Stevens Gives Earmarks To Developers Who Made Him A Millionaire
Stevens Gives Earmarks To Developers Who Made Him A Millionaire
Most lawmakers break off their ties with business entities while serving in the Senate. Not Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK). He is the only member of the Senate Appropriations Committee who has disclosed a direct business relationship between himself and “an entity that receives federal funds.”
Stevens continues to invest in JLS Properties LLC, owned by developers Leonard Hyde and Jonathan Rubini. Today, Roll Call reports that Hyde and Rubini have profited financially from their relationship with Stevens:
In 2004, two business partners of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) sold an empty lot in Anchorage to the National Archives and Records Administration for just over $3.5 million, more than doubling their year-old investment in the property. […]
According to a review of federal, state and local records and interviews with Hyde and federal officials, the project in Anchorage resulted in the two developers netting $2 million in profits from the sale of land they had purchased weeks before Stevens inserted the first earmark into an appropriations bill in 2002.
The money for the purchase, according to Stevens’ office, came from two earmarks worth $6 million that Stevens had included in funding bills in 2002 and 2003.
There is no evidence that Stevens received “direct benefit” from this particular deal. But his seven-year relationship with the developers has “turned him from one of the Senate’s least wealthy Members into a millionaire.” In 1997, Stevens invested $50,000 in JLS Properties; by 2003, he had earned millions. Similarly, Hyde and Rubini have “received more than $7 million in rental payments from the federal government.” Stevens and Hyde are also co-owners of a racehorse.
Similarly, the senator continues to have a relationship with executives at the Veco Corp., an Alaskan oil company, who recently pleaded guilty to federal bribery and conspiracy charges. The FBI is now scrutinizing Stevens’s relationship with Veco. In 2000, one of the executives hired a contractor to help Stevens remodel his house, even though “Veco was not in the business of residential construction or remodeling.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
54 Responses to “Stevens Gives Earmarks To Developers Who Made Him A Millionaire”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
“Stevens Gives Earmarks To Developers Who Made Him A Millionaire
Isn’t this the Republican Way?
It takes an amazing amount of energy to justify one’s own greed. ReichWingNuts are well practiced at self deception.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:28 pmhttp://ccoaler.blogspot.com/ 2007/ 07/ trade-gap-between-china-and-us-reaches.html trade gap between us and china widens
http://ccoaler.blogspot.com/ 2007/ 07/ after-receiving-850000-in-bribes-xiaoyu.html Xiaoyu is executed thru China because damaging the reputation of Chinese standards
http://ccoaler.blogspot.com/ 2007/ 07/ euro-reaches-all-time-high.html The dollar is worth a f…
July 10th, 2007 at 2:29 pmTed Stevens: The Poster Boy for Massively Obscene Corruption
He needs to be put under the jail.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:30 pmMr P, more of your parties morals and ethics?
July 10th, 2007 at 2:31 pmHere is hoping he doesn’t resign and rides the investigation out… Man I love corrupt republicans.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:31 pmCLIN-TON DID IT TOO, CLIN-TON, CLIN-TON
July 10th, 2007 at 2:32 pmCLIN-TON DID IT TOO, CLIN-TON, CLIN-TON
Comment by Richard PerlScript — July 10, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
Did he?
Cool!
July 10th, 2007 at 2:33 pmBill Clinton did it too!
July 10th, 2007 at 2:33 pmGood thing these guys don’t live in China.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:33 pmOh, he’ll just put on his Incredible Hulk tie and throw a temper fit on the floor.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:34 pmUh-OH!!!
July 10th, 2007 at 2:34 pmI’m not even shocked anymore. That probably says more about our political system than the revelation that Stevens is bought and paid for.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:37 pmWe may see the first case of a father/son political team going to jail .(Probably in a jail Ted’s company built, too. Now That would be the height of irony!, heh heh).
But the good sheeple of Alaska will probably try to re-elect him while he runs his campaign from his cell, and I don’t mean his cell phone either.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:39 pmAnother hard working entrepreneur being rewarded for their hard work and taking risks. Oh wait . . . another professional bureaucrat on the take.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:40 pmActually, Clinton would have had a hard time giving earmarks to those what brung him to the dance — spending bills come from Congress, and Clinton was never a member of the house or the senate.
No, Clinton rewarded his benefactors with overnights in the Lincoln bedroom. Personally, I think America was better off with that deal.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:40 pm“Bill Clinton did it too!”
How did Clinton put earmarks into funding bills? You know, with him being in the executive branch and all?
I know your favorite president loves to blur the lines between the three branches of government - heck, he loves to ignore them. But I’m pretty sure Clinton didn’t introduce any legislation - can’t really get around that one.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:41 pmMr. Ted, “vetical hissy” Stevens — a man of ethics, no doubt about it.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:41 pmHe exemplifies the Republican spirit - take everything you can get for free, reward those who help you along the way and get some for them too — everyone else, well, you’re on your own.
