Obama Broke Illinois Ethics Law as a State Senator
Posted on October 19, 2008
Digging into Joe the plumber’s personal life to smear him, the media was quick to do. Lets see if they even report on this when they don’t have any digging to do whatsoever.
Apparently, on Obama’s released tax records, he discloses income from speaking fees. The problem? Accepting payment for speaking fees when you’re a legislator is against Illinois state law
Apparently, as an Illinois state legislator through 2004, Barack was prohibited from taking honoraria for speaking under the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act
But what about Barack Obama’s 2000 and 2002 tax returns?
2000: On his 2000 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported that he received $16,500 as a “Foundation director/Educational speaker.”
2001: On his 2001 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported $98,158 from a Chicago law firm, Miner, Barnhill, for “Legal services/attorney” (and nothing for speaking)
2002: On his 2002 Schedule C, Barack reported $34,491 for “LEGAL SERVCES / SPEAKING FEES.”
These “speaking fees” are in addition to the amounts that Barack was paid as an employee, a lecturer at the University of Chicago, reported on the first page of his 1040s.
That’s not change we can believe in.
Just to sum up, the media can find Joe the Plumber’s tax woes within 24 hours of his having dared to question The One’s narrative, but they can’t find a clear ethical violation in the released records of a man who has been campaigning for President for two years now.
Another truth-telling moment brought to you by our fair and objective news media.
Why isn’t this a major headline at CNN? I think we all know the answer to that question. Laws only apply to Republicans.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Elections, Illegal Activities, Journalistic Malpractice, Liberal Media/Bias, News, Politics As Usual, Taxes
Trackback URL
Comments
17 Responses to “Obama Broke Illinois Ethics Law as a State Senator”
Leave a Reply
Well, that’s just a state law. He’s the ONE….doesn’t count.
GAG.
Indeed. Laws are for suckers, not the new messiah.
This is entertaining stuff. Yes, the liberal news media, including Fox News and the overwhelming majority of talk radio, has failed to look into Obama’s past.
And now for a nice little dose of reality:
It looks to me like Obama reported income in merged categories which in each case included “speaking fees” as one alternative. That means that it is possible that he didn’t actually receive any income in the form of speaking fees. The income reported under the heading “Foundation director/Educational speaker” could all be income as a foundation director. It is also possible that the speaking was part of the duties in the first category, e.g. that such speaking as he did was in his capacity as a foundation director, in which case he may well not have been considered to be taking speaking fees.
It would seem that further information is needed before reaching the conclusion that he received speaking fees in contravention of the Illinois legislative rules.
Rule of thumb in the comments here… no link = Obama drone.
Yeah, I’m with Mike on this one. It seems reasonable to assume that its a bracketed category that he only fits one of. Also to Gribbit…it would make sense that the burden of proof lie on the accuser, not the defender.
When you’ve cried wolf so many times and it turned out to be false, people just switch off. No one is interested in anything you have to say, true or imagined.
Just a few thoughts…
You’d best be sure of facts before accusing!
1. What law, specifically, did he break and can you quote it?
2. Were these returns reported to the IL ethics committee and did they have any findings?
3. Is it possible that the speaking engagements were related to other, out of government, positions he held concurrently to his position in the IL senate? If so, they were not honoraria.
4. Lastly, perhaps you should hold yourself to the same standards as the news organizations regarding investigative research? Perhaps investigation will prove things are above aboard and your claims baseless. Of course, that wouldn’t get your blog viewed, would it?
“honoraria” are fees for services usually performed at no charge.
Speaking engagements are usually paid for, and are therefore not automatically honoraria.
These payments are called “speaking fees”, and so all you have presented is evidence that Obama has charged fees for services that are usually charged for. There is nothing wrong with this, and frankly it is surprising for a conservative to imply that it is wrong to charge fees for a service rendered.
Of course, it is unlikely you make that charge based on any actual principles, conservative or otherwise. Do you have any facts to assert these fees should not have been charged? Or is this just the hypocritical rant of a paranoid?
If that’s true it’s unfortunate. Even though I support Obama this issue should be raised on national news so it can be addressed. Good job for keeping the pressure on.
Looks like you might have a legitimate gripe here. I didn’t think this would pan out. Still not sure it does, but…
Since you didn’t provide it, the relevant section:
(5 ILCS 420/2?110)
Sec. 2?110. Honoraria.
