Knollenberg Votes Against Middle Class Workers & Their Families

In yet another attack on the middle-class, Joe kNOllenberg voted NO on the Employee Free Choice Act.

The Act was merely to assure that workers would have a free choice as to whether to join a union.

Apparently, Knollenberg prefers an economy where CEO's can drag a company into bankruptcy, lay off workers, ship jobs overseas, default on workers pensions, and cancel long promised health care benefits -- all while making millions in bonuses for themselves. The average worker -- particularly white collar employees and middle managers in our local auto industries -- have no say in the matter. They are the ones losing their jobs, pensions, benefits, etc.

Soon the average white collar worker is going to wish he or she had a union to protect them from being fleeced by the robber baron CEO's and Wall Street Moguls.

But the average worker doesn't have a lobbyist. And we all know by now that Joe Knollenberg always votes the way the lobbyists tell him to vote.

Why does Joe Knollenberg hate the middle class?

Majority of Americans Support Universal Healthcare Even if it Means Higher Taxes

In another rebuke of the "Conservative Agenda" of the Radical Right, a majority of Americans believe that the federal government should assure that every American is covered by health care insurance.

Moreover, the poll reveals that Americans are willing to pay higher taxes for such a program.

In fact, 80% think assuring health care to all is more important than extending Bush's tax cuts.

According to the NYT,

The poll found Americans across party lines willing to make some sacrifice
to ensure that every American has access to health insurance. Sixty percent,
including 62 percent of independents and 46 percent of Republicans, said they would be willing to pay more in taxes. Half said they would be willing to pay as much as $500 a year more.

Nearly 8 in 10 said they thought it was more important to provide
universal access to health insurance than to extend the tax cuts of recent years; 18 percent said the tax cuts were more important.

One of the most important Conservative leaders in the Republican Party is Grover Norquist -- a good friend of shamed lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Norquist is President of Americans for Tax Reform. He is so powerful, even Karl Rove attends his weekly strategy sessions with other right wing lobbyists.

"My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years," he says, "to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

The Radical Right been promoting that agenda since Reagan was first elected. After nearly 30 years of watching our infrastructure crumble because the Radical Right wanted to give tax cuts of up to a few dollar per week to average families rather than invest in the future of our country. (Of course wealthy people got millions in tax breaks -- and that is who they really represent anyway.)

Americans are waking up and seeing that the Radical Right Agenda has been protecting the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. The Radical Right has won many elections by being as divisive as possible in their politics. But on important issues like Iraq and Healthcare, Americans are remarkably unified in their positions -- and they are not lining up with the Radical Right anymore.

And where is Joe Knollenberg in all of this?

Once again, Joe is lined up with the Radical Right.

Joe opposes universal health care.

Instead, Joe Knollenberg's proposal for addressing the health care crisis is to give taxpayer money to companies who offer seminars to their workers on health issues.

Once again, Joe is lined up with the Radical Right and out of touch with the 9th District.

NRCC Transfers Funds from Accused Terrorist to Joe

Accused terrorist Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari contributed over $15,000 to the National Republican Campaign Committee. While the National Republican Senatorial Committee has agreed to donate their donations from Alishtari to charity, the NRCC has not.

Could this be because they have already distributed some of those funds? 22 Republicans have accepted from the NRCC, including Joe Knollenberg.

If Knollenberg wants to talk tough on terrorism, he should return contributions from accused terrorists, and demand his party do the same. Or is Knollenberg so strapped for cash he will turn a blind eye to hypocrisy?

Affordable & Accessible Healthcare Will Save Both Lives & Money -- So Why Is Knollenberg Against It?

Affordable & Accessible Healthcare Will Save Both Lives & Money -- yet Joe Knollenberg does has not supported any programs that will make healthcare more affordable and accessible.

The Washington Post reported on a tragic case where a child's parents couldn't afford to pay a Dentist to have a tooth extracted and the abcess in the tooth spread to the child's brain and killed him.

Not only did an innocent child die needlessly, anyone who says that the US cannot afford to provide universal healthcare would be wise to consider the financial toll of this case.

