Look Beyond Yourself

Source

Vector Girl Taking Picture at Beach.

Source

John Edwards Refunds: Campaign Placated Large Donors?

Money Talks, Suckers Walk




In regard to the stories about refunds of contributions to Big Wheels, I don't have strong feelings either way, and a couple of Devil's Advocates could argue both sides.

I do note, however, that even though the latest, baddest story was not broken until August 8 or thereabouts, the stories, both National Enquirer and blind items in the New York (Daily News or Post, I forget which), go back to at least August, 2007, and the bizarre stories regarding Ms. Hunter and Mr. Young developed months ago, so the campaign has been on notice that a big storm was on the horizon for much longer than August 8, 2008.

There were reasons a long time ago for the campaign to start placating big supporters in some way. Those are the supporters who probably have access to the candidate and campaign leaders, and who could influence action from general pressure and explicit statements of chagrin, whether there were specific questions as to why the candidate had not thought with his brain, and "what the heck is going on and I spent all my time bundling for you for this mess to develop?"

It is probable that most regular Jills and Joes who sent small donations would not have such access and implicit, if not explicit, influence. The regular Jills and Joes would get their info and ability - - or lack of ability - - to exert influence as a group from the MSM - - - and now back to square one re the MSM. When the recent explosive story came out and the MSM covered it - - or covered their failure to cover it - - Andrea Mitchell said on a cable news show that the journalist community had known about the stories for a long time. It sounds as if journalists knew and sat on it, and those in the inner circle knew, or knew something was stinky, and said, "I'm disappointed with you. I am taking your allowance away this year."

Most scenarios don't unfold all neat and tidy like on "Matlock," where the evidence is so obvious the lawyer just explains it in a five minute narrative and then asks the stunned and cowering witness, merely, "Isn't that true?" It is a mistake to assume after the fact, with enhanced hindsight, that all actions in any scenario took place with perfect knowledge on behalf of the actor. It may simply be a case of the squeaky wheel got the grease.

Big supporters may have been harrumphing because they knew something was up, whereas regular Jills and Joes may have had to choose between the National Enquirer and John Edwards, their hero, who said it was all a pack of lies.

To be fair to all donors, big and small, if there was not enough money to repay all contributions, then the campaign should have issued pro rata refunds to all donors in both Americas, without waiting to be asked.


[Background information: access over 100 DBKP stories on the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter affair, scandal and cover-up: John Edwards Love Child Scandal Library.]

by Phil Ander
image: learnsomethingnewtoday

Dem Convention Pix: Anti-War and Patriots Corner

One Sunday in Denver
2008 Democrat National Convention
Anti-War Protesters, Counter-protesters and the Cops
Odds and Ends Pix



Turn left??............Ironic

Our man, RidesAPaleHorse, files several more batches of photos from Denver. We apologize: these came in last night, but because of an all-nighter we pulled on another story (the curious refunds of the Edwards campaign), we're only now getting them posted.

We'll have more tomorrow, but for now, pictures of Fun and Games in Denver.

Click images to enlarge.




Patriot Corner




Cool cop




Bike reinforcements for the Anti-War March




Beginning of the Moonbat march in background




Moonbats gather outside the park




Counter-protesters have to get ready, too




Green Hats are "legal observers"




Controlling the access




Falun Gong contingent
(Falun Gong?)




Probably not worried about the Falun Gong




More "legal observers"




One of the many paddy wagons available





Caution: Moonbat Crossing




Dr. King must be rolling over in his grave




A gathering of loons




"What time's my shift over?"




Counter-protesters for the Military




Just another Sunday in Denver




Almost ready




Media's here




Start of the "March of the Moonbats"





"Hey! Look who's coming!"




Mounted patrol moving into position




Moonbat observers. "Son........this is NOT what you want to be".....




Mounted Patrol (again)...This time, a better shot




'Nuff said




Might be a hooker?



by RidesAPaleHorse
images: RAPH

John Edwards Campaign Refunds: More Questions

Highly-Selective Nature of Edwards' Refunds is Questioned
NOT Their Legality

"I donated what I consider to be a significant sum of money to John Edwards, but I am not an lawyer. Is there a website address where I can apply for a refund?

Is there a deadline for applying for refunds? I would appreciate any help anyone can give me."
--Iowa Pensioner, in a comment to our earlier story, Edwards’ Campaign Quietly Refunds Contributions to Bundlers, Big Backers




Who in the John Edwards' campaign speaks for Iowa Pensioner and her America?

Is Iowa Pensioner a lone voice crying in a wilderness full of Edwards' apologists and would-be FEC lawyers?

