels than just grammar.

    And it’s really unfair to dogs in general. And fleas.

    And now we know what it takes to sicken a lobbyist.

  • # 15

    I agree. This is VERY unfair to dogs. And to the fleas.

    The crooks from K Street got fleeced… Too funny.

  • I’ve always heard it as “lie down with dogs, get up with fleas”–which I think sounds the best and most Zen-like or proverbial. Almost as good as “Former congressman Tom DeLay was convicted today….”

    This rule about being able to transfer campaign funds to your legal expenses doesn’t surprise me, in that our congressional folk have traditionally taken care of themselves in every possible way, shape and form, through the rule-writing they do for themselves.

  • Comments are closed.