According to the Washington Post, the tooth extraction would have cost $80.

Instead, after the abcess had spread, the child spent 6 weeks in the hospital and had two surgeries to try to fight off the infection in his brain at a cost of over $250,000.

So for those with a cold heart who say that as a Country we can't afford universal healthcare, ask whether we can continue to afford not to have it.

So for those with a cold heart who say that as a Country we can't afford universal healthcare, ask whether we can continue to afford not to have it.

And where is Joe Knollenberg on this topic, well the only thing Joe has proposed is to give a $200 tax credit to the employer of the dead child's parents if they go to a seminar on how to quit smoking. Joe's plan wouldn't have done a thing to help that poor kid.

Knollenberg's "healthcare" plan is not about solving the healthcare crisis in this country, it is about giving taxpayer money out to companies as a favor to wealthy lobbyists who in turn fill his campaign coffers and take him on luxurious vacations.

Knollenberg's Proposed "Solution" for Healthcare is Woefully Inadequate

The Detroit News is reporting that health care costs are going to skyrocket for GM -- reaching $1,904 per vehicle by 2008. Ford comes in at about half that with costs for healthcare predicted to be $969 per vehicle.

In reality, health care costs have been skyrocketing for years now. The same article in the News also shows that the costs projected for 2008 are more than double the cost of healthcare in 1999.

We all know that these costs and other legacy costs such as pension plans are a large burden on the domestic auto industry. These are costs that make them less able to compete because the off-shore companies don't have those same liabilities.

Knollenberg's Proposed Healthcare Solution

Joe Knollenberg recently proposed his plan for healthcare -- he proposed to give companies $200 in tax credits if they hold a seminar for their employees on topics like stopping smoking or the dangers of obesity.

Knollenberg proposes that the tax credit be given to companies even if the company does not offer health care insurance to their employees.

All they have to do is have someone from the local health department come out and give a talk for a few minutes, and voila! the company gets a $200 tax credit.

Now, some of you reading this may think I'm joking. I'm not. Here is a link to the proposed bill.

Oh, and lest you think Knollenberg thought this all up by himself, don't be silly.

Knollenberg only does what wealthy lobbyists like Jack Abramoff tell him to do. In this case, this "preventative" plan -- which is really nothing more than Corporate Welfare -- was devised by extreme right wing think tanks like the The Heritage Foundation, the Galen Instiute, the National Center for Policy Analysis, and the American Enterprise Institute.

Certainly preventative medicine is a critical component of a strong health care system. In fact, I would agree that it is important to have enough Dr's trained in that field to provide such care. But they are not likely seeing the uninsured.

And giving your company $200 to have you sit through a seminar that was given to the company for no charge isn't part of a strong health care system. If it wasn't so serious, it would be laughable.


Here goes Joe again. Coming up with a solution to something that isn't a problem. There is no crisis of a lack of seminars in the workplace.

There is a healthcare crisis in this Country
and
Joe Knollenberg has done nothing to address it.

The real solution is universal healthcare coverage for all Americans and preventative medicine should have an important role in a comprehensive system of health care.

Knollenberg Ignores His Constituents & Supports Bush's Escalation of the War in Iraq

Once again we see Joe ("NoNo") Knollenberg blindly obeying the commands of George Bush and ignoring the interests and concerns of the vast majority of his constituents.

Like his friend George Bush, Knollenberg has been steadfast and resolute in his support for the escalation of the war in Iraq. Knollenberg not only sides with Bush on the issue, but he refuses to even meet with his constituents to discuss it.

In fact, as we approach the 5th anniversary of "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq, we note that Knollenberg has not held a single community or townhall meeting on the issue of the Iraq War. Not a single meeting. Not once has he ever publicly invited constituents to a meeting to discuss the Iraq War. Never.

It isn't as though he has been busy on the matter in Washington. He has never, ever called a hearing about the Iraq War there either.


A poll in today's Washington Post shows that the vast majority of Americans think Bush and Knollenberg are wrong. According to the Post/ABC News poll, 67% of Americans disapprove of the way Bush and Knollenberg are handling the war in Iraq.