UPDATES, if any at DBKP: John Edwards Campaign Refunds: More Questions than Answers


Our stories earlier today [Edwards’ Campaign Quietly Refunds Contributions to Bundlers, Big Backers & John Edwards Scandal: Many Big Edwards Donors Got Refunds in March] caused a bit of a stir.

PJ Gladnick at Newsbusters, immediately got our point and put it in his headline,[Web Scoops MSM: Edwards Refunds Contributions to One of His Americas]. So did Moonbattery's Van Helsing:

The disgraced John Edwards has proven himself right about there being two Americas: one is rich enough to get their campaign donations quietly refunded; the other is poor enough to ignore. Following Warren Buffet's warning that donors could give the ambulance-chasing Breck Girl a dose of his own medicine with a class action lawsuit, DBKP reports:

As well as Tom McGuire, at Just One Minute: "Wouldn't that buttress a class-action lawsuit? Why is Edwards taking care of his fat-cat bundlers but not reimbursing Joe Lunchbucket's $100? Troubling."

Paleo Pat puts it thus: "It seems that John Edwards is giving much of his money back to the “Big Bundlers” some of whom are convicted felons." Snoop, at Political Party Poop, saw the irony: "LOL!"

Everyone else, including Edwards' apologists and campaign ho-hummers: let's be clear and drop the word games. We're not (and weren't in our earlier stories) questioning the legality of the refunds, but the highly-selective nature of who received their money back.

One reader wrote: "This would have been a real scoop if big contributors were getting refunds but little contributors weren’t after Edwards confessed to his affair. The true explanation appears to be pretty mundane."

If there is truly "mundane", then why did only ONE CLASS of contributors receive their money back? We have our doubts about how "mundane" the explanation is to small Edwards' contributors.

Of the 2247 contributions returned as of July 31, 2008: only 125 of these were for UNDER $100 dollars (discounting multiple donations that may have included a donation for under $100). Most of these smaller donations went to lawyers, doctors and others with substantial incomes.

Why did only contributors from One of Edwards' Two Americas get their money back?

We will wait for an answer.

We spoke with the FEC and the Center for Responsive Politics this afternoon. Again, nothing illegal (we're sorry if we left that impression, but upon re-checking our stories, the word "illegal" does not appear in either.) was implied. What was not implied, but asked quite directly: WHY did the multi-millionaires--mostly trial lawyers--get their money back in such a timely manner?

We appeal to former Edwards' supporters: did you know that you could apply to the campaign for a refund? Did you know that if you designated your contribution for the general election, you would get a refund? Were you, as an Edwards' contributor, informed by the campaign at any time--especially after Edwards' August 8 Nightline appearance--that you could ask for your money back?

At the Edwards' campaign website, there are no instructions whatsoever to help the little guys in obtaining a refund.

The person at the FEC that we spoke to was somewhat helpful:

"If the candidate drops out after the primaries, then all contributions designated for the general election--not the primary election--then the contributions, by law, have to be refunded to the contributors. If the individual contributor wants a refund of his/her donation made for the primary election, it's up to the discretion of the campaign whether to make the refund."

We were directed to this FEC document for further questions. Although it's labeled for "Congressional campaigns", we were told the "same rules apply to presidential campaigns." The only item concerning "refunds" was found on page 182 of the pdf document:

Refunded Contribution—A contribution is refunded when the recipient committee first deposits the contribution and later sends the contributor a check for the entire amount (or a portion) of the contribution. 103.3(b). Compare with definition of returned contribution.

Returned Contribution—A contribution is returned when the recipient committee sends the original check (or other negotiable instrument) back to the contributor, without depositing it. 103.3(a). Compare with definition of refunded contribution.

It seems we're back to our original question: if it's largely up to the discretion of the campaign, then why did the Edwards' campaign's discretion favor the large contributors?

Again, why did some of the biggest contributors receive money back for both the primary and general election?

Massie Ritsch, of the Center for Responsive Politics, was very helpful both in a phone conversation and in emails he sent from Denver, where he's attending the Democrat convention. CRP is looking into the refund process also, as there seems to be not much written on it (as we discovered while writing our original stories).

But Massie was very clear on a possible remedy for disaffected Edwards' donors:

"There might be plenty of trial lawyers that supported John Edwards willing to take that [class action] case."

"It's like a corporation," Massie continued, "that takes money from investors and doesn't inform them of all they know."

1 How many non-lawyers were aware that they had to designate their contributions for use in the general election to get them back by law?

2 Why were the overwhelming majority of people who received refunds big donors? Some of these donors apparently received back their contributions from both the primary and general elections: if this was at the discretion of the campaign, why were only large contributors from One of the Two Americas considered?

