Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Planned Parenthood backs Quinn, Giannoulias; Edgar backs Coulson
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* An AP reporter who doesn’t appear to cover Illinois at all nonetheless gets the job of writing one of those ridiculous “where there’s even a tiny bit of smoke, there’s gotta be a raging inferno” stories about Congressman Mark Kirk…
As Mark Kirk campaigns for the Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama, the Republican congressman casts himself as a scourge of the pork-barrel, special-interest congressional spending known as “earmarks.”
It wasn’t always that way.
Just two years ago, the four-term congressman secured more than $30 million for 19 pet projects in and around his Illinois congressional district. They included an aquarium, a planetarium and a church outreach project. In some cases, people linked to the projects reciprocated with thousands of dollars in campaign donations for Kirk’s re-election bids.
And what were those alleged reciprocations? How did this supposed pay to play game work?
Well, over the space of nine years, Adler Planetarium board members apparently gave Kirk a grand total of $23,000 and got over $1.1 million in earmarks. That’s an “eye-popping” $2,600 a year in contributions, and the AP doesn’t tell us how many board members contributed, so some might have given next to nothing. Whatever, I’m sure that money played such a big role in Kirk’s decision-making. Sheesh.
A board member of the Christian Outreach of Lutherans, which hasn’t exactly been on the US Attorney’s corruption radar screen, gave Kirk a whopping $4,600 in two years and the group received $119,000 from an earmark.
For crying out loud, does everything have to be a federal case? Here’s what that bad, ol’ Christian Outreach of Lutherans does…
The mission of Christian Outreach of Lutherans (COOL) is to give comprehensive assistance to families in need, by reducing hunger and homelessness, while encouraging personal growth and self-sufficiency. Serving all of Lake County.
None of the contributors, by the way, were given an opportunity to respond to this smear. The story isn’t as bad as looking for hidden corruption messages in Lottery commercials, but it’s close.
Politically, though, this article will give Kirk’s opponent some ammo, either by using the contributions or the headline: “Hopeful for Obama seat changes tune.” Kirk has been repeatedly slammed for flip-flopping.
However, this point, about how Kirk decided to oppose earmarks, is more salient…
Kirk said his personal tipping point came after the furor over earmarks for the “Bridge to Nowhere.” The project, pushed by Alaska Republican Rep. Don Young, would have cost nearly $400 million and connected Ketchikan, Alaska, to an island with 50 residents.
Congress scrubbed funding for the project in 2005 — a full two years before Kirk gave up earmarks for good — but he still said it was the pivotal moment for him.
It apparently wasn’t all that pivotal if it took him two years to come to the conclusion.
* Meanwhile, Patrick Hughes says he probably wouldn’t have run against Kirk if Kirk had voted against the Cap and Trade bill…
“I had no interest in this race. I hadn’t considered running … then Mark Kirk voted for cap-and-trade,” said Hughes, a Hinsdale real estate developer.
More…
Kirk said he supported it as a way to wean America off foreign oil. Yet, he has since signed a pledged with a conservative group to oppose the legislation if elected to the Senate.
Hughes says he doesn’t believe global warming is caused by humans. But his platform against Kirk is bigger than cap-and-trade now.
“Our party is at a crossroads,” Hughes declared to the editorial board, before labeling Kirk “essentially a Democrat and in some respects an extraordinarily left-wing one.”
* Other reform stuff…
* Gov. signs ethics bill: ‘Not the whole loaf’
* Illinois campaign reform: Gov. Pat Quinn signs donation limits
* Quinn signs ethics law
* Tepid Joy for Campaign Finance Reform Advocates
* Things to know about campaign finance law
* What’s Next on Campaign Finance Reform?
* Unfinished business
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Dec 10, 09 @ 12:06 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Planned Parenthood backs Quinn, Giannoulias; Edgar backs Coulson
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I agree — an attorney giving $2,000 to a local judge’s race to help the judge his votes to the polls, which given the low spending/low name recognition in such campaigns can make a big impact, is a bigger deal. But nobody will talk about it.
Comment by lake county democrat Thursday, Dec 10, 09 @ 12:16 pm
What a weird story. Apparently, there are no editors to ask “why is this a story?”
Gotta watch those Lutherans, man. They’re insidious. I know for a fact they pound coffee and doughnuts after Sunday services, too.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Dec 10, 09 @ 12:17 pm
During the presidential race Obama was hit for providing an earmark to the Planetarium, so it’s a bit ironic that Kirk was advocating for them as well.
Comment by Scooby Thursday, Dec 10, 09 @ 12:19 pm
Am I out of line for for saying that Don Lowery has gotten zero attention from the media in this U.S. Senate Primary? Oh yeah, that’s right, Lowery is from downstate, I forget we ignore those candidates.
Hughes has voted 2 times in his entire life.
However it doesn’t really matter. Kirk will win walking away even tho he represents the republican party about as much as Hillary Clinton does, and is running from one wing of the republican party to the other trying to be all things to all people.
I would never vote for Kirk, but if he at least stuck to his liberal guns I would have more respect for him.