That means that 2 out of every 3 Americans disapprove of the way Bush and Knollenberg are handling the war in Iraq.

The Post/ABC poll also shows that the majority of Americans disapprove of the way Bush & Knollenberg are handling terrorist threats and the economy.

But Bush & Knollenberg just continue down the same failed path -- they are both steadfast and resolute. They are wrong, but they are steadfast and resolute.

The bad news is that the war in Iraq has been more than just a series of unfortunate disasters, and Joe Knollenberg has not taken a single step to turn the situation around.

The good news is that by making his positions and his record more available to voters, he won't stand a chance at re-election in 2008.

Visit the Retire Joe Knollenbeg web site

There's a new web site aimed at keeping those that want to retire Joe Knollenberg from his 9th District seat in 2008. Please visit http://campaignwindow.com/retirejoeknollenberg/index.cfm and sign up for our e-mail list and spread the word to others that support the cause of a Democratic Congress person for the 9th Congressionsal District of Michigan.

Welcome One and All

I want to invite everyone in the 9th District to join us in our discussion about the issues that face the voters of this District.

We welcome your comments regardless of whether you agree or disagree with our positions.

Between now and November 2008 we will present information to the voters in this District about Knollenberg's activities (and lack of activities) in Congress so that you will have the information necessary to make an informed decision when you go to vote in November 2008.

We will report on how even though the 9th District is overwhelmingly against Bush's escalation of the war in Iraq, Knollenberg is supporting it. We will give you links to his voting record and his statements on the issue so that you can see for yourself whether he is representing your interests or the special interests of lobbyists like Jack Abramoff.

We'll tel l you what he does and what he doesn't do. For example, in the area of healthcare, Knollenberg supports giving tax payer money to Corporations offer to give their workers seminars on health issues -- even though the company doesn't offer healthcare benefits to their employees.

We will be giving you information on the people and organizations and special interests that have contributed large amounts of money to Joe Knollenberg's campaign and how Knollenberg repaid them with legislation that would guarantee them millions of dollars in government contracts.

For example, we will give you the facts on how Knollenberg inserted a provision into federal law that would have required Amtrak to purchase $8 million in equipment from a company whose owner is one of Knollenberg's biggest campaign contributors. (See, New York Times, December 11, 2005.)

Farmington Eccentric: War Protestors turn up heat on Knollenberg

War protesters turn up heat on Knollenberg

By Sue Buck Staff Writer

http://www.hometownlife.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070223/NEWS06/70223018/1023

A group of 35 protesters braved a nasty wind chill Thursday to call for an end to the Iraq War.
They lined up in front of U.S. Congressman Joe Knollenberg’s (R-Bloomfield Hills) office on Northwestern Highway in Farmington Hills Thursday and hand-delivered letters with the message, “You’re the decider.”

The letters, part of a national letter-writing campaign, urge Knollenberg not only to vote against the president’s plan but also to stop the president from escalating the war.They never met with Knollenberg but spoke to his aides in the hallway.“This event follows on the heels of Republicans in the Senate, once again, blocking debate and a vote on a non-binding resolution opposing the president’s escalation,” said Bruce Fealk, a MoveOn.org organizer.Trent Wisecup, chief of staff for Knollenberg, responded with Knollenberg’s views in a prepared statement."Congressman Knollenberg's patience with the Iraq war is growing thin,” Wisecup said. “He wants to see our troops return home as soon as possible. But he wants them to come home in victory, not defeat.”Now that the election is over, it's time for the politics to end and the bipartisan statesmanship to begin, he said.“Democrats and Republicans voted to authorize this war in 2002, including Hillary Clinton,” Wisecup said. “Democrats and Republicans will have to work together to find a solution to Iraq. This can't be a partisan issue any longer. We have too much at stake in Iraq. It's time to put America and our troops first and leave the politics for last.”Wisecup said that Knollenberg “stands ready to work with Democrats to find a solution.”He also slammed MoveOn.org as “nothing more than a radical liberal organization that is determined to score political points.”“They should be ashamed of themselves for playing politics when we have tens of thousands of brave men and women fighting for America in Iraq."