Their theme seems to run along these lines:
“Sick? So sorry. Poor? Too bad. Lost your job? tsk. tsk.
Kwitcherbellyachin’ — this is America.
Raise the flag, salute and praise god, and George Bush.”
The President can introduce earmarks, and does every year when he introduces his budget to Congress.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:43 pm#15 No, Clinton rewarded his benefactors with overnights in the Lincoln bedroom. Personally, I think America was better off with that deal.
Comment by missmolly
I agree…. even if everyone that stayed in teh Lincoln bedroom cleaned out all the towels, soap, linens, etc, couldn’t scratch the surface of the corruption the BushCo shit-throwing monkeys have slung to their “investors”.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:44 pmWilco:
“Earmarks are inserted into bills at the last minute, which leaves no time, or little time, for debate. Part of the process — a good process is one in which members are able to debate whether or not spending meets a priority, whether it makes sense. Earmark sponsors are often not required to provide their colleagues with a reasoned justification for proposed spending.”
Guess who said that? Your bud, GW. Sorry, dude, the president can not introduce earmarks in spending bills.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:49 pm“I’m sorry (puff)”
July 10th, 2007 at 2:49 pmClyton dud it tou.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:51 pmOh, he’ll just put on his Incredible Hulk tie and throw a temper fit on the floor.
Comment by Scott M
it’s a Coot Off!!
July 10th, 2007 at 2:51 pm“Clyton dud it tou.”
Your Automatron Republican Non-Sensical Response 2000 is broken, CT.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:52 pmHey. you know that guy who killed his pregnant girlfriend has announced his defense strategy; “Clinton did it too”
July 10th, 2007 at 2:54 pmbobcat,
July 10th, 2007 at 2:54 pmfirst, he’s not my bud.
second, he’s attacking the dems, right? it’s sad you take his word like this.
earmarks aren’t last minute additions.
every congressman submits them, trying to bring back some federal dollars back to his district. they are necessary.
earmarks are funding for pet projects, and the president has those too.
every president does.
link:
http://thehill.com/ leading-the-news/ bush-called-out-for-his-earmarks-2007-06-28.html
July 10th, 2007 at 2:56 pmWilco -
My point is this: introducing earmarks is a function that is done within the legislative branch. Members of the executive branch can not introduce earmarks. I was trying to head off the idiots that would come here and try to claim that Clinton did it, too. My point being that Clinton can’t do it, as presidents can’t introduce earmarks.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:57 pmAnd as far as earmarks are concerned, I find myself agreeing with what I quoted Bush as saying. I do believe sufficient time is needed to debate a bill, and last second additions only create wasteful spending.
Granted, he was saying that while trying to justify getting a line-item veto, which I believe would officially hand the keys of the candy store to Little Bush. Currently, he and his administration have just been figuring out how to break into the candy store any which way they can.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:01 pmbobcat
July 10th, 2007 at 3:03 pmThey absolutely can! The link isn’t working for me, so I doubt it’s working for others. But just do a search on THIS VERY SITE for “bush earmarks”
That’s where I got the link, from one of TP’s own articles.
Now, a president can’t PASS earmarks, and can’t introduce them for a vote, no, but he submits them as part of his budget for the Executive.
Say, a federal agency in Wyoming wants to have a community outreach program, Bush would submit funding request for that in his budet.
This isn’t some separation of powers violation, as he is not enacting anything. He’s requesting funds. Congress still gets to decide if they will agree.
Why ask for line-item when you issue signing statments?
July 10th, 2007 at 3:04 pmThey’re just de facto line-item vetoes.
I’ve got to admit: Ted Stevens is an “old school crook”. It’s so engrained and inculcated into his being that he doesn’t even attempt to hide it. Or….maybe he’s just senile?
July 10th, 2007 at 3:04 pmNo, Clinton rewarded his benefactors with overnights in the Lincoln bedroom. Personally, I think America was better off with that deal.
How much DID the Chinese businessmen pay for those stays?
Im thinking Stevens took his cues from Reid, a shady land deal is a shady land deal after all. Hint: Reid wasnt a POTUS.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:05 pmEarmarks are like the slick pocketpickers (young girls) on the subway in Rome - their mother shoves them in just as the tube’s doors are closing - SRO and they work their filthy little hands from under a sweater draped over their forearm….that’s what “earmarks” are!
July 10th, 2007 at 3:07 pmIm thinking Stevens took his cues from Reid
Are you just attacking Reid, then?
July 10th, 2007 at 3:07 pmBecause Hastert had the same idea. Same as countless people over the past millenia have had.
More likely Stevens took his land deal cues from Hastert and his sudden buying of property that was fated to be bought up by the fed to build a freeway.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:07 pmSomething’s rotten in Alaska
July 10th, 2007 at 3:13 pmAre you just attacking Reid, then?
