Blagojevich Pick Raised Money For The Governor

Rod Blagojevich's choice to fill Barack Obama's Senate seat, Roland Burris, helped raise money for the governor on multiple occasions.

Blagojevich's choice is already being met with a steep wave of skepticism, because the embattled Illinois Governor was caught by the feds allegedly trying to auction off the seat to the highest bidder. Burris' ties to Blagojevich, despite his recent criticisms of the governor, seem destined to tarnish his appointment even further.

The former Illinois Attorney General gave $4,500 to Blagojevich's campaign fund in the form of personal donations and donations from -- what appear to be -- him and his wife, according to Illinois State records. The most recent donation came on June 27, 2008, when the governor was knee-deep in charges of ethical misconduct.

Burris also attended high-end Blagojevich fundraisers on at least three separate occasions, according to a review of newspaper filings by the Huffington Post. Most recently, in July 2008, he was in a crowd of 1,000 at the Chicago's River East Art Center when Blagojevich -- beset by ethics scandals -- hosted one of six events to raise money for his campaign fund (which had suffered because of mounting legal bills).

In April 2006, Burris hosted a 3,000 person event in the main hall of Chicago's Field Museum. That event saw Blagojevich soliciting donations of $1,000 for "sponsors" $2,500 for "patrons," $5,000 for "benefactors" and $10,000 for "co-chairs," according to the invitation.

In July 2005, Burris was one of more than 1,000 people who attended Blagojevich's annual political fund-raiser. That year, the governor -- who had defeated Burris in the gubernatorial primary just three years earlier -- raised a reported $4 million.

That Burris showed up at these events and donated to the governor's campaign would not, under normal circumstances, be remarkable. Neither is the extent of his own donations, which are relatively paltry by Illinois standards. After all, Democrats help fellow Democrats. But Blagojevich was mired in ethics complaints at the time of the latter fundraisers. Moreover, the governor stands accused of attempting to sell the Illinois Senate seat in a pay-for-play scheme. To achieve complete legitimacy, anyone appointed to take Obama's seat will need to have offered no financial help whatsoever to the governor.

Burris, as noted, has been a recent critic of Blagojevich, calling on the governor to relinquish his post in light of his recent arrest. But he wasn't always that much of a thorn in his side. In March 2006, as the Chicago Sun-Times was reporting on growing criticism of the governor's political tactics, the former A.G. was quoted as saying:

"I can't see how anyone can say he is not governing," Burris said. "I think he is doing a helluva job."

UPDATE: ArchPundit has more on the donations made from Burris to Blagojevich's campaign fund. In this case: more than $10,000 was donated from the former A.G.'s consulting and lobbying shop, Burris & Lebed, to the governor. The site also has a rundown on the state contracts that Burris' firm has received.

Burris, in his introductory press conference today, dismissed a question about the money he has raised and donated to Blagojevich, saying that the total figures seemed too high for his firm's budget.

Comments

[AlinaM]

I agree that Burris should be seated if there are is not any precedent to keep him from serving the remainder of the term.

[bike]

If the Illinois Legislature has passed a law to hold a special election, Blagojevich would not have to have appointed Burris. Since they failed to do so, Illinois must be represented in the US Senate and Burris must be seated. There has never been a hint of scandal about Burris, and there is no legal reason that he should not be seated. Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White is wrong not to certify Burris, and the Senate is wrong not to seat him.

[StCyrlyMe2]

I say seat this man. We have a lot of work to do and his vote is going to be despertly needed to get our legislation passed.
It should be expected that this man would donate money to any democrat and he has according to the same records that shows he gave money to this fool. We should not be finding reasons to go after him because of this foolish gov.
If he offered the job to me, I would take it too, because inspite of all the howling about the gov. He is doing what he is supposed to do and what his job requires,and like it or not, he is considered inicent until proven guilty by a court of law.
The ball is now in Reid's court

[snakepliskin]

I would like to agree that the Roland Burris appointment should not go through if it weren't for the fact that the dems want to control the process so they can seat there own 'stooge' in office. They are just pissed because they couldn't get their act together in time. Too bad. Burris is your man. What? You want young Jesse instead? What's the difference.

[wdw505]

jesse would have paid more for the seat.....

[snakepliskin]

Blago, Spitzer, McGreavy, Jefferson, Rangle and list goes on. The Republicans were holding the torch of corruption, now its the dems turn. Once they get the power, they go corrupt. Its like trying to give a Herion addict treatment while at the same time giving them Herion. Take the money away from the Legislators and the problems will go away. Give them the money and they will use for their own political purposes.

[wdw505]

welcome to Chicago

[jsgaetano]

Nobody can ever accuse Burris of being politically shrewd. Or aware.