Thursday’s rally in Farmington Hills was one of more than 225 events nationwide.Fealk complained that Knollenberg continues to ignore requests from his constituents to meet with him.“If the president won’t listen to the people, Congress must stop the escalation and bring our troops home,” Fealk said.

A survey

MoveOn.org members did their own survey in downtown Birmingham during the last two weekends. Of 531 people interviewed, 77 percent of the respondents did not support sending more troops to Iraq.Birmingham was chosen because this is an area where the core of Knollenberg’s constituents are Republicans, said Fealk, a Rochester resident.

Oh No! Here Goes Joe With More Corporate Welfare!

OMG. This just goes to show how out of touch Joe Knollenberg is with his constituents.

Knollenberg wants to give tax breaks to companies if they will hold seminars on things like smoking and weightloss. Knollenberg proposes giving taxpayer money to companies to hold such seminars. There is no requirement that those companies offer healthcare to their employees -- they can make money just by giving seminars.

Gosh, maybe Joe Knollenberg has a relative or friend who just started a company that gives these seminars.

In HR 853, even Knollenberg's colleagues recognize this as a waste of time and energy to even consider. He has no co-sponsors and the bill will likely never even be discussed in committee.

If this is what Knollenberg thinks is the most pressing issue about health care he is not only out of touch with his constituents, but out of touch with reality.

* Going to a seminar about not smoking isn't going to help an employee afford healthcare for their family.

* Going to a seminar about not smoking isn't going to make their child's asthma medication any less expensive.

Instead, Knollenberg's plan just gives another tax break to companies.

Knollenberg's plan doesn't solve any problems. It just wastes taxpayer money.

Knollenberg's plan takes money out of taxpayers pockets and gives it to his Corporate friends.

Rather than work on something useful like assuring affordable health care for everyone or coming up with a program that would take the costs of health care off the backs of our auto industry, Knollenberg wants to give taxpayer money back to his big corporate friends.

Knollenberg Rebukes 9th District Voters with His Unwavering Support of Bush's War in Iraq

By an overwhelming majority, Congress sent a message to President Bush that under the new leadership of the House, they were not going to take a 'hands off" or "wait and see attitude" about the Iraq War anymore.

Even in the face of enormous pressure from the Republican leadership and the BUSH/CHENEY Whitehouse, 17 Republicans joined with the majority Democrats to let the President know that their consituents were fed up with the way the BUSH/CHENEY cabal were mismanaging the war.

Unfortunately, the wishes of the majority of voters in Michigan's 9th District were once again ignored by Joe Knollenberg. Instead of representing his District, Joe Knollenberg chose to rubberstamp whatever BUSH & CHENEY wanted.

Help Retire Joe Knollenberg

Help Retire Joe Knollenberg

http://www.actblue.com/page/retirejoeknollenberg 2008 is going to be the year the we retire Joe Knollenberg (R) from Michigan's 9th Congressional district. Joe said he would only serve two terms when he took office, well, he's been in Congress for 7 terms. It's time for Joe to retire, so we're going to help him.Your contribution will go to whoever the Democratic nominee is for the 2008 Congressional cycle and will help to fund a successful campaign to put a Democrat in Joe's seat. The Democratic Campaign Committee has already targeted Joe Knollenberg and your contribution will convince them to support the nominee for this seat.We will be holding retirement parties across the district. Look for parties in your area and contribute generously.Make your generous contribution here:http://www.actblue.com/page/retirejoeknollenberg

Our goal is to raise $100,000 by April of '08

kNOllenberg Speaks in Support of Bush's Surge of Troops in Iraq

Joe Knollenberg finally spoke. It was cryptic. But Joe Knollenberg said he supported President Bush's plan to escalate the war in Iraq by sending in 21,500 more troops.

Joe's statement's were unremarkable as usual. They included phrases such as:

Joe Knollenberg: "we also need to acknowledge that some positive things have happened in Iraq. . ."

Joe Knollenberg: "turning sovereignty over to the Iraqis . . . is a big deal."

Joe Knollenberg: "Fostering democracy in the heart of the Middle East was important. "
( Joe Knollenberg forgot to mention that The Bush/Knollenberg War in Iraq has fostered an increase in terrorists in Iraq.)

