Charities around the country stand to gain thousands of dollars as House Dems begin to unload tainted donations from embattled Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), according to a Hotline OnCall survey.
So far, Dems who received contributions from Rangel have pledged to donate $320K to charity, according to spokespeople and news reports. Members will give back at least another $86K.
The ethically challenged Rangel, who was admonished last week by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, has donated millions over the years to Dem candidates and causes. But now that he has surrendered his Ways and Means gavel, at least temporarily, the GOP is showing no signs of letting up their attacks on Dems who accepted his campaign cash.
And there is no shortage of members who will take heat: In office since ‘71, Rangel has never won re-election with less than 89% of the vote. That means he uses the millions he raises every year goes to his colleagues facing far more difficult election campaigns.
Incumbent members of Congress seeking another term have accepted nearly $1.58M from Rangel, according to filings made with the FEC. That doesn’t include the millions Rangel has contributed to the DCCC throughout the years; as chairman of a major committee, Rangel’s dues are set at $500K this cycle, though he has given just $150K.
Though an increasing number of Dems have given contributions back to Rangel, or donated the money to charity, some members have only handed over a portion of the money they’ve received from the Ways and Means chairman. Reps. Larry Kissell (D-NC), Jerry McNerney (D-CA) and Dina Titus (D-NV) each made a show of giving back some of the money, but they have not returned all of it.
Titus, for example, has received $15K from Rangel since she began running for the House in early ‘08. Titus returned just $1K of that money — equal to the amount given this year. Aides to several members said the rest of the money had already been spent in previous elections.
Hotline OnCall is keeping track of members who have benefitted from Rangel’s generosity, either through direct donations, money from Rangel’s PAC or joint fundraising committees and who GOPers are pressuring to return the money.
Check out our full chart after the jump.
We contacted offices of each member of Congress who took money from Rangel. Those who members who remained silent did not respond to phone or email messages. We’ll continue to update this list as we hear from more members.
MEMBER RANGEL RETURNED?
Altmire (D-PA) $21K
Arcuri (D-NY) $14K Charity
Barrow (D-GA) $33K
Bean (D-IL) $28K
S. Bishop (D-GA) $6K
T. Bishop (D-NY) $15K Money has been spent
Boccieri (D-OH) $59K No decision yet
Boswell (D-IA) $53K
Boyd (D-FL) $9K
Braley (D-IA) $7K
Bright (D-AL) $14K
Cardoza (D-CA) $7K
Carney (D-PA) $21K
Chandler (D-KY) $10K
Connolly (D-VA) $7K
Costa (D-CA) $2K
Courtney (D-CT) $26K
Cuellar (D-TX) $8K Charity
Dahlkemper (D-PA) $14K No comment
L. Davis (D-TN) $15K
Donnelly (D-IN) $21K
Driehaus (D-OH) $12K
Edwards (D-TX) $42K
Foster (D-IL) $14K Charity
Giffords (D-AZ) $21K Charity
Hall (D-NY) $21K
Halvorson (D-IL) $60K Charity
Heinrich (D-NM) $12K
Herseth Sandlin (D-SD) $17K
Higgins (D-NY) $11K
Hill (D-IN) $26K
Himes (D-CT) $16K Charity
Holden (D-PA) $19K
Israel (D-NY) $9K
Kagen (D-WI) $21K
Kanjorski (D-PA) $21K
Kilroy (D-OH) $22K Returning
Kirkpatrick (D-AZ) $14K Charity
Kissell (D-NC) $23K Partly returning
Klein (D-FL) $9K Charity
Kosmas (D-FL) $14K Charity
Larsen (D-WA) $24K
Maffei (D-NY) $82K No^
B. Markey (D-CO) $7K
Marshall (D-GA) $29K
Massa (D-NY) $74K
Matheson (D-UT) $45K
McMahon (D-NY) $70K
McNerney (D-CA) $21K Partly charity
Michaud (D-ME) $12K
Minnick (D-ID) $55K Charity
Mitchell (D-AZ) $28K Returning
C. Murphy (D-CT) $21K Returning
P. Murphy (D-PA) $19K
Nye (D-VA) $14K
Perriello (D-VA) $7K Charity
Peters (D-MI) $16K Charity
Pomeroy (D-ND) $30K
Rodriguez (D-TX) $21K
Ross (D-AR) $19K
Schauer (D-MI) $14K Charity
Schrader (D-OR) $7K
Shea-Porter (D-NH) $14K Returning
Shuler (D-NC) $14K
Space (D-OH) $21K Charity
Spratt (D-SC) $18K
Sutton (D-OH) $7K Charity
Stupak (D-MI) $7K
Teague (D-NM) $4k
Titus (D-NV) $15K Partly returning
Tsongas (D-MA) $7K Charity
Walz (D-MN) $21K
C. Wilson (D-OH) $12K Charity
Wu (D-OR) $5K
Yarmuth (D-KY) $12K Charity
Notes: A spokesperson for Rep. Dan Maffei (D-NY), a former aide to Rangel, says the campaign has no plans to return the money “at this time.”
Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) returned $1K Rangel gave her campaign this year. A spokesman told a Stephens Media reporter the $14K Titus received for her ‘08 campaign is spent and gone.
Update: Rep. Zack Space (D-OH) has donated the $21K he received from Rangel to charity. Rep. Debbie Halvorson’s (D-IL) campaign will donate $16K to charity; that’s the amount she received in direct contributions. Halvorson will keep money raised at a joint fundraiser with Rangel.
Scroll for updates…
Reports breaking via NBC that corruptocrat Charlie Rangel is “on the verge” of stepping down from his powerful House Ways and Means Committee chairmanship. Stand by for more…
Here’s the NBC News/NY report:
Harlem Democrat Charles Rangel now says he will step down as chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, NBC News has learned.
He may make the move as early as tonight and Michigan Democratic Rep Sander Levin will temporarily take over the committee.
Some details still need to be ironed out, but sources said Rangel has been pushed to step down before the House voted on a bill to forcefully strip him of the coveted chairmanship.
Rangel is bitterly clinging to the gavel. Pelosi is, um, tight-lipped.
The move would preempt GOP plans to try and strip him of the chairmanship tomorrow:
FOX Has learned that Rep. John Carter (R-TX) will introduce a special resolution Wednesday that could potentially relieve Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) of his chairmanship of the powerful Ways and Means Committee.
Late last week, the House Ethics Committee “admonished” Rangel for taking two trips to the Caribbean that were paid for by corporate sponsors. The ethics panel approved the trips but still disciplined Rangel, saying his staff tried to brief him on who was footing the bill. The Ethics Committee is still reviewing a host of other allegations against Rangel, ranging from his failure to pay taxes on a villa in the Dominican Republic to his use of Congressional stationary to raise donations for his school of public service at City College of New York.
As has been the case when similar measures have come to the House floor, most Republicans are expected to vote for the resolution, with most voting Democrats against it. But things are different this time around for the Harlem Democrat. A handful of Democrats have publicly called for Rangel to give up his gavel on the Ways and Means panel.
“If this was only them (the Republicans), he would be fine,” said a senior Democratic aide who asked not to be identified. “This is the other shoe.”
The GOP effort to oust Rangel is called a “privileged” resolution, meaning it goes to the front of the legislative line. It must be considered immediately or within 48 hours.
Politico: “The dam broke today.”
Well, gee, why are they doing that? Like Nancy says, it’s not like he’s endangering national security or anything…
Update: 3/3 9:05am…Rangel announces he’s taking a “leave of absence”…
It’s not over for Rangel by any means. Probes into his many disclosure lapses are still ongoing.
Charlie Rangel Doesn’t Get Real Men
By Julia Gorin
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 11, 2007
When Charlie Rangel closed out the year by seconding John Kerry’s sentiment that men end up in the military by default rather than choice, he exposed something that many have long suspected not only about Rangel and Kerry, but about the Democratic Party itself: they don’t understand the nature of men.
To review Rangel’s precise words:
If there’s anyone who believes these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No bright young individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment…If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.
The first faulty premise is that someone goes into the military based on a “gimme” attitude—that is, they see the military as Democrats do: a social program providing scholarships, career training, jobs and benefits. This means that Rangel is unfamiliar with the battle envy that many a man who has never served feels when in the presence of men who have. Manly men who have not served, such as my husband, often feel humbled, soft and inadequate before men who have seen battle or at least are trained for it and have worn the nation’s uniform. (To compensate, he’s lately been talking about setting up a scholarship fund for children who have lost parents in
Iraq, called the “Wish I Had Served” Foundation.) If the military were just for those who lack opportunity or are looking for “a bonus,” that gnawing, empty spot in the pit of a man’s stomach wouldn’t be there.