There is some redundancy in the above paragraphs, but it's there for a reason: it's not the illegality of the refunds that interest us; it's the highly-selective nature of who received them.

Why did Fred Baron receive his money back and not Iowa Pensioner? Why did Michael Eisner get a refund and not "emma" who wrote: "“…and i gave $500 to his campaign which went to pay for his whore’s meals! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!”?

Why did Dean Hanley, of Berkeley CA, get his $6900 back in two separate refunds, while GA Rep. Stephanie Stuckey Benfield ($750) didn't?


Our earlier stories also piqued the interest of Walter Olsen, Overlawyered:

Ted must be feeling prescient regarding his speculations about an Edwards-contributor refund class action now that Warren Buffett has weighed in on the idea [Kaus]. And in fact the Edwards campaign does seem to be refunding some contributions in interesting ways, if one account pans out (bundlers! Thomas Girardi! John O’Quinn!) [DBKP, more, yet more]

John Edwards spoke on the campaign trail of the Two Americas, poverty and helping the poor vs. the rich.

When it came time for his campaign to put its money where his mouth was, it was clear which of his Two America got their money back.

Who speaks for those people now?

by Mondoreb
image: dbkp file

John Edwards Affair: Many Big Campaign Donors Got Refunds in March

John Edwards' Two Americas:
The Fat Cats and Bundlers Who Got their Money Refunded;
The Working Stiffs Who Stayed in the Dark



* The John Edwards' campaign has already refunded $3,831,398 to contributors--many who contributed the maximum of $2300.
* 2,247 donors have already received money back from the John Edwards--many who are trial attorneys and political "bundlers"--and most received it back on March 24.
* Refunds to small donors under $100 have accounted for only 1/5th of one percent, so far, according to Open Secrets.com.
* The Edwards campaign still has $4,791,200 cash on hand, according to its July 31, 2008 filing.
* There are no instructions on the Edwards' campaign website for applying for a refund, though the campaign is still taking donations on the same site. It may be that refunds will be issued on a "first come, first serve" basis, but that is speculation. More on the refund process in a DBKP story to be published later Monday.

For any readers who gave money to the John Edwards' campaign and are now upset that perhaps that hard-earned $50 or $100 (or more) went to pay for Rielle Hunter's stay in the tony Governor's Club or Andrew Young's BWM that Hunter drove for awhile, there's hope yet to recover that money.

While searching for info on another John Edwards' story, DBKP's LBG uncovered something previously unreported in the media: the Edwards' campaign made a number of refunds to campaign contributors on March 24. Most were large contributors--trial attorneys and political contribution bundlers--and many received $2300, or more, back from the Edwards' campaign. Many not only received refunds themselves, but members of their families who had contributed also received checks from the campaign in March.

For a candidate that ran on a "Two Americas" theme, when it came time for refunds, only One America got campaign refund checks, while the other America was kept in the dark.

Until now.




Warren Buffet told CNBC last week: "I've seen a lot of class-action suits with less to it than this particular case. The facts are clear. I mean, he [John Edwards] solicited money and he wasn't telling the truth to the people he was soliciting it from."

Buffet was talking class action, but DBKP has learned that the Edwards' campaign has refunded $3,831,398--the bulk of it back on March 24, when the campaign quietly issued refunds to the vast majority of the 2,247 who've received their money back.

Many of those receiving refunds were big trial attorneys and bundlers--those political money men/women who round up boatloads of cash for a candidate's campaign.

One such bundler was Atlanta attorney, Stephen Leeds. He received $2300 back on March 24. Apparently, at least one of the contributors, who gave Leeds $750 of her money for Edwards, has not.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in a story Sunday of one such former Edwards' backer who wants her money back.

“That’s money I could have put in my children’s college fund,” state Rep. Stephanie Stuckey Benfield (D-Atlanta) said of her contributions to Edwards.

Stuckey said she donated a total of $750 to Edwards and has contacted former Edwards backer Stephen Leeds trying to find out how to get a refund.

Leeds, an Atlanta attorney, has been an Edwards supporter since 2002 and was considered Edwards’ point man in metro Atlanta. Leeds said he now backs presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama and has no idea if there is any money in Edwards’ campaign coffers to return to disgruntled former supporters. He said he has not talked with Edwards since the scandal broke.

“John ended up dishonoring an awful lot of people in this process, from his family to a lot of his supporters,” said Leeds, who gave Edwards $2,300 for his primary run and $2,300 for the general election.

The Journal-Constitution reported that Leeds stated, "Any general fund campaign contributions will be returned to donors because he [Edwards] is not running in November".

