Tuesday, February 14, 2006

 

Let's Play: Follow The Money, Part II

Today’s game is brought to you by the letters “A, B, and C", and today's information is brought to you by take19 reader, "Spotlight."

Fact: the recently passed GOP-created Bankruptcy Bill favored banks, other lenders, and credit card companies, while hurting small businesses and consumers...badly.

Question: Why did Sue Kelly vote for this awful bill (the banks and credit card companies) while turning her back on the people of the 19th District (her own constituents)?

Principle? Ethics? or perhaps Money?

We should check in with the FEC Website to see if we can find the answer.

You remember from last time, click on the document to enlarge.

Let's Play

Now, go to the FEC website. This is what you'll find:



Fill in the information as shown...2005-2006, Kelly, New York, House, 19, Republican, Incumbent. Then click "send query," and you'll be shown the one-line report that tells you about Sue’s net receipts of $893,715 through the end of 2005:



Now, click on “Sue Kelly” at the left side of the report line, to get to her summary statement.



Click on “Non-Party (e.g. PACs) and other Committees”, and this comes up:



Now, remember, we're looking for the reason why Sue Kelly, who represents the PEOPLE of New York's 19th District, would cast a vote for a bill that unarguably helps BANKS AND CREDIT CARD COMPANIES who are NOT in her district...a bill that is intended to inflict financial pain on many families who live in her District, who own homes in her district, who raise children in her district, who pay taxes in her district and expect their representative to be their eyes, ears and voice in the hallowed halls of the People's House in Washington, DC.

So, the first thing we look for here is, obviously, MONEY. BIG MONEY...and, I think we've just found it. Easy as ABC. Let's look at the financial services companies that begin with those first three letters and see what we find.

The letter "A" has given Sue 10,500 reasons to vote against the people she serves:

AMERICA'S COMMUNITY BANKERS COMMUNITY CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE


Their bribe was for $3000 in 2005 alone, in three installments.

AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)


They played for $5000 in two installments in 2005.

AMERICAN FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION PAC


Sue is into them for $2,500 for the 2005 contribution cycle in two installments.

The letter "B" supplies another 13,500 reasons for Sue to vote with her wallet.

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE


Jackpot. They buy momma a brand new pair of shoes with a whopping $13,500 in five big payouts.

The letter "C" makes 10,500 arguments for Sue to hurt families in Westchester, Putnam, Dutchess and Orange Counties.

CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORP. ASSOC. POLITICAL FUND


These guys are in for $2,500 in three easy payments.

CITIGROUP INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE-FEDERAL (CITIGROUP PAC-FEDERAL)


$2000 in two checks made out to Sue Kelly.

COMPASS BANCSHARES INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (COMPASS BANCPAC)


WHAT? Only $1000 bucks? Get my campaign manager on the phone. These guys aren't going to get into see Tommy Dee if they don't cough up some more scratch.

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION PAC


Countrywide is on Sue's side for $1000.

CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) GOVERNMENT ACTION FUND


The Suisse are in for $2000.

CREDIT UNION LEGISLATIVE ACTION COUNCIL OF CUNA


Even the credit unions pay to play with $2000 in two installments.

So to tally up the ABCs...only three letters and for 2005 ONLY...that's $34,500.

Before we leave the financial services alphabet let's go to the letter "F" for a particularly devious PAC called:

FINANCIAL SERVICE CENTERS OF AMERICA INC.


They are into Sue for $5000 reasons in 2005.

I bring this outfit up because these are the folks who bring you high interest payday loans, a type of loan that is illegal in New York State because of the high interest rates they charge. Loan Sharks. And, indeed Ms. Kelly gets an "F" for her vote.

You could run the entire alphabet, if you like, finishing up with WACHOVIA ($2500), WASHINGTON MUTUAL ($2000), and ZURICH HOLDING COMPANY ($2500)...and I know you'll find about 100,000 reasons why Sue Kelly voted against the mothers, fathers, and children of the Hudson Valley, and for financial interests that don't even call the 19th District home.

Friends and neighbors, meet the REAL SUE KELLY.


