Right-wing Massachusetts Governor and potential presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is in hot water. According to the Boston Globe, Romney may have used corporate cash to pay his top consultant Mike Murphy for political work, which is illegal under the state’s campaign finance law.

It’s a juicy story: last August, during the Republican National Convention, several Massachussetts corporations dished out $258,000 for a fundraiser in Romney’s honor. Corporate donations are generally prohibited, but those rules don’t apply to political conventions, “where large amounts of corporate money flow freely, to entertain delegates and underwrite events honoring political figures.”

Then, several months later, Murphy’s firm (which helped organize the gala) sent an invoice to the corporate donors asking for another $105,000 beyond their original contributions. The extra cash was supposedly needed for “additional catering.”

Just one problem: the event’s caterers “contradict that contention,” and say they “never heard about” any extra costs. And when asked to provide documentation showing these new costs, Romney’s consultants refused, saying it was private. (A top-secret catering bill?) For his part, Gov. Romney has also refused to talk about the finances of the event, though his spokesman said the governor “accepts the accounting” by the consulting firm.

There’s another twist. A possible explanation for the alleged pay-off is found in the Globe’s follow-up story. Apparently Murphy’s consulting firm had been receiving “an $11,000 monthly retainer from the state Republican Party from January 2003 to December 2004.” But those payments were abruptly ended in January — just a month after Murphy’s firm requested the additional $105,000 – so the party could “save cash in anticipation of the 2006 election.” Moreover, though Murphy claims the money his firm received from the corporate sponsors “has been passed on to event vendors,” a partner at his firm told the Globe that the money hadn’t gone anywhere, and was still in the firm’s bank accounts.

It’s time for Gov. Romney and his political machine to come clean (and for the non-Massachusetts media to start covering this story).

Tom DeLay, 5/6/05:

The only way we can serve well is to serve humbly, as servants both to God and our nation.

Tom DeLay, 6/13/03:

I am the federal government.

The House Rules are very clear. As a member, you can’t have anyone pay for your travel unless it is related to official business. If the trip is “substantially recreational,” you have to pay for it yourself. From the House “Gift and Travel” booklet:

Where a Member, officer or employee proposes to accept travel under this provision, the rule is very specific in requiring that a determination be made that the travel is in connection with the individual’s official duties… Regarding this determination, the rule makes the fairly evident point that, “events, the activities of which are substantially recreational in nature, are not considered to be in connection with the duties of a Member . . . officer, or employee as an officeholder” (clause 5(b)(1)(B) of House Rule 26).

Was Tom DeLay’s trip to Scotland in 2000 “substantially recreational in nature”? You be the judge. Here are a couple new details about the 10 day trip from the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Abramoff hired Classic Heritage Tours in March 2000, months before the trip, which gave Mr. DeLay the chance to play three British Open-quality courses over four days.

Planning correspondence between [Abramoff's] law firm at the time and Classic Heritage refer to the “Abramoff Golf Trip to Scotland.”

Of course, the recreational nature of the trip is only one of DeLay’s problems. Abramoff, a lobbyist, was not permitted to pay for the trip under any circumstances. Yet, the documents indicate “a fax from the law firm to Classic Heritage directs that the $19,595 ‘outstanding balance’ for the golf trip be charged to a Visa card identified with Mr. Abramoff at the law firm.”

Sure, we all knew it.

But now there’s even more proof the White House was determined to go to war no matter, without letting pesky facts stand in its way.

According to recently leaked notes from a 6/23/02 meeting between Britain and President Bush, the chief of Britain’s intelligence service worried Bush had made up his mind to overthrown Saddam Hussein and was pushing to manipulate intelligence into backing him up.

(Side Note: Keep in mind, in June 2002, President Bush was telling Americans there were no plans yet to attack Iraq. In August 2002, remember, the State Department deputy spokesman said shot down ideas that the administration was pushing for war saying, “There are no plans to attack Iraq on the President’s desk. He has said that.”)

In the leaked memo, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw stated, “Bush has made up his mind to take military action.” The British intelligence chief went further, charging “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” Straw also noted, “the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.”

After the invasion of Iraq failed to turn up any weapons of mass destruction, the White House tried to shrug off accountability and just blame faulty intelligence. Last summer, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report slamming U.S. intelligence community. Taking place in an election year, the Committee sidestepped the question of White House culpability, saying they would do a second phase report after the November 2004 election.

Recently Sen. Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, blew off the second phase of the report, saying it would be a “monumental waste of time” to investigate further. As this new memo shows, it would be a monumental mistake not to.

Food and Drug Administration officials are set to “implement new rules recommending that any man who has engaged in homosexual sex in the previous five years be barred from serving as an anonymous sperm donor.” The FDA’s decision comes from a conviction that “gay men collectively pose a higher-than-average risk of carrying the AIDS virus.” There are, however, adequate safety assurances available to address concerns of HIV transmission by any donor, regardless of sexual orientation. If the FDA was truly concerned about reducing the spread of HIV, it ought to adopt “a screening process that focuses on high-risk sexual behavior by any would-be donor, gay or straight.” Why is that? In the words of Leland Traiman, a leading opponent of the rule change:

“Under these rules, a heterosexual man who had unprotected sex with HIV-positive prostitutes would be OK as a donor one year later, but a gay man in a monogamous, safe-sex relationship is not OK unless he’s been celibate for five years.”

At the House Government Reform Committee’s hearing on Merck’s attempt to bury relevant safety data about its signature painkiller, Vioxx, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD) read from a Merck training manual that directed instructors to play a recording of Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream” speech and then say to the sales force: “King was someone with goal-focus — he kept getting shut down but kept going. . . Just as with a physician, you must keep repeating the compelling message and at some point, the physician will be ‘free at last’ when he or she prescribes the Merck drug, if that is most appropriate for the patient.”

Indeed, the remarkable correspondence between spearheading the Civil Rights movement in America and selling dangerous drugs to unusupecting arthritic consumers needs little elaboration. But it gets better. Also included in the documents made public Thursday was an excerpt from Merck’s 2002 booklet, “Champion Selling: Milestone Leader’s Guide,” which deals with the problem that some doctors might not have time to talk about a Merck product (for instance, maybe they’re attending to patients). The guide cautions that field staff need to understand, “it’s those defining moments that distinguish all champions.” For instance:

— Helen Keller could have felt sorry for herself when she went blind and deaf.
– Martin Luther King could have laid low when his home was firebombed.
– Tiger Woods could have avoided the pressure by not turning pro as young as he did.
– George Washington could have finished his years with a comfortable life without the challenges of taking on the presidency.

Wow…almost makes you want to go out and sell overpriced drugs that give people heart attacks to as many doctors as possible!