Since one of our frequent readers often asks us to evaluate other members of Congress, we will do so -- the Republicans who, like Joe Knollenberg, support the President's escalation of the war in Iraq almost uniformly ignored the language of the resolution and instead rambled on about WWII or Vietnam, or Al Qaeda (funny how they don't talk about Osama Bin Ladin anymore). Not a single one of them disputed the validity of the language of the resolution itself.

The resolution asked 2 simple questions:

1. Do you support the troops
2. Do you oppose Bush's plan to surge the troops by over 20,000?

Voting NO like KNOllenberg can only be interpreted as meaning that 1)he does not support the troops; and 2) he does support Bush's plan to surge the troops by over 20,000.

Which WishyWashyWay Will Joe Go Today?

The Detroit News is reporting that Knollenberg is going to vote NO on the House Resolution that supports the troops and opposes President Bush's escalation of the War in Iraq by sending over 21,000 more troops to the area.

Specifically, the resolution they are voting on this week reads as follows:

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

The first part of the resolution says that Congress supports the troops. By voting NO, apparently Joe Knollenberg is saying that he does NOT support the troops.

The second part of the resolution says that Congress disapproves of Bush's escalation of the war in Iraq. By voting NO, Knollenberg is saying that he Supports Bush's plan to "Stay the Course" and just add more combat troops.

The vote is scheduled for Friday. Meanwhile, each member of the House has been alloted 5 minutes to explain their position on the vote.

Knollenberg hasn't spoken yet. Apparently Knollenberg isn't important enough within his own caucus to be allowed to speak within the first half of the debate.


Heck, Joe kNOllenberg even voted NO to even debate the resolution. (See Rollcall Vote #97.) kNOllenberg does not want to have an open or honest debate on the issue. Maybe because he realizes that his position is completely out of step with his constituents.

House To Vote on Resolution Opposing Bush's Escalation of the War in Iraq

The U.S. House of Representatives will spend the week debating whether or not the House should support or oppose Bush's plan to escalate the war in Vietnam Iraq.

The resolution is artfully crafted in that it makes 2 clear and direct assertions -- that those who vote for it support the troops, but oppose Bush's decision to send over 20,000 additional troops.

Specifically, the resolution reads:

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the
members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served
bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the
decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy
more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

According to CNN, the vote is scheduled for Friday, February 16, 2007.

Between Tuesday and Friday, each Member will be given 5 minutes to speak in support or opposition to the resolution.

There is no announcement on Joe Knollenberg's official website regarding how he plans to vote. Perhaps he still can't make a decision about whether or not to escalate the war in Vietnam Iraq.

Oh What a Tangled Web They Weave...

In an earlier post, I presented information about Joe Knollenberg's "close" connection with the corrupt Randy "Duke" Cunningham who resigned from Congress in shame after taking over $ 1 million in bribes from lobbyists.

Before moving on from that matter, I thought it would be a good time to include a little more information on the connection between Joe Knollenberg, Mark Valente -- the lobbyist for whom he did the favor, and various other scandal ridden Congressmen.

In the earlier post, we provided information that Mark Vallente, a lobbyist, had worked with Joe Knollenberg and Randy Cunningham to get a cap removed on legal fee reimbursement's made by the DC School Board. Although numerous Republicans and even the White House opposed lifting the cap, Joe Knollenberg, the chair of the committee overturned the cap.

In another interesting exchange of favors in 2001, Joe Knollenberg and Randy Cunningham worked together to overturn a cap on lawyer fees in D.C. Apparently Congress had previously imposed a cap on the DC School Board for their reimbursement of legal fees. Lobbyists for several lawyers worked to get the cap lifted. It was an uphill challenge since the Republican's who were the majority in the House always tend to vote against laws that reimburse lawyers because they think such laws encourage lawsuits. The White House had come out against removing the cap.

But, with Joe Knollenberg and Randy Cunningham on the committee, the lobbyists prevailed. According to a December 6, 2001, article in the Washington Post, it was Joe Knollenberg, the new chairman of the committee who bowed to the lobbyists and granted their wishes.

