tom

! But is it acceptable? Do you actually support that behavior?

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), memorably told Alex Blumberg of NPR's Planet Money that Americans "would be shocked—not surprised, but shocked—if they knew how much time a United States senator spends raising money." He added, "And how much time we spend talking about raising money, and thinking about raising money, and planning to raise money."

The Democratic Congressional Committee tells its members to spend 4 hours a day raising money.

If you think that the pursuit of money for the political process doesn't dominate in Washington, your naive. If you think there isn't quid quo pro understood with much of the process your naive.
What Sibelius is raising money for is going to help poor people understand the options now available to them in the ACA.
At least this "fund raising" is focussed on doing some good.

rickyp wrote:geo

Fate's right here. If she wanted to build support for this effort she should have contacted the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, not Johnson & Johnson. It's not like there weren't other, more appropriate organizations to call

How do you know she didn't?

The question is, did she in any way coerce the organizations?

I don't know that she didn't, but if she did, she should have offered up that as a defense. See, there are organizations that are set up to do exactly what she wanted: not-for-profit charities and private foundations. Some like RWJ Foundation is even funded with money made from Johnson & Johnson. But HHS has no direct oversight of these organizations. They do have direct oversight of health organizations and when the person overseeing your business asks for a favor, you give it. Or at least that's what you do in some scandal-ridden banana republic. I admit I don't know much more about this story than what has been posted in these forums so there may be more to this story than is being disclosed (which is not uncommon), but the regulator should never be in the position of asking the regulated for a favor.

geojanes wrote:I don't know that she didn't, but if she did, she should have offered up that as a defense. See, there are organizations that are set up to do exactly what she wanted: not-for-profit charities and private foundations. Some like RWJ Foundation is even funded with money made from Johnson & Johnson. But HHS has no direct oversight of these organizations. They do have direct oversight of health organizations and when the person overseeing your business asks for a favor, you give it. Or at least that's what you do in some scandal-ridden banana republic. I admit I don't know much more about this story than what has been posted in these forums so there may be more to this story than is being disclosed (which is not uncommon), but the regulator should never be in the position of asking the regulated for a favor.

QFT.

rickyp wrote:tom

! But is it acceptable? Do you actually support that behavior?

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), memorably told Alex Blumberg of NPR's Planet Money that Americans "would be shocked—not surprised, but shocked—if they knew how much time a United States senator spends raising money." He added, "And how much time we spend talking about raising money, and thinking about raising money, and planning to raise money."

The Democratic Congressional Committee tells its members to spend 4 hours a day raising money.

If you think that the pursuit of money for the political process doesn't dominate in Washington, your naive. If you think there isn't quid quo pro understood with much of the process your naive.
What Sibelius is raising money for is going to help poor people understand the options now available to them in the ACA.
At least this "fund raising" is focussed on doing some good.

Contra your example, politics and governance of a Cabinet position are not the same thing. In fact, Cabinet officers don't do fundraising.

But back to the example: if you think this isn't a not-too-subtle form of blackmail, you're more foolish than I've imagined.

Fund raising is one thing, shakedowns are another!
You continue to bet heavily on losing horses here, backing this practice is another loser for you. Admit some things the Democrats and/or Obama do are wrong (the Republicans and/or Bush are and have been wrong on may occasions) this blind partisan support is really harming all things you criticize of late, sort of a boy who cries wolf now isn't it?

Lets put it another way, what if your boss came up to you and asks if you want to support his kids school band and asks if you would "like" to donate to their trip fund. He goes on to tell you how everyone in the office has contributed and how pleased he would be if you would "donate" $100 to the cause and it would reflect quite well on you if you did donate, if you didn't, well he would not be so pleased. Is this a fair thing for him to do? Is it illegal? ...no (he never actually threatened to fire you if you chose not to donate yet you can read between the lines can't you?). Should he be doing this? ...absolutely not! If you have no problem with this, then you are not being honest with us or yourself and the example is exactly the same!

and it gets deeper still
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06 ... eport?lite

and the Obama administration is defending this procedure!