[Artos]

The simplest answer to all of this is that the Illinois Congress should get their act in gear and impeach the guy. If they can't see fit to do that within the next day or two they should at least declare him to be without any authority until the whole episode is resolved. All of this episode would be moot anyway if this country didn't have disparate rules governing every action necessary in every state. For example how a replacement is chosen. That should be the same in every state. Are we one nation or are we a discombobulated mess like so many other countries are. When will we ever get our act together.

My own thoughts upon hearing many of Obamas choices for his Cabinet and administrators is that he chose far too many from the Federal Congress. Why of all things cause their to be this much confusion over replacing Democratic Senators and Reps after just winning majorities in both those houses. You can't tell me that their aren't equally as qualified people elsewhere for those positions. Now look what the result is. Dissension within the Democratic Party over the mess created by Blagojevich. Were I the Democrats, I would have disowned him and declared him persona non grata, maybe even making him an Honorary Republican. Actually this is something you'd expect from them.
One thing I am glad of is that the Dems are making every effort to disavow his behavior and him.

[radical1]

I believe the answer is, Fitsgerald. He is holding up proceedings so he can have time, now asking for 90 days more, to investigate. I seem to remember a former investigation by Fitsgerald, and I don't care if I have his name spelled wrong. But that investigation although long in duration found too little wrong doing by people surrounding & including Cheney & Libby. Seems to me that one of Obama's early actions needs to be getting rid of Blagoiovitch AND Fitsgerald. And then to go ahead and get a new Illinois Senator however that process may be done. And Democrats & Obama are right to not accept Blago & his choice.

[hernan1333]

Amazing that anyone could support Blago the clown's appointment of Burris, and Burris's (the opportunist) acceptance of it. Burris kind of reminds me of someone who wants to use drug money to build a children's center. The ends don't justify the means..

It's simple: LISTEN TO THE TAPES! Can't put a spin on Blago's unethical and evil intent to sell Obama's senate seat...and that is only the tip of the iceberg The Feds have been investigating this guy for years...Even if he has not committed a crime(with shrewd lawyers, anyone can get away with one ), from an ethical view point, Blago is unfit to serve. In fact, even if he is not convicted, his political career is over.

Blago should do the Democrats a favor and resign. He is undermining the message of our new president elect and aiding the Republicans who are having a feeding frenzy with this issue.

[necer65]

What a shocker. Whatever Rod does...it is going to benefit him is some way. I don't understand what kind of person would except an appt by Rod. Obviously Roland Burris has some skeletons in his closet. I for one do not want him representing my state. I think Illinois already looks like a joke and I am sick of it.

[Artos]

necer65,

Blago would never have been able to do this nomination had the stupid morons in the Illinois Congress acted quickly and impeached him or suspended his powers until he was either cleared of the charges or prosecuted. If the F.B.I.s has proof, then let them show it to all of us and let this entire fiasco be done with. What has happened to prompt and fair justice? We live in a nation of dimwits and procrastinators who are in charge.

[tangelan]

What a sad little man. He wants this job so bad he doesn't get that he's now hitched his star to Blago, so now he's going to be painted with the same brush. He called for Blago to step down after the scandal broke but now Blago's guilty until proven innocent. That was true before but people have to wonder why Burris changed his tune. NOBODY Blago picked would have been able to escape his taint; that's why the Dems didn't want him to pick anyone. Now Burris's political career is ruined because of his failed ambitions. And he doesn't even know it.

Blago's getting just what he wants. He wants to be famous and now he's the center of the political world. That whole press conference yesterday was planned even down to the congressman playing the race card to effectively tie Reid's hands. Blago just told the state of Illinois and the nation to S U C K I T.

[majorteddy]

Is this candidate number 5?

[Liberal2]

Actually what this farce is is an Public Service Message that lobbyists (and their firm) should not be allowed to give any money or thing of value to a candidate or officeholder that they have lobbyed. And, in fact, all campaigns must be financed with tax dollars. But one possible option is that any hired lobbying firm must pay a fee to a public campaign fund for distribution to all candidates running for the same office as that candidate or officeholder they lobbyed.

All meetings must be in offical offices, recorded, and made available on the Internet.

[WilliamGossett]

Technically, Blago isn't guilty, yet. If his choice is "clean" then there is no basis to reject it any more so than would be Paterson's choice in NY.

[tangelan]

Because he hasn't been tried yet, so we don't know if his choice is "clean". That's why he was told not to pick anyone. He agreed not to pick anyone so one has to wonder why he changed his mind. This has nothing to do with NY. If Patterson's ever charged with corruption, then you can use the two governors names in the same sentence.