The story of how the lawyers' advocates succeeded illustrates anew the influence wielded by individual members of Congress -- and unelected players -- who take a personal interest in District legislation.

In this case, key roles were played by lobbyist Mark Valente III, who enjoys close ties to House GOP leaders, and Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.), the new chairman of the House panel that oversees the District budget.

Valente was lobbying on behalf of the Alexandria law firm of Dalton, Dalton & Houston, which often represents parents seeking special education services for their children. Knollenberg has long been sympathetic on the issue of lifting the cap -- his top aide has an autistic son and won a large judgment against a suburban Detroit school district after a debilitating legal fight.

The real kicker in the Washington Post story is the part where Joe Knollenberg is praised by Randy Cunningham as being the one responsible for basically giving the lobbyists what they wanted!

"The new chairman [Joe Knollenberg] made the difference," said Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.), who fought the change and who is the longest-serving member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on the District.

I thought it would be a good time to discuss how well Mr. Valente is enmeshed in the Republican machine.


Joe Knollenberg, Mark Vallente, John Shimkus, Mark Foley, and Tom Delay

It is always nice to know that some people are just generous to a fault. Looking at the FEC data, it seems that Mark Vallente is one of those people. Mark Vallente and his wife have given tens of thousands of dollars in contributions to Republican Candidates and PACs.

Few people may recognize the name "Mark Vallente", but anyone who has followed politics in the last few years certainly know the names of Mark Foley and Tom Delay. Many people in Southeast Michigan may recognize the name of Joe Knollenberg, and a few would probably say that the name John Shimkus seemed familiar.

Well, John Shimkus was in charge of Congress's Page Board. He was responsible for the pages. In the Fall of 2005, he was told about Mark Foley being too "friendly" with a page. Shimkus went with Jeff Trahndel to meet with Foley. Shimkus never brought the issue up to the "Page Board" which consists of other members of Congress. Instead Shimkus reportedly told Foley to stop it.

The Washington Post reported

GOP leaders have said they referred the matter promptly to Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.), who heads a three-lawmaker panel that oversees the House page program."

Shimkus questioned Foley, but at that time, he had seen only suspiciously friendly e-mails, not the explicit instant messages revealed recently. In one e-mail to the former page, for example, Foley asked for a picture of him. The boy reportedly told an associate that he considered the request to be "sick," but Foley convinced Shimkus that the exchanges were innocent, Shimkus and Republican leaders said.

Republicans appeared to have kept the matter under wraps. Rep. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.), the only Democrat on the House Page Board, said yesterday: "I was never informed of the allegations about Mr. Foley's inappropriate communications with a House page, and I was never involved in any inquiry into this matter."

So, Shimkus was one of the Republicans who knew about Foley, but didn't stop him from his activities. It seems that protecting their majority in Congress was more important to them than protecting young boys and girls. Shimkus knew of Foley's activities for nearly a year before it became public.

In the run-up to the elections last fall, many people were calling for Hastert, Reynolds, and Shimkus to resign alongside Foley since they were the ones who "covered-up" Foley's actions.

Needless to say, other than Foley, none of them voluntarily resigned. Apparently the Republican Party didn't pressure them to resign.

So if you have heard of Shimkus, that could why his name was familiar. Or it could be from the news reports that noted that his campaign treasurer was also a powerful lobbyist in Washington DC's Republican circles. That lobbyist was Mark Valente.

A lobbyist running a campaign? Now that's cozy.

So we know that Shimkus and Valente were close. We also know that Shimkus was "close" to Foley. We also know that Knollenberg has done at least one favor for Valente.

That started me thinking about the possibilities if this Tainted Troop may have some other connections as well. Of course if you want to get to the root of things, follow the money.

Oh, and Valente was actually the treasurer of 9 other Republican leadership PACs.

Mark Valente is a Very Generous Donor to Republican Campaigns

Now, there is nothing wrong with being generous in giving to political campaigns. It would be wrong however if there were some quid pro quo, i.e., that a lobbyist gave or raised money for a candidate in order to get a favor from the candidate. (Particularly when some "favors" are worth millions of dollars.) Looking at the money trail is interesting.