(a) No member of the General Assembly shall accept any honorarium.
(b) As used in this Section:
“Honorarium” means a payment of money to a member of the General Assembly for an appearance or speech, excluding any actual and necessary travel expenses incurred by the member of the General Assembly (and one relative) to the extent that those expenses are paid by any other person. “Honorarium” does not include (i) cash payments made on behalf of a member of the General Assembly to an organization described under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, (ii) an agent’s fee or commission, or (iii) funds reported under Article 9 of the Election Code.
“Travel expense” means the reasonable cost of transportation and the reasonable cost of lodging and meals incurred while a person is away from his or her residence or principal place of employment.
(c) Any honorarium or honoraria accepted in violation of this Section shall be surrendered to the State Treasurer and deposited into the General Revenue Fund.
(Source: P.A. 89?405, eff. 11?8?95.)
Next, you have to prove that, as the above posters pointed out, that these line amounts were actually for speaking. As has rightly been said, it may have been for something else eligible for that line.
Finally, if all these allegations are proven correct make sure that the $50,991 check that Barack writes to the Illinois State Treasurer doesn’t bounce since surrendering the honorarium is the ONLY penalty described within the statute.
I really expected a red herring. You may have something here. Still, is it really something worse than say…..having dealings with Charles Keating? I think not.
Oops. Forgot the link to the statute.
How about coming into the present and worry about Palin coming up on ” Ethics Charge”?
The report clearing stated that she had, in part, fired this man for personal gain.
Alaska Independent Party……why isn’t this smeared all over t.v.? You can bet your bottom dollar it would be if it were Obama.
If he sneezes wrong they are on him and frankly, I am sick of it.
You would swear they ( the republicans and especially McCain and Palin) were in high school. I remember what McCain said about dirty campaigning,smearing the other party to create votes for your party and yet he is doing just what he said he was against.
He has went so far as to go against his own ethic’s and belief’s.
If you want to mention Charles Keating and John McCain in the same sentence why don’t you mention the fact that the Special Counsel to the Senate Ethics Committe who investigated the Keating Five, Bob Bennett a (DEMOCRAT)said in his report that McCain showed poor judgement but in his opinion did nothing wrong or illegal and, in fact, he recommended to the committee that McCain(R) and John Glenn(D) should have their names cut out of the case. So, before you start running your mouth look into the facts.
Did I read this other comment from Linda correctly? “If he (Obama) sneezes wrong they are on him and frankly, I’m sick of it.” Well, frankly, I’m sick of people like you, Linda. When I and everyone else in this country has to be subjected to the major news outlets openly rooting for a candidate and one of them, NBC practically campaigning for him, then quite frankly, I don’t want to hear your whining. When I hear a supposed journalist (Chris Matthews) say he, “felt this thrill going up my leg as Obama spoke.” Or, his speech on race was, “worthy of Lincoln”, and that his speech should be mandatory reading for first graders and college seniors before going out into the world and that this surpassed MLK’s I have a dream speech. Are you kidding me? Give me a freakin break!!!! Poor Barack.
Of corse the media loves Baraak, he is funding them milloins for all the attack ads.
Maybe there should be a windfall proffits tax on big media?
Seems like you weren’t paying attention Linda. Palin wasn’t found guilty of using the office for personal gain. In fact, the investigation showed that there were valid reasons for her actions. What came into question was the actions of her husband.
However, because the media is so obvious Pro-Obama, and anti-McCain, they kept leaving out important details about her former brother-in-law, such as the fact that he not only threatened to murder her father, but had in fact tasered HIS SON, a toddler. Quite frankly, I’m surprised she didn’t use her position as Governor more blatantly to have him fired, which he should be. Someone who would taser a child, let alone his own, has no business being in law enforcement
Let’s face facts folks. We are talking American politics. Name me one politician without skeleton’s in their closet? Kennedy Reagan Clinton etc etc. all had what could be thought of as skeletons. Integrity is the base of all that is honest and trustworthy Palin for example has lied despite being told she was guilty of her actions. Therefore it should be about who has the potential to do the best job now and the future. The past is just that we learn from it and move on. What you accuse Obama of has he done since? or did he wise up?
Speaking of Palin’s brother in law, since he committed 3 act that should have had him arrested (stunning stepson, drinking in a troper vechicle while on duty and hunting federally protected moose out of season.How can his supervisor not fire him