Republicans and their land deals

August 23, 2006

After considerable effort, I just couldn’t figure out exactly what the Clintons were alleged to have done in the Whitewater “scandal” that prompted a multi-year independent criminal investigation. But if Republicans really want to talk about land deals, this may be a good one to delve into.

Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue spent $2 million to buy about 20 acres of Florida land just miles from Disney World, purchasing the property from a wealthy Republican donor.

Perdue bought the land from Stanley Thomas, a Georgia mega-developer with a fleet of planes that the governor used at least once to get to a West Coast fundraiser. The 2004 purchase came a little more than a year after Perdue appointed Thomas to the state Board of Economic Development. About a year after the purchase one of Thomas’ companies, Fourth Quarter Properties, donated a whopping $250,000 to the state Republican Party.

Perdue said there was nothing improper about the deal. The Republican governor said that he bought the land in Florida because purchasing property in Georgia while he was governor would have created a conflict of interest.

State Dems note that Perdue spent a quarter of his net worth on the land without ever having seen it, and suggest the governor ran afoul of federal anti-corruption laws.

The details aren’t exactly black and white, but I can’t help but notice that questions surrounding high-profile Republicans and problematic land deals keep piling up.

In addition to Purdue, there’s Senate candidate Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), Rep. Gary Miller (R-Calif.), Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), Rep. Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.), and, of course, former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.), all of whom have been involved in dubious real-estate controversies lately.

Did I mention that the Whitewater probe, which showed no wrongdoing on the Clintons’ part, cost $70 million and lasted seven years?

I’ll bet there are land deals stacked up like planes at a busy airport for Bush when he gets out of office. I just hope the Dems have special prosecutors stacked up to deal with all this Republican corruption.

  • A double standard, as usual. Hastert’s situation I find particularly offensive.

    (CB, I think this line: “State Dems note that Perdue spent a quarter of his net worth on the land without ever having seeing it” – should read “without ever having seen it”.)

  • Any land deal involving a politician that defies the fair market value for the property should be investigated. So, was the price for land that Perdue bought in Florida too low—or will the eventual selling price be so high that Sonny will be able to retire with Duke Cunningham in federal prison.

  • I think this line: “State Dems note that Perdue spent a quarter of his net worth on the land without ever having seeing it” – should read “without ever having seen it”

    Thanks. It’s fixed.

  • As I’m sure you know, whether the Clintons did anything wrong in their deal was beside the point. The point was create the *appearance* of wrongdoing, and to generally harass them. It was in investigation prodded and stoked for purely political reasons.

  • “Any land deal involving a politician that defies the fair market value for the property should be investigated.” – SKNM

    Actually that should be “Any land deal involving a politician … should be investigated.” Period.

  • If plutocrats can’t enrich themselves from their being in office, then what good is plutocracy if only their friends profit from their being in office? The power of incumbency, the revolving doors between office holders and private industry or office holders and lobbying firms, the crony capitalism, the jerrymandered districts, the election of people like Bush — it all adds up to government by the rich, for the rich = plutocracy. How ironically tragic that our soldiers are dying to inject democracy in countries where it will never take, while democracy is dying on the vine at home.

    And I can’t let the Clintons so easily off the hook. There is no question that they abused their positions of power in Arkansas to seek wealth.

  • And I can’t let the Clintons so easily off the hook. There is no question that they abused their positions of power in Arkansas to seek wealth.

    Comment by lou

    Really? Can you point to some evidence on that? Thanks.

  • It doesn’t end there. It used to be Georgia law that if you sold land in Georgia and used the money to buy other land in Georgia, you could defer taxes on the sale. Shortly before selling the land, Sonny signed into law a bill that extended the tax break to people who used the proceeds to purchase land out of state, and which made the tax break retroactive for 6 months, conveniently just covering Sonny’s land deal. Details are here: http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/metperdue0819a.html.

    Sonny saved $100,000 in the process.

  • Dale: Really? Can you point to some evidence on that? Thanks.

    Dale, I cannot dredge up anything that proved that the Clintons did anything illegal. But, I still stand by my comment. How many people can walk in off the street and turn a $1000 investment in cattle futures into a gain of $100,000?

    I would also point you to an interview done by Frontline with James Stewart, the author of Bloodsport: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/arkansas/whitewater/stewartcarb.html

    Q: Something that’s now become conventional wisdom about the Clintons and runs throughout this whole affair is that they have a habit of dropping people whenever they threaten to become political liabilities. Does your reporting bear that out?

    Stewart: I just heard it from so many people that you have to give it a certain credence…I got criticism from the right because I didn’t find any evidence of criminal activity by the Clintons with regard to the original Whitewater deal. I got criticism from the left for portraying the Clintons as being willing to do anything to get ahead…If anything, that portrait of them in the book was mild.

    It made me sad. I mean I was a Clinton supporter I voted for Clinton . . . and it made me wonder – do you really have to be like this to succeed in politics? And I guess the answer is yes.

  • CB, the difference is, the Clintons lost money on Whitewater – that was obviously what caused all the investigations, alarm that politicos could somehow lose money on real estate deals (certainly something the Republicans will go to great lengths to forbid)

  • Firefall, the big difference between these current Republican land deals and the so called Whitewater deals was the intensity of coverage of the investigative reporting that started the drive to begin the criminal investigations into the deals in Arkansas. There is no current media reporting that I know of that is comparable to the initial Whitewater reporting that became sustained nationally. The fact that the Clintons lost money on the Whitewater land deal had nothing to do with it. The Whitewater investigation in fact turned into a side issue of the entire investigation in Arkansas that did uncover criminal wrongdoing but did not conclusively link the Clintons to the crimes of those who were convicted. Hillary Clinton’s involvement as an attorney in the Casa Grande deal would have at minimum placed her in a position to know what was happening as this deal transpired.

    Does anyone think that all of this would not be resurrected if HC decided to run for president? Sorry, but I am really soured on the Clintons and cannot imagine what any dems are thinking about having her as their prime choice for 2008.

    • Comments are closed.