Federal regulations do not allow department officials to fundraise in their professional capacity. They do, however, allow Cabinet members to solicit donations as private citizens ‘if you do not solicit funds from a subordinate or from someone who has or seeks business with the Department, and you do not use your official title,’ according to Justice Department regulations.”

This is the weasel that Sibelius is using to cover herself.
She has cover. Should she have cover? In an ideal environment no. But she's operating in a system that invites this kind of corruption and which engages in it every day. Especially congressmen. And extra especially powerful committee members soliciting political donations.

My point is that what she's doing is pretty much the same as when the chair of a congressional committee calls up corporations in industries that his committee covers and asks for political donations. That happens all the time. Constantly. And those committee chairs have more direct impact on legislation or budget appropriations then Sebelius might have over regulation. (She doesn't , from a cabinet position, direct or micro manage the bureaucracy the way some imagine it to be, as the so called IRS scandal illustrates)
When republicans complain about Sibelius making these calls in a press scrum, they leave the scrum and go their office to make virtually the same calls. Only in their case its not for donations to a non profit but to a campaign fund...
The notion that this is a scandal is ridiculous when you consider how much corporate funding of the political process has corrupted everything.
Is she a weasel? Yes.
Is she corrupt? Since she's raising money for a non-profit that is designed to help poor people I'll say no.
Is every politician who makes those campaign fund requests corrupted? Sure.
Another non-scandal.
The scandal is the corruption in Washington generally. The hypocrites who complain about Sibelius are just as beholden to the corruption.

finally coming around!
a big change from your post a few days ago:

And this must be stopped?
Why?

But your acceptance of this because it's done all the time is not quite correct and a bit laughable.

rickyp wrote:This is the weasel that Sibelius is using to cover herself.
She has cover. Should she have cover? In an ideal environment no. But she's operating in a system that invites this kind of corruption and which engages in it every day. . . .

The notion that this is a scandal is ridiculous when you consider how much corporate funding of the political process has corrupted everything.
Is she a weasel? Yes.
Is she corrupt? Since she's raising money for a non-profit that is designed to help poor people I'll say no.. . . The hypocrites who complain about Sibelius are just as beholden to the corruption.

First, since she operates in an environment that invites corruption, she has cover.

Second, "everything" is corrupted.

Third, she is a weasel (disingenuous).

Fourth, wait, no, she's not corrupt because . . . her intentions are good?

Is that true?

1. She's not raising money to help poor people. She's raising money for propaganda purposes. The government could reach poor people easily, by instructing all "welfare agencies" to make the poor available of any additional benefits of Obamacare (dubious, since the poor already have government healthcare).

2. Her intention is to overcome Congress which has declined to fund the Obamacare directive. This is anti-democratic. Whether one agrees with it or not, there is a legal way to fund government programs and to promote them. This is an effort to skirt the democratic process.

3. The President's own words knock this whole line of reasoning out of the sky. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_off ... Government

This is not "transparency."

GMTom wrote:and it gets deeper still
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06 ... eport?lite

and the Obama administration is defending this procedure!

This goes beyond what everyone warned about the Patriot Act. There is no indication that every Verizon user is calling terrorists.

Enough.

Can we have our Constitutional rights back, please?

I have no problem looking into terrorist or suspected terrorists phone records, but why is EVERY call being looked into? That is abroad over reaching of authority and has no explanation for doing so behind it. I have Verizon, why does the government need to know I called my wife twice yesterday and I texted my daughter once?

The Verizon thing is very invasive, but it is lawful under the Patriot Act, and under Bush a similar order was in place at times between 2001 and 2006.

ooops, my daughter just texted me a message with a picture attached of her college diploma that just came in the mail, looks like the FBI will be reviewing that message!?

Tom, you do realise that they are only recording the meta-data, not the content? All they would have is that a large message was sent from one number to the other.

Apparently the Verizon court order has been in place since 2006.