Because Hastert had the same idea. Same as countless people over the past millenia have had.
Roger wilco. Just testing the hypocrisy waters here, making sure the outraged liberals understand that their democrat pols arent the angel-winged saviors they claim to be.
Then again maybe the libs are too stupid to understand that.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:15 pm#26 Wilco,
When using your childish “He did it too” defense of Stevens you should first consider the facts.
Each law, in terms of adherence, is mutually exclusively of all other laws and all other entities. The law is not written on a Chinese restaruant menu with the requisite Colums “A” and “B” indicating a choice of adherence. The law is not written on a “first come, first served” basis where the first to break the law is punished and all others earn a “Get-out-of-jail-free” card.
Fact: Stevens did not adhere to the law.
Fact: Stevens should be punished in accordance with that law.
Fact: George Bush, and Republicans do not adhere to the laws.
Fact: George Bush and the other Republicans should be punished in accordance with those laws.
Fact: All other arguments concerning applicability or justification are simply not germaine to the issue.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:17 pmEither a conflict of interest or a war of usury.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:21 pmAngel winged saviors?
July 10th, 2007 at 3:22 pmI thought that’s what the Republicans said they were in 1994
Not that you’re a hypocrite, right?
But this is the way things go. One side makes self-righteous statements about the other side, and that side calls them hypocrites, because it’s the only defense they have.
If an individual is corrupt, accept it! There is no defense.
Also, it doesn’t mean every associate of that person is corrupt. (But probably a few are.)
Stevens must resign today > PERIOD.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:24 pmGod this jackass reminds me of Pappy O’Daniel from Brother where art thou.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:24 pmClinton… he did it too.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:28 pmWhen using your childish “He did it too†defense of Stevens you should first consider the facts
Holy mother of crap, what defense? Please go back thru my posts and point out where I defended Stevens. Otherwise, I expect an apology.
Please deal with the facts of politics! ALL congressmen introduce earmarks!
July 10th, 2007 at 3:28 pmThey should! They are all trying to get an equal return on their district’s investment (taxes). If their district sends X amount in taxes to the government, their reps SHOULD try to get X amount back in federal funding. This is what earmarks are.
They are NOT by nature bad. It’s the individual congressman (like Stevens) who makes them such. Mind you, he brings much more than 100% of his state’s contributions back every year. He’s incredibly successful at getting earmarks for Alaska.
I was simply pointing out that ANY president can submit earmarks, something people on here were stating is not the case. A simple google search proves a president does this.
Here is an excuse you will never here in the future: Bush did it too!
July 10th, 2007 at 3:56 pmWilco –
Yes, all congressmen introduce earmarks. I personally think there should be a better system of allocating money back to the states, but I accept that’s the system we have.
Many worthy projects get earmarked funds — alternative energy research, employment programs, children’s programs, vocational education, etc.
It starts becoming a question of ethics when those earmarks find their way back to the legisalator’s personal pockets.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:43 pmWhy should I be surprised?
July 10th, 2007 at 6:16 pmuncle ted, uncle ted,
July 10th, 2007 at 10:26 pmyou were’nt swell, but you were o.k.till you got that…egotistical, avaricious,suit and tie wearing washingtonian, pork-laden, oil for sale, home remodeling quid pro quo,threatening to retire, internets fightin’,building bridges to nowhere mentality
that’s gone to your head,
uncle ted, uncle ted, uncle….
he is a RINO- Nothing more then a big government politician who calls himself a republican. why this suprises anyone i dont know, all politicians have issues like this, nothing out of the ordinary.
July 10th, 2007 at 11:16 pmspeaking as a republican, i think we should throw most of our congress out the door both partys. I know life in washington corrupts and the real world just need to vote in some new blood who is not tied to any big money.
July 10th, 2007 at 11:20 pmTHE TUBES! THE DAMN TUBES!!!! CURSED, BLASPHEMOUS, WRETCHED TUBES!!!!!!!!
July 11th, 2007 at 1:28 am“Speaking as a republican, i think we should throw most of our congress out the door both partys.”
Ahhhh, any reason you want to throw out the ETHICAL crowd along with the corrupt Loyal Bushies, Tony? The BushCo crowd is thoroughly corrupted….and therefore ALL of Congress is somehow corrupt….and therefore they must ALL be thrown out, including the Dems. For some reason I’m having trouble following that non-logic.
July 11th, 2007 at 1:32 amStevens has a direct conflict of interest here. Stevens broke the law by inserting an earmark into an appropriations bill that benefited these individuals. This type of culture of corruption was what got Duke Cunningham into trouble. There is a cloud of suspicion on Stevens due to his relationship with the Veco firm especially since they have been indicted on bribery and conspiracy charges. We might be about to see yet another republican fall like so many other republicans. This culture of corruption must end.
July 11th, 2007 at 2:44 am