Leeds should be able to help Benfield get her money back: Leeds received $2300 back from the campaign in March, according to Open Secrets.com.

Lee Stranahan predicted last week, in a Huffington Post article, that Democrats might want their money back from Edwards:

Some Democrats Will Want Their Money Back : It's already becoming something people are talking about informally but it's just a matter of time before lawsuits start because it's becoming clear that Edwards used campaign money to take his girlfriend on the road with him. Times are hard and this could become a new and innovative economic stimulus plan for Democrats.

Again, for the first lucky applicants, no lawsuits are necessary: just be at the front of the line and be the first on your block to get your John Edwards' stimulus check!

At least that's the speculation until later today, when a few experts in the field will give their views in a yet-to-be-published DBKP article.




More from Warren Buffett on the class-action matter:

CNBC: Did you ever give money to John Edwards along the way?

BUFFETT: No, I didn't--I didn't give money to John Edwards. And, in fact, I think if I'd given money to him, I'd probably be asking for it back now. It's an interesting situation because John Edwards essentially was soliciting money from people to further his ambitions for the presidency, and, you know, people sent him 50, $100, $200, and I would say that they sent it in while they were being misled by the person who was soliciting the money from them. And, you know, I think if I were Edwards, I might give up a haircut or two and refund at least, you know, the people that gave the 50 or $100, $200 items, because they-- if they had known the facts, they wouldn't have sent him the money, and he is the guy that didn't give them the facts. I mean, he knew that, in effect, he wouldn't be elected president. I mean, the story was out there during the campaign. He denied it, but it was out there. And, in fact, I've never heard of it, but it might be kind of interesting if somebody, some contributor, would bring a class-action suit on behalf of all these people who essentially were led to send money to a man under totally false circumstances, false pretenses, and where he knew it and didn't tell them the truth.

Mickey Kaus commented on the Buffett class-action idea:

Heh! ... I would think this would be a difficult precedent to contain--can donors sue McCain because he didn't, in fact, get "the message" from the defeat of his immigration semi-amnesty bill--and he knew it? Maybe businesses have to live with this sort of uncertain class-action threat when they dissemble. Politicians will never stand for it.

But again, why go the legal route--that seems more make-work for the bundler-types, many who've already received their refund checks--when you can apply to the Edwards campaign directly for your money back?

Time may be of the essence here: the campaign reported $4,791,200 cash on hand in its July 31 filing. Because there is no information on the Edwards' campaign website about a refund process--but one whole page dedicated to collecting donations is still active--contacting the campaign would seem to be a must.

And, "first come, first served" might be something for disgruntled Edwards' contributors to keep in mind. DBKP is still probing the matter and will have more on the process, as well as a story on who received their cash back in March, only seven weeks after the former NC senator called it quits.

One such contributor left a comment on one of our Edwards' stories just last week. Identified only as "emma", the comment may ring a bell with some former Edwards' contributors:

"...and i gave $500 to his campaign which went to pay for his whore’s meals! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!"

But, there may be hope yet for emma.

She may not be a big campaign cash bundler--42% of all Edwards' bundlers received refunds so far, most on March 24--but 125 contributors who gave under $100 have gotten refunds back from the Edwards' campaign thus far.

In a story to be published later today, more facts about the March refunds:

* Who got their money back early?

Fred Baron was one, ex-NBA player Eric Montross--who rented his Governor's Club house to Andrew Young for awhile--was another. Many trial lawyers, such as John O'Quinn, William Lerach and Thomas Girardi, were in on the Edwards' early refund program.

* Who in Hollywood got back money already from the campaign?

* What small contributors--who earned big bucks--have already gotten their money back?

Also, later today: How to apply for refunds.

As J.G. Wentworth says in his TV commercials, "It's your money."


by Mondoreb
notes: LBG
images:
New sox
Confessions of a Wannabe Adman
Hiphop Republican

John Edwards Affair: Lawyers, Clergy, Hubris and Breaking Trust

SCREW UNTO OTHERS AS THEY . . .
TRUST YOU





Counselors. Counsel. Advice and Counsel. Those in the exalted position of offering counsel possess a power which must be exercised prudently. Where a conflict between personal and public interest arises, the counselor must act for the good of all, not for selfish, debased reasons.

Doctors, lawyers, and clergy are three professions that carry a special obligation of trust and responsibility, not only to their clients, but to society; three professions that require, as a condition to admittance into the chamber of secret knowledge, oaths vowing to act for the good of others. People turn to doctors, lawyers and clergy at vulnerable times, with problems that go beyond a mere human's capabilities to handle and require the advice and counsel of someone who has vowed to act honorably, help others and rise above corrupting influences.