Comment by Moving to Oklahoma Thursday, Dec 10, 09 @ 12:25 pm
===Lowery is from downstate, I forget we ignore those candidates.===
If that were the case, Dick Durbin would’ve received zero press coverage. It’s not about his location, it’s about the fact that he’s done zero to distinguish himself on the trail.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Dec 10, 09 @ 12:26 pm
Anyone using the the Adler thing would have to be a bit careful since Obama pushed a 3.3 Million earmark
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/10/obamas_adler_planetarium_proje.html
Bet some board members gave to him as well.
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Dec 10, 09 @ 12:43 pm
Actually Will, Hillary is somewhat more conservative than Kirk.
Comment by Bill Thursday, Dec 10, 09 @ 12:46 pm
So, again, the attack on Kirk is that he looked at an issue (earmarks) and saw that even though they could provide needed money to deserving casues, that they were a corrupting influence on Congress and that they were being increasingly abused. So he decided to swear off earmarks and encourages other to do so as well.
Those Aquarium board members are all getting rich selling beluga whale oil to OPEC. Wow. It’s Watergate all over again. SNARK
Actually, it is another example of how Kirk takes a reasoned, thoughtful approach to policy. Unlike almost everyone else who is cast in concrete positions dictated by partisanship, he shows he can examine and issue and change his position. Are we better off with strident partisans who won’t listen to anyone who doesn’t agree with them? Isn’t that exactly the attitude that the public (especially independents) are sick of?
Your are right Rich, AP needs a refresher in journalism 101.
Comment by Abe Froman Thursday, Dec 10, 09 @ 12:57 pm
I said earlier, even for Kirk’s biggest supporters and I think I qualify it’s getting hard to recognize him. He’s consistently inconsistent on things that don’t involve the state of Israel. Whether it matters next year who knows, but you could take every issue iraq, ect and find him on both sides.
The real issue where’s he taken money is Israel and that’s worth looking at. I think he’s behind only obama, clinton and mccain in money from that lobby since 2007.
Comment by shore Thursday, Dec 10, 09 @ 12:57 pm
Abe, your defense of Kirk rings hollow, once again.
Certainly, the AP story is a textbook example of yellow journalism, and Kirk’s previous earmarks appear to have funded worthwhile and laudable projects. And I don’t consider him a hypocrite for amending his position, even though it is a very defensible one, given where the funds landed.
But that’s where his “reasonable and thoughtful approach” ends. He has succumbed to the fearmongering, hysteria, and hypocrisy of the far right for a singular purpose. And his rationale for such a cosmic shift has been intellectually dishonest, misleading, and wholly inconsistent with positions he espoused just several short months ago.
I spar with Shore on occasion here, but appreciate his recognition that Kirk is fallable. It gives him more credibility when justifying his positions.
Comment by The Doc Thursday, Dec 10, 09 @ 1:34 pm
For the AP to suggest that Kirk is anti-earmark only since he decided to run for the senate is ridiculous. They ignore Kirk’s 2006-07 efforts to reform the earmark process, advocacy for earmark transparency and the fact that he was one of only 2 members of the Illinois delegation to release his earmark requests in 2008. That’s years of working for earmark reform, years before his run for the senate seat.
Comment by 10th Indy Thursday, Dec 10, 09 @ 1:48 pm
Kirk is the only gop appropriator to swear off earmarks, which is a big deal. It’s important for conservatives who go all holier than thou on my worlds favorite congressman to recognize that no less a figure than mitch mcconnell, the senate republican leader, he of the prolife, southern conservative wing of the party ran his ENTIRE campaign on the pork he delivers as have many others like trent lott.
You all may not love mr.kirk for his positions on social issues, but you and the rest of the party need to realize there are a TON of prolife southern conservative senators and gop congressmen that serve pork to their districts and states. There are exactly 2 gop guys on the hill, coburn and jeff flake who don’t do pork and flake was against earmarks and wasteful spending while we were in the majority.
Comment by shore Thursday, Dec 10, 09 @ 1:51 pm
About the Lutherans - They sound pretty harmless, but in Illinois it’s only the first step. The Rogers Park Montessori School sounds pretty harmless too, but if you do your research, you find that they have been the beneficiaries of a lot of questionable government largesse, especially under Blagojevich as governor.
As much as this reporter may have pulled the alarm a little soon, there’s so much smoke floating around Illinois that it’s hard to tell which fire it came from. The way I see it, Illinois politicians have used up every ounce of whatever doubt there may have been to benefit from, and if a particular pol isn’t working like mad to increase transparency and campaign reform, then it is fair at this point to infer, based on the facts we know, that that particular pol benefits in some way from the continued culture of corruption.
So maybe the reporter isn’t so far off.
Comment by Thomas Westgard Thursday, Dec 10, 09 @ 3:00 pm
The race was Kirks to lose, and losing it he is.
Kirk is trying to redeifine himself to his conservative base. However he has moved away from the moderates and independents and done a remarkable job pushing them to Giouliannis.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Dec 10, 09 @ 3:20 pm
Plenty of time left on the clock, Ghost.
Comment by Team America Thursday, Dec 10, 09 @ 3:31 pm
I like shore’s description of Kirk as “consistently inconsistent.” Another example is Kirk’s NO vote on the Iraq surge while posing as a hardliner.
Comment by reformer Thursday, Dec 10, 09 @ 3:45 pm
it just struck me, everyone is trying to go after bloggers and open them up to lawsuits, remove journalism protections etc….
But yet the AP should be protected because its not a blogger?
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Dec 10, 09 @ 3:56 pm