NRCC still wants terrorist suspect’s money

February 27, 2007

To update a story we were following closely last week, the National Republican Congressional Committee still doesn’t want to give up the contributions it received from an accused terrorist, even though its Senate counterpart has done the right thing.

For those of you just joining us, here’s a quick review. Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari (aka Michael Mixon) is currently facing federal charges for allegedly providing material support to terrorists. Alishtari is also a generous Republican donor, contributing more than $15,000 in the ’02 and ’04 cycles to the National Republican Congressional Committee, and having been named to the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s “Inner Circle Leadership Committee.” NRCC officials acknowledged last week that they took money from an accused terrorist financier, but decided that they won’t return the money. (For reasons that I don’t understand, the national media has largely passed on this story.)

The good news is, the Republicans’ Senate campaign committee has given away Alishtari’s contributions….

NRSC Communications Director Rebecca Fisher said: “In light of the recent charges filed against a former donor, the National Republican Senatorial Committee will donate the sum total of the former donor’s contributions to a charitable organization. The money will go to an organization that benefits our military men and women and their families.”

…and the bad news is the Republicans’ House campaign committee doesn’t care.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) announced it is donating their contributions from the accused terrorist to charity, but the NRCC is stubbornly refusing to follow suit.

“Republican Members should demand that their leadership and the NRCC get rid of the accused terrorist’s campaign contributions,” said Jennifer Crider, Communications Director at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Why is the NRCC reluctant to donate to charity this accused terrorist’s campaign contributions? Did any Republican leaders or Republican Members meet with Alishtari?”

This should be a no-brainer. Alishtari stands accused of trying to send $152,000 to buy equipment for terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. He also ran a company, GlobalProtector, which was bidding on multiple government contracts — including ones with the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security — around the same time Alishtari was cutting checks to the NRCC.

The NRCC’s reluctance doesn’t make any sense. The committee can afford to donate the $15,000 Alishtari contributed and make these questions go away. Why wouldn’t NRCC officials err on the side of propriety, especially when it comes to an accused terrorist financier?

As long as we’re on the subject, it’s also worth noting that some of the leading conservative bloggers aren’t terribly impressed by the NRCC’s strategy either. Hugh Hewiit said, “Look, the standard for conviction is very different than the standard for taking money. I don’t think the NRCC should keep the money of indicted terrorist suspects. Donate the money to the Semper Fi Fund or a similar group helping the wounded from the war. Now.”

Ed Morrissey added, “The NRCC has to take action now. Their return of the money, or better yet donation of it to a charity, will not reflect on the court case of Alishtari nearly as much as its retention will reflect on the values of the NRCC.”

I’m still disappointed that this story has garnered more attention, but the NRCC seems anxious to be criticized. Dems should oblige.

“The appearance of impropriety” seems to be a concept lost on some Republicans. That is, when it’s applied to them.

  • Hey CB, I think you mean I’m still disappointed that this story has not garnered more attention, but the NRCC seems anxious to be criticized. Dems should olblige.

    I agree, Dems need to be on this like the Rethugs would be if it was us doing it.

    COME ON, Dems. A freaking terrorist training camp financier is giving money to the Republicans, they refuse to give up the terrorist money and you’re not making a lot of noise?

    Whose side are you guys ON anyway?

  • This reminds me of the old Jack Benny gag when a robber demanded “Your money or your life,” to which Benny would comically hesitate and say “I’m thinking, I’m thinking.”

    For the NRCC, the rest of the nation is demanding “The money or your integrity,” and the NRCC can only reply “We’ve never met a contribution we didn’t like.” Only that’s not funny.

    Given how the White House now wants to give our tax dollars to Sunni’s in league with al Queada in order to oppose Hizbollah in Lebanon and stem the rising tide of Shia influence in the Arab world, the Republicans say they hate terrorists but business is, you know, business. Why let a little terrorism get in the way of a good business deal? Hell, after all, Alishtari could be using American dollars funneled through terrorist organizations in the first place since money is a fungible commodity.

  • So, the WaPo’s John Solomon is apparently on the campaign-finance beat, right? And he’s *still” flogging fraudulent page-one attempted takedowns of Dem pres candidates, while utterly ignoring this story?

  • Republicans have benefitted from massively tainted money for several elections cycles. In Ohio, Frank Guttadoria (financial advice fraud) and Tom Noe (“coingate”) gave generously to the GOP and to Bush election and re-election efforts. Enron money supported Bush in his first election. The Florida Collier family got an overpayment for mineral rights on the order of tens of millions of dollars in exchange for a political contribution on the order of $100,000 . This is a sleaze machine that raids the public coffers to fund give-aways to rich republicans, in exchange for political kick-back contributions that keep the whole corrupt political machine in power. Giving tainted money away to charity does not even begin to solve the problem and redress the damage done to the US.

  • This circumstance verifies the myth of a liberal media. If indeed we had a “liberal” media, this story would have legs. Since this story is stationary, the real dynamic of the media is exposed as less than effective when speaking truth to power. The media, especially the NYT and WaPo, have abdicated their meaningful roles in our political culture. There is no truth to the idea of a “liberal” media. There are only talking points that denigrate our political heritage that these media outlets are all too willing to help distribute to the detriment of all Americans. -Kevo

  • Goodness, when it was Clinton and Gore and money with connections to China, it seemed there was a story on it daily whether there was anything newsworthy or not. Maybe this means if Al jumps in, under the new standard, there will be no comments about the monks?

  • These are the same folks who wouldn’t cough up money donated to Foley even when other ReThugs were falling over in their haste to give away money connected to the little creep. Perhaps NRCC Keeps Dirty Dollars = Dog Bites Man to the media.

    • Comments are closed.