ChiTrib: Blagojevich fundraiser held by Jackson allies Saturday

[City Lights]

TRIBUNE EXCLUSIVE
Blagojevich fundraiser held by Jackson allies Saturday

By David Kidwell, John Chase and Dan Mihalopoulos | Tribune reporters
December 12, 2008

As Gov. Rod Blagojevich was trying to pick Illinois' next U.S. senator, businessmen with ties to both the governor and U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. discussed raising at least $1 million for Blagojevich's campaign as a way to encourage him to pick Jackson for the job, the Tribune has learned.

Blagojevich made an appearance at an Oct. 31 luncheon meeting at the India House restaurant in Schaumburg sponsored by Oak Brook businessman Raghuveer Nayak, a major Blagojevich supporter who also has fundraising and business ties to the Jackson family, according to several attendees and public records.

Two businessmen who attended the meeting and spoke to the Tribune on the condition of anonymity said that Nayak and Blagojevich aide Rajinder Bedi privately told many of the more than two dozen attendees the fundraising effort was aimed at supporting Jackson's bid for the Senate.

Among the attendees was a Blagojevich fundraiser already under scrutiny by federal investigators, Joliet pharmacist Harish Bhatt.

That meeting led to a Blagojevich fundraiser Saturday in Elmhurst, co-sponsored by Nayak and attended by Jesse Jackson Jr.'s brother, Jonathan, as well as Blagojevich, according to several people who were there. Nayak and Jonathan Jackson go back years and the two even went into business together years ago as part of a land purchase on the South Side.

Read the rest.

[ananda]

1. Too bad.

I watched Jackson Jr's press conf Wednesday,
and of course I was hoping he was innocent
but I felt that he probably wasn't because of
the tone and the nature of his comments.

As for the Saturday fundraiser attended by
Jackson's brother and associate, I don't see
how Jackson could not know about it.

It's possible that Jackson required a "clearness"
by not attending so that he could pretend to
be innocent in this mess, but that won't wash
I don't think. It might keep Jackson from
being prosecuted for direct complicity in Blag's
pay for play dirtiness, but it does make Jackson
look tainted.

[City Lights]

4. WGN just showed a clip of Jackson saying,

"Everyone is going to be amazed at just how innocent I am in this process."

Strikes me as an odd thing to say. There aren't levels of innocence; either one is guilty or one is not guilty.

[KharmaTrain]

2. Pay To Play Vs. Quid Pro Quo

This is not condoning either, but there is a distinction here to be made...and maybe this could explain why some did bite on Blago's apple.

As we know well to well, money makes politicians go 'round, but there's money that goes in their pockets (bribe...quid pro quo...giving something for getting something) and taking money for a campaign or political action fund or even a charity in exchange for a vote or consideration...that's pay for play. It goes on in Washington. The K-Street project was a perfect example...it went right up to the laws of legality (and over by Abramoff), but always stayed within legal and the money almost always ended up in some campaign fund or political action committee.

The read I get is that Jackson and his supporters were really putting on the pressure for the appointment and it sounds like Blago and his people did the "you scratch my back" game with Jackson's supporters thinking it was for a future Blago campaign...the word had been that Blago actually was thinking of running again in 2010 and would face a serious primary challenge...and need the money. We'll find out in the days and weeks ahead if the line was crossed into a bribe...making it a personal donation rather a political one.

[malaise]

3. See yah JJ jr. n/t

[JackRiddler]

5. Okay, someone explain how this is out of the ordinary...

Not looking merely to be tagged as "cynical" here, I'm asking seriously. Everywhere one turns in this system, politicians are being paid off for political favors, or else having their support for votes bought beforehand, via the means of fundraising dinners and the like. This isn't to condone or excuse (I'm for putting everyone behind bars, so to speak, and starting over with a publicly financed parliamentary party system) but seriously: can someone explain to me the differences that make this illegal and everyone else's fundraising model acceptable? Is the difference going to come down to some subtlety of the law? Where's the clear defining line that makes this stand out compared to all the other pay to play?

[AngryAmish]

6. The seat is not there for anyone to explicitly "sell"

Horse trading goes on all the time. But it appears what was being done was JