In reports filed by Levin with the FEC, Malik and the Ilitch Family plus a number of their contract attorneys, lobbyists, consultants, service providers, Port Huron business partners, food supliers, vendors and employees' family members wrote to checks to Sen. Levin on March 30 -- on that one day, Sen. Levin reports receiving 105 checks totaling $96,910.00.
It all appears to be tied to backers of the Bay Mills Indian Community's Port Huron Casino proposal.
Click to see 3/30/07 Donor List
You may also want to review these posts...
--Port Huron
:- Contributions to Levin raise questions over casino, contributors deny trying to win support
- Do these people really believe Marian Ilitch is a "homemaker" or are they playing along with the game
- Various properties controlled by the current owners of the Thomas Edison Inn
- The Bay Mills Land Claims Case Was a Scam from the Start
- Desperate for third casino; Tribe & its developer condemn Abramoff, but try to slip own approvals through Congress "under the radar"
- Bay Mills Indian Casino backers behind first fundraiser for Rep. Candice Miller
- Senator 113k. Rep 75k. Getting to build a casino, PRICELESS
- Publicist shines spotlight on Senator Stabenow & Rep. Miller after his clients invested $200,000 in their campaigns
- Sen Stabenow restates her support for third Bay Mills casino, after Ilitch Family contributes $114,000 toward her re-election
3 comments:
Is there really any reason why one cannot donate to a political figure as long as legal maximums are not exceeded?? Also, is not the reason for supporting political figures to encourage them to support specific causes deemed worthwhile by their constituents? If the answer to these queries is "yes", I see no problem with the donations to Sen. Levin's campaign that seem to be in question by some. Is it really legitimate concern, or is it in fact simple "Sour grapes" on the part of those who did not receive equitable donations. I suspect the latter is more truth that fiction.
Our system of democracy allows people to contribute, within guidelines, to the campaigns of those with whom they find common philosophies and visions; our open system provides opportunities for checks and balances and it allows us to raise questions when we see symptoms of concern.
Viewed in a vaccum, these circumstances surrounding the fundraiser for Carl Levin might not be concerning -- especially to the politically naive; but reviewed in the context of a pattern of behaviours and collective circumstances it gives reason for concern.
When people suddenly shower cash for the first time upon a life-long career politician whom they are acknowledged to need the favor of -- especially when the favor has direct financial gain or enrichment for the donor(s); it raises questions.
When "one of the most successful businesswomen in the country;" an individual who has "earned a reputation as a dynamic force in the restaurant and entertainment industry;" the vice chairwoman of a Forbes 400 privately held company; and the sole proprieter of "the largest and most successful casino in the country that is owned by a woman" lists herself routinely as a "homemaker" on political disclosure forms; it raises questions.
Once people have a record of being investigated and fined for violating political disclosure laws; it raises questions.
"It's entirely too facile to assert that a stack of $100 bills is 'freedom of expression,' pure and simple.
"Indeed, it's not always. Under slightly different circumstances, the same participants, exchanging the same money, are engaged in punishable 'bribery' not protected 'speech.'
"In Washington's current 'culture of corruption' the gossamer line between 'campaign contributions' and 'bribery' is see-through thin. Special interests buy their legislation."
NICHOLAS JOHNSON, a former commissioner, Federal Communications Commission; former clerk, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo L. Black; and professor at the University of Iowa College of Law
Post a Comment