# posted by NYBri @ 5:06 PM
Comments:
Friend, nice try. But your starting with a faulty premise. Apparently, you think unmitigated bankruptcies are good for our economy. In fact, abuse of bankruptcy laws by some individuals punishes the much greater majority who struggle to pay their bills and live within their means. Sure, there are situations that people find themselves in where bankruptcy is the best alternative. But by putting in place stricter rules re: bankruptcy, Congress actually did a good thing in this instance.
# posted by Anonymous Anonymous : 7:25 PM
 
Doncha just love people who talk out of their asses, like our friend, above, who is too cowardly to sign a real name? Let's just hope that anonymous doesn't get sick -- we mean really sick, like cancer or some other horrible disease and finds himself without health insurance. Because as this widely quoted study notes, more than 50% of all bankruptcies are a result of people who lack health insurance who are misfortunate enough to get seriously sick. Only a real jerk would think that these unfortunate folks deserve to be screwed twice. A clever (though sad) site goes into this in much more detail.
# posted by Blogger take19 : 7:49 PM
 
Reasons for 90% of all bankruptcies in America?

Loss of job
Severe Illness
Divorce

I also watched as my father was rear ended in an accident, was laid up for months and as a result, lost his clients and income and insurance. then lost his house and eventually filed for bankruptcy. It was the ONLY thing that gave him dignity in his later years...and under this new law, he couldn't have done that and would be forced to work three jobs, instead of the two he's working at the age of 82.

So dont' give me your smug, dispicable attitute, coward anonymous.
# posted by Blogger NYBri : 7:57 PM
 
In my earlier post, I should have noted that it's not just people who lack health insurance. It's also people who are underinsured, i.e. people who have health insurance, but can't get coverage for certain things because they're considered previously existing conditions.

Bottom line: if Congress really wanted to fix bankruptcy, they should have fixed the health insurance mess first. But since Congress has the best health insurance in the country (and free, to boot) they don't know what the rest of us go through. Sue is part of the problem, not the solution.
# posted by Blogger take19 : 9:07 AM
 
The bankruptcy law is a give-away to financial institutions, and indirectly a tax payer funded give-away.
As the cases you mentioned of people in distress, the study proposed by congress -had to- purporsely omit the impact on individuals that were filling for personal bankruptcy due to illness or poor social safety nets.
The most interesting debate was created by an study done by S. Baptist University -the core constituency of the extremists base support- the Baptist constituency groups were disproportionally affected by the law specially in poor rural areas in a ration of 9- to 1.
The problem with the law is that creates a tiered discrepancy with corporate actions to bankruptcy and personal actions when in distress.
The present situation presents a clear safety net for corporate bankrupcy fillings and attacks individuals.
As you commented above, the number issue to resolve is the the fillings due to health care emergencies or accidental occurence.
I experience from a neighborh a similar situation to waht you describe above. He had a serious heart attack at work, they thought he was well covered, so far he has lost his house, and due to pressures from collections services decided to move to another state. After two years of treatment and in bakruptcy he says he is ready to go back to work. I looked at him and it looks like a desperate solution.
By the way, you should not allow anonimous commentaries. Hidding Cowards Deserve no Freedom.
# posted by Blogger VMcD : 11:15 AM
 
Anonymous comments are no longer allowed.

At lease sign in with a name so others can address the comments to a person, not a state of being.
# posted by Blogger NYBri : 11:41 AM
 
Oooh, I found a GOOD one! Looking at the FEC site, I was heartened to note that almost all of the candidates opposing Sue have raised most, if not all, of their money from individual donations, while Sue's money is close to 50% from PACs. One of those PACs is named "Rely On Your Belief", and I was curious about who they were. Guess who gave $8500 to Rely On Your Belief since 1999? A click on the individual donor link reveals the name of someone else in the news these days besides Tom DeLay... Tom's ol' buddy, Jack Abramoff!!! The list of candidates that Rely has given to reads like a GOP directory.

So, at least SOME of Sue's $$$ has come from a guy who has admitted his own guilt (can't say he hasn't been convicted yet, like his buddy Tom, can ya, Mr. GOP?)
# posted by Blogger Walter : 12:35 PM
 
I guess Mr. GOP doesn't care to refute actual facts...
# posted by Blogger Walter : 10:19 AM
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?