But such feelings are for men of character. And Rangel revealed the extent of his own character with what he said next: “Everyone will see what we already know, and that is that those who have the least opportunities in this age find themselves in the military, as I did when I was 18 years old.”
Here Rangel isn’t shy to tell us that the only reason he served is that he had no choice. Nice to know, Chuck. Thanks for sharing.
Again, Rangel’s understanding of the military is symptomatic of his party’s as a whole: They think that others are like them, that the men in the armed forces have as little character as they do and have to be dragged kicking and screaming into fighting for anything that this country stands for. In short, the fighting man is an alien creature with whom they can’t identify, which is why they bring us “men” like John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Charles Rangel, Michael Dukakis, Jesse Jackson and so on. Meanwhile, all the party’s testosterone seems to be locked up by their manly women: Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein. That’s why this matriarchal political party is known as “the Mommy Party.” (Significantly, a much talked-about children’s book last year was titled Why Mommy is a Democrat.)
This mindset illuminates the mainstream-Left’s popular slogan “Support the Troops: Bring Them Home.” That is to say, “We support the troops—when they’re not fighting.” To a party that stands for nothing of substance, men who do stand for something just don’t compute. It’s little wonder that the same party is obsessed with stem cell research. They need all the stem cells they can get to rebuild their spines.
On the heels of Rangel’s very helpful revelation about his and his party’s character, he offered a further revelation when he responded to The New York Observer’s question, “So now that the Democrats have won control of Congress, what should they do about the war in
Iraq?”: “I never understand that question. You have a President that’s in deep sh–. He got us into the war…and then they ask, ‘What is the Democrats’ solution?'”
As James Taranto wrote in the Wall St. Journal’s Opinion Journal, “[T]he country will be dealing with [the war’s] consequences, for both good and ill, long after the president has retired. Rangel makes no pretense of even thinking about the interests of the country,” and “disclaims all responsibility for addressing the problem.”
Rangel’s second faulty premise is that people who join the military are otherwise unsuccessful. Let’s not mince words even that much. Rangel—like Kerry before him–is calling enlistees ‘losers’, whether because of their own incapacities or because of their circumstances.
And yet, in reading letters from a number of military personnel and families of military personnel, published by Opinion Journal over the holiday week, readers learned that some had earned PhDs prior to joining the armed forces, and others left thriving doctors’ practices. One letter writer mentioned cramming years of engineering study into six months of military training.
Democrats tell me that I am intelligent. It usually goes like this: “You’re Republican?! But you seem intelligent.” So let’s presume they are right and I am intelligent. However, I can’t read a map, much less understand math, science or computers. In short, I am not remotely smart enough to serve in our military. In fact, I’m probably saving American lives just by not serving. And so I have focused my energies into being a good writer—a talent that I’ve alternately tried to parlay into broadcasting, stand-up comedy, commentary, blogging or becoming some kind of reality-show or other on-air personality.
But even in such renaissance ambitions, guess who I find I’m getting competition from these days: military folks. There they are, stringing for networks and newspapers, getting their own radio shows, reality shows, gigs as Fox News or MSNBC contributors and analysts, blogging to a wider audience than I have, and giving me a run for my money on the stand-up stage. Two of my colleagues are Marines. Marines! That means that, during off-time from saving the free world, they’ve gotten as far as I have in stand-up comedy and in fact are better networkers than I am.
Add PhDs and MDs—pursuits I never even considered in my singular focus on becoming a prominent figure of some sort, something they’re effortlessly becoming as an afterthought. And when I couldn’t make ends meet even in my well-defined intellectual pursuits, I got married.
Today, with my parents’ help, my husband and I have moved into a somewhat swanky neighborhood—only to find that the Marines in the two houses across the street have bigger yards, as well as balconies and pools.
No, these people aren’t losers, Chuck; they make us look like losers. Especially those of us who go into that social program for formally educated private-sector-skipping folks: politics–where they chatter mindlessly, too dumb to realize what their own words reveal.