[StillAmused]

Breaking News!

A prominent party member raised money for, or donated money to, his party's top of the state ticket.

There may be a big story buried somewhere in the Blagojevich flap, but this ain't it.

(in the background, the press and the entire Democratic political establishment sway slowly in unison, wringing their hands and moaning plaintively)

[funkulous]

Sorry. No swaying, wringing,or moaning. Just more disgust

[StillAmused]

Any politician, regardless of party, who can portray "disgust" at what's reported here is faking it... and should immediately hide his or her own checkbook. This is routine politics.

Nahh... the affected, self-righteous choral approach is a much safer bet. There's cover in numbers.

[Artos]

StillAmused,

Your last sentence there surely holds truth to it. We are of like minds. While I often find myself angered when I think of the Corruption of the Republicans, I become just as angry over the Democrats less than stellar performance in the Government. If they continue to act as pathetically now that they have control of the government then we are in for real trouble with our economy these next several years.

[radical1]

Maybe some of you have forgotten that there are laws which have been drawn up and voted on by people on both sides of the isle which are in play when something out of the ordinary comes about. These laws with their many faceted explanations need to be searched and interepted before decisions are made and then actions are taken. It does NOT help that those who want to destroy our democracy even further and still pushing to stick to their unworkable policies are yelling the loudest.

[schoolmaster]

If a presumably bad man does a good job, the good job would not become bad.. As long as the governor whatever be the charges against appoints well within his power as governor a good man to fill Obama's vacancy, that has to be respected. As Obama said in the beginning it is governor's choice and not his and so Obama should let it be.

[clearthinker2008]

You are right.

[FirstShirt]

"If a presumably bad man does a good job, the good job would not become bad.. "

Glad we agree. Bush provided billions for fighting AIDS in Africa which got little notice on this "progressive" blog. Bush kept us safe for all the years following 911. Bush removed Saddam Hussein, a good thing on balance. Bush presided over a booming economy up until the bottom fell out of the housing mortgage securitization system and the greed and corruption of the whole system was made evident for all to see. I suspect greed will still be present during the Obama presidency.

[Badfickle]

People seem to forget that we were attacked by two seperate strings of terrorist attacks after 9-11 on american soil. The anthrax attacks in DC and NY (what Bush would call a weapon of "mass destruction") And the DC sniper attacks. Not to mention the 4000+ americans dead in Iraq. Personally I would gladly put Saddam Hussein back in power in exchange for Osama Bin laden's head on a pike and those 4000 brave men and women alive and well.

As for the "booming economy" that was wholey the result of the bubble forming in the housing market. He gets no credit for that.

[Artos]

FirstShirt,

I heard all of this same crap about Bush that you are quoting in your post, from another fellow on NPR this week, and apparently you heard it too. Only you believed it. Bush didn't protect us from Osama, He allowed a major attack in the first place. It was through purposeful inaction and refusal of members of his Administration to acknowledge info that was provided by agents in the field that led to that fiasco. The fact that nothing has happened since then is only a natural reaction to an event. We as a nation always seem to do better in reaction than prevention. For example we could have prevented Pearl Harbor and we didn't. Bush and his Parties desire to destroy the Federal Governments power to administer rules and regulation over Big Business is what has led to our present economic disaster, so how is he responsible for a boom unless you mean Boom as in a disastrous explosion. As for Greed, it is always present, that goes without saying.

[StillAmused]

It hasn't occurred to Junior, the neocons or their low-information fans like you that, having accomplished the desired result with ONE horrific, criminal attack on U.S. soil -- drawing Bush The Lesser and his neocon cheerleaders into their long-sought but doomed-to-fail adventure in Mesopotamia, pouring gasoline on anti-American sentiment in the region and fueling an infusion of foreign fighters -- the masterminds of the 9/11 atrocity didn't NEED to conduct another attack on U.S. soil! They GOT what they wanted, and Georgie GAVE it to them.

Bush and company saved al Qaeda the airfare, the logistics and the overhead. He sent the targets TO them, on THEIR turf, and gifted them a more sensationally effective recruitment tool than they could have ever hoped for.

Only children and right-wing knuckle-draggers see a correlation between Bush's ham-handed blunders in Iraq and Afghanistan and the absence of another large-scale domestic attack since 2001.

If you were al Qaeda, would YOU waste the effort?

... and, of course, Bush has done a bang-up job protecting the 4,000-plus U.S. KIA, the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed and the countless wounded and displaced.

Freedom's on the march... sort of.

As for AIDS funding, read this, then retrieve your bouquet. You can use it again next time.

http://www.50years.org/cms/ejn/story/74

[jcwtts1]

did you just basically write don't hate the player hate the game?