The data I looked at was from the FEC website. According to that data, and I haven't checked their math yet, it seems that Mr. Valente has given $ 59595 to Republican candidates and PACs while his wife Claudia has given $57,470 since 1996. That is a lot of money. And there may be even more. I've noticed some discrepancies in the FEC data which I'm deciphering now. Plus, those amounts don't count whatever they may have raised for candidates by hosting fundraisers.

What is really interesting is that there every single GOP Member in Michigan's Congressional Delegation has gotten significant donations from Mr. Valente -- including Joe Knollenberg. (I'll post a table summarizing these donations shortly.)

Oh, and Mr. Shimkus -- the friend of Foley -- was also the recipient of some very generous donations by Mr. Valente.

Even more interesting is the tie between Mr. Shimkus' PAC fund (separate from his individual campaign committee) was also a recipient of money from Mr. Valente. And also from Tom Delay.

Then there is that little matter of Shimkus' PAC giving donations to Republican Congressman Roskam -- in excess of federal campaign laws! The FEC lists the "Committees who Gave to This Candidate" and for Roskam, the page lists a donation from the John S. PAC of $3000.00 on 2/22/06 and $5000.00 on 3/27/06. The limit is $5000.00.

Roskam, by the way, used to work as an aide to Tom Delay. As with Duke Cunningham, Delay resigned from Congress in shame too. He has been fighting charges that he laundered campaign money through the RNC.

So, while treasurer of Shimkus' PAC, that PAC made contributions -- to a candidate who is a good friend of Tom Delay -- in excess of FEC limits on contributions.

And then of course there is all the money that Delay gave to his loyal band of Republicans. Much of which was run through Delay's Americans for a Republican Majority PAC (also known as ARMPAC).

Oh. Here is where the fun really starts. Who gave what to whom? Who accepted what from whom? Was there quid pro quo? Stay tuned. That will be in the next episode. Oh what a tangled web...

Is Joe Knollenberg Tainted with Corruption? Part I.

I am deep into researching campaign contributions and gifts and trips, etc., that have been accepted by Joe Knollenberg.

We've already discussed Joe Knollenberg's propensity for lobbyist paid luxurious vacations, but just how close is Joe Knollenberg to corruption scandals like the one involving shamed Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham and the $$$ millions he took in bribes from Defense Contractors. We know that Joe Knollenberg was on some committees with Duke Cunningham.

Or how close is Joe Knollenberg to the scandal ridden lobbyist Jack Abramoff.


Joe Knollenberg & The Duke Cunningham Corrpution Scandal

Brent Wilkes was the defense contractor that conspired with Duke Cunningham and who gave Cunningham more than $ 630,000 in bribes. In exchange, Cunningham steered millions of dollars in federal contacts to Wilkes' companies including ADCS and Group W.

This is not small change. Since 1996, Wilkes' brought in at least $95 million in government contracts.

While, the Duke wasn't the only Congressman to receive money from Wilkes or
Joe Knollenberg was the 10th largest recipient of money from Wilkes, his companies, and his employees for the period of 2000 - 2005.

According to the FEC, the following entities received considerable sums of money:

1. NRCCC $68,000
2. Duke Cunningham $55,750
3. John Doolittle $35,000
4. Duncan Hunter $27,500
5. Tom Delay $26,000
6. Jerry Lewis $22,000
7. Bush-Cheney 04 $16,000
8. Henry Bonilla $15,500
9. Ben Gilman $13,000
10. Lindsay Graham $13,000
11. Joe Knollenberg $12,000
12. Billy Tauzin $12,000
13. Jerry Weller $10,000
14. Larry Craig $8,000

In a December 13, 2005, article in the very Conservative National Review Online, Rich Lowry lumps Joe Knollenberg's "earmark" of $ 8 million -- to a company run by one of his biggest campaign contributors -- right in with a discussion of the Duke Cunningham and Jack Abramoff scandals.