Doctors, you are off the hot seat today. But lawyers and clergy, Oh My!

Lawyers and clergy can really mess with the mind. They can cause society to lose faith in what is the right thing to do, and the right thing to expect of others. "Everbody's doin' it, doin' it" might work for adolescents, but not for those wearing the mantle of counselor. We hate it when the bad behaviors of clergy, whether Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart or predatory priests, are uncloaked. We hate it when the lies of lawyers who have taken upon themselves the mantle of public trust, whether Nixon, the Clintons or Edwards, are uncloaked.

True, it means they are just people - - just like us - - but these phonies have preached to us about the right thing for us to do, used their perfect lives as a template on which to pattern our own mean existence, and we have trusted them to handle our problems and help us to cope with our vulnerabilities. By circumstance and necessity they must be held to the highest standard.





Clergy and lawyers are both admired and despised because we need them in the worst times of our lives, and they have to be trusted at those most vulnerable times. They can be honorable, protecting and helping us, at which times we admire them, and hope our children go to law school or seminary and gain admittance into the chamber of secret knowledge. Or they can use their power for their own selfish reasons, deceiving and hurting us.

The only people who benefit no matter which end of the spectrum the behavior occupies are John Grisham and journalists. They can spin a good tale from either extreme of behavior, and an excellent tale when an esteemed counselor's behavior takes a roundtrip between the extreme poles. The tale can run from north to south - - "Whee, I just fell from Grace!" (or "I just fell off Grace!") It can travel from south to north by a number of routes, guided by one's moral compass - - the blue highways routes of responsibility, reflection and quiet work to rehabilitate one's self, or the express route of confession, immediately followed by turning the wheel over to God.

"Men think with their pants, not their brains" and "it's a private family matter" are illogical, patently silly excuses. If the brains - pants dichotomy was a logical excuse, predatory priests would be off the hook because they don't think with their brains. In the Edwards case, neither excuse is applicable because the culpable acts are not the sex or the affair. Rather, the bad acts are the months of lying to the public and supporters, and the sin of hubris exercised by all involved in the matter and the cover up.

Hubris is one of those hard, not-used-every-day words, so it is tempting to say, "Sin of Hubris? Okay, take the express route. Confess just far enough to squeak through, and then turn the whole problem over to God. You'll see absolution straight ahead in about 10 minutes."





But it isn't that easy. Hubris is a serious personality flaw. It has made these people untrustworthy. They have a chronic case of bad judgment, both over the prolonged period of the cover-up and the intense, panicky period at the end, which birthed the confession (with limited warranty where applicable) and started Chapter Two of the cover-up chronicles. Shouldn't these people have refrained from dumping this hubris mess on the heads of the unknowing public and supporters (unknowing except for supporters with jets and moola)?

They intentionally suckered the public and supporters. What they were "reille-y" saying was, "Please donate so I can pay a sultry videographer/roadie and her hotel bills on the road. Please donate so We can reign in photogenic marital harmony and "most admired" status over all the Land. Please donate so our special interest squad of air-borne lawyers can exert big influence and bomb any tort reformers. Just please, please donate, and p.s. judge us by our empty words, not our actions."

In the next national crisis, would you want a president with great hair and hubris galore, who would be in denial, and lie and stall, then panic and fall apart at the critical moment? A president whose friends and family were enablers? Sounds like a good story line for "24," both Nixonian (except the hair part) and Clintonesque to keep it non-partisan.


by Phil Ander
images: jungbauer

Denver Pictures: Democrat Convention is Mile High Moonbat Magnet

Democrat Is a Moonbat Magnet




The Democrat Convention in Denver, CO, has attracted all the usual suspects--as well as a few suspects readers may not have expected.

DBKP's roving convention correspondent, RidesAPaleHorse, sends in his latest batch of pix from outside the Pepsi Center. Moonbat Central has attracted everyone from "Amnistia" to "Stop the War on Iran"; from "Shut Down Guantanamo" to "Let Ralph (Nader) Debate!" to the "Al Qaeda Fan Club" (sign posted by a few counter-demonstrators, it seems).

They say a picture is worth 1000 a words--and RAPH sent in 14,000 of them.














[ALSO at DBKP: Denver, Dem Nat’l. Convention: Photos Two Days Before the Convention]


















[ALSO at DBKP: Pixelaneous Photo Essays Library. Over 50 DBKP Pixelaneous photo collections!]













Carrying the Stars and Stripes makes this lady seem a bit out-of-place among the regular constituencies of the Democrat Party.


by RidesAPaleHorse
images: RAPH