NRCC still wants Foley’s money

October 7, 2006

Republicans nationwide have been donating funds from Mark Foley to charity at a blazing speed, apparently seeing no upside to having contributions from a scandalous sexual predator. Go figure.

But the National Republican Congressional Committee, whose chairman, Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.), is up to his ears in this mess, continues to have one principle that stands above all else: greed.

Earlier this week, the NRCC said it hoped to get some or all of the $2.7 million Foley has left in his campaign account. Yesterday, the NRCC added that, unlike GOP candidates everywhere, it will keep the money Foley already contributed to the committee.

Mark Foley may be an embarrassment to the Republicans, but they still like his money.

The National Republican Congressional Committee intends to spend the $100,000 the former Florida legislator gave this summer – before his sordid e-mail exchanges with male teenage congressional pages turned him into a grand old pariah.

“We’re going to do with it what we do with other donations – use it to help elect Republicans,” said NRCC spokesman Carl Forti.

Asked whether the committee would consider returning the money, Forti replied, “Nope.”

I’m not sure the NRCC has thought this one through.

Dems appear anxious to localize the Foley scandal as much as possible. It’s a challenge, but they’re going for it. If, however, the NRCC keeps Foley’s $100,000, and starts distributing it to key House races, it offers Dems a chance to talk about “Foley money” all the time.

But, the NRCC will say, the $100,000 went into a larger general fund, from which the committee is drawing. There’s no way to say GOP candidate X is getting money from Foley, because it’s all too indirect.

But, the Dems will say, that’s the beauty of the argument. So long as the NRCC is keeping money they know came from a disgraced sexual predator, all of the NRCC’s money becomes suspect. Every race the campaign committee invests in offers Dems an opportunity.

“Foley gave money to the NRCC, and now NRCC is giving money to candidate X. Contact candidate X today and tell him he shouldn’t be taking money from a disgraced sexual predator.”

Sure, it’s hardball, but if the shoe was on the other foot, would the NRCC hesitate?

Heh

But, the NRCC will say, the $100,000 went into a larger general fund, from which the committee is drawing. There’s no way to say GOP candidate X is getting money from Foley, because it’s all too indirect.

To which the Dems should say, “You might think you’ve laundered this money, but it still stinks to high heaven.”

  • Absolutely! Every candidate the NRCC has contibuted to should be labeled as receiving laundered money from a sex predator! And start with all the Republican leadership. Even if they have not themselves received any money from the NRCC then they should be labeled as complicit in laundering the money of a sexual predator because they have allowed the NRCC to use that money.

  • “But, the NRCC will say, the $100,000 went into a larger general fund, from which the committee is drawing. There’s no way to say GOP candidate X is getting money from Foley, because it’s all too indirect.”

    They can try it and the Democrats don’t even need to say anything, though JoeW’s suggestion is excellent. People will hear “We take money from creeps,” and stop there. Any attempt to make this sound acceptable will just make people more suspicious. Perhaps the Dems could dig through the NRCC’s records and find a contribution from Skin Flicks, Inc. or something.

    It really is interesting to watch the Refugs stick their now infamous “Confuse-a-Cat” routine when they could do a lot to save their arses by coming clean, kicking out the offending parties (or since Hastert is on the list, renting a fork lift to haul him out) and taking sincere, concrete steps to distance themselves from Foley and the schmucks who helped him (like giving the money back). However, I think that at this point even a sudden show of contrition would be viewed with scepticism. And that’s assuming there’s anyone left in the Gestapo Orgasm Pogram who knows how to be sincere and contrite. They’ve marched in lock step so long they can’t stop, even when there are big signs saying: Danger, Political Road Ends in 50 Yards.

    It just goes to show: When it comes to starting a war or shredding the Constitution you can bluster and lie all you want. When it comes to allowing adults to prey on kids, you’d better make with the mea culpas toute suite.

  • Dems appear anxious to localize the Foley scandal as much as possible.

    Uhhh, CB? I think you’ve made a “Faux(News) pas” here? An MSM typo???

  • WHEN did Foley contribute the $100k…before or after Reynolds knew about it?If after, then was it hush money to keep Reynolds quiet about what he was told?

  • I’ve written to the White House & my Congresswoman that I call for Foley’s campaign chest (and the money he donated to the RNCC) to be given to the Center for Missing and Exploited Children to fund more internet child predator investigations. I’m sure that none of Foley’s generous contributors would mind that their donations will go to a worthy cause. rather than go to the election campaigns of those who participated in a cover-up.

  • Perhaps what I find so interesting, especially as a resident of one of the 8 counties that Foley’s district covers, is that for an election in which his competition is an ex-Republican (no local Democrat would challenge) who was likely to lose by at least a 2 to 1 margin, is that Foley still had 2.7 million dollars in his account – after running a significant number of TV ads. Just how much money do you need to raise to protect a safe seat?

  • Uh I’m not a Democrat or a Republican, I’m an American. What the hell happened to the rest of you. I think the entire US Government should be brought to justice not for being perverts but for ripping up the US Constitution. Bush is signing the law in a few weeks. The republic, DEAD

  • $100,000 of sexual predator money won’t even cause a ripple in the RNCC general fund. There is a lot of dirty money in that fund, including millions in war profits. Why do you think it’s called laundering in the first place? Slime ads are not cheap even in small districts.

    • Comments are closed.