In the article, Lowry states:

This is a corrupting process because it depends on congressmen prioritizing special interests, slipping earmarks into bills with no debate, and getting rewarded for it with campaign contributions. In the case of Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R., Calif.), who has resigned following bribery charges, the sleaze slid into outright criminality. Defense contractors who had almost no business got smart and began larding Cunningham with contributions and under-the-table payoffs. Suddenly, the firms won federal contracts funneled to them through earmarks championed by Cunningham.

Cunningham might have been exceptional in his lack of subtlety, but other congressmen work much the same way. Last week, it was revealed that Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R., Mich.), inserted an earmark into a transportation bill that forced Amtrak to haul additional private freight cars or forgo $8.3 million in additional federal dollars. The freight cars in question belonged to ExpressTrak, a company whose owner is a big Knollenberg donor. Knollenberg now says he is going to rescind the earmark, showing that some members of Congress are still capable of being shamed.

Lowry goes on to discuss how it seems to have become commonplace for Congressman to exchange favors and federal money to lobbyists in exchange for gifts, vacations, and campaign contributions. Lowry says:

This trading of contributions for official favors is ingrained in the appropriations process. It is part of the scandal around former GOP superlobbyist Jack Abramoff. A Washington Post analysis shows that eight of the 20 top recipients of contributions from Abramoff and his team sit on appropriations committees. One e-mail exchange between Abramoff and an associate, Tony Rudy, has Rudy asking whether a Native American tribe can fund a hunting trip for congressional staff as a “thank you ... for the approps we got.”

It is no coincidence that earlier this year, Joe Knollenberg voted against ethics reforms in the House that would have limited his ability to give out such earmarks.


In another interesting exchange of favors in 2001, Joe Knollenberg and Randy Cunningham worked together to overturn a cap on lawyer fees in D.C. Apparently Congress had previously imposed a cap on the DC School Board for their reimbursement of legal fees. Lobbyists for several lawyers worked to get the cap lifted. It was an uphill challenge since the Republican's who were the majority in the House always tend to vote against laws that reimburse lawyers because they think such laws encourage lawsuits. The White House had come out against removing the cap.

But, with Joe Knollenberg and Randy Cunningham on the committee, the lobbyists prevailed. According to a December 6, 2001, article in the Washington Post, it was Joe Knollenberg, the new chairman of the committee who bowed to the lobbyists and granted their wishes.

The story of how the lawyers' advocates succeeded illustrates anew the influence wielded by individual members of Congress -- and unelected players -- who take a personal interest in District legislation.

In this case, key roles were played by lobbyist Mark Valente III, who enjoys close ties to House GOP leaders, and Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.), the new chairman of the House panel that oversees the District budget.

Valente was lobbying on behalf of the Alexandria law firm of Dalton, Dalton & Houston, which often represents parents seeking special education services for their children. Knollenberg has long been sympathetic on the issue of lifting the cap -- his top aide has an autistic son and won a large judgment against a suburban Detroit school district after a debilitating legal fight.

The real kicker in the Washington Post story is the part where Joe Knollenberg is praised by Randy Cunningham as being the one responsible for basically giving the lobbyists what they wanted!

"The new chairman [Joe Knollenberg] made the difference," said Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.), who fought the change and who is the longest-serving member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on the District.

In Part II of this series, we will continue to discuss -- or perhaps the better term would be "disclose" -- Joe Knollenberg's connections to the corrupt Duke Cunningham and numerous corrupt lobbyists like Jack Abramoff.

Joe has no faith in American ingenuity

This is an interesting article. Joe is fighting raising CAFE standards, even though our mileage standards are the lowest in the world, even below China. I guess Joe has no faith in American ingenuity.

The Royal Oak Tribune published this article about Joe's fighting raising the CAFE standards because it would hurt the Big 3. If we had been raising CAFE standards through the years, the Big 3 wouldn't be in the mess they are in and they'd be competing on mileage with the foreign transplants and probably profitable. Anyone else think Joe is shortsighted?

Joe to appear on "Spotlight" on Channel 7

Joe will be on this morning. I believe it's on at 11:30.

The New York Times has an article on Joe

and how he's being targeted by the DCCC in '08: http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/01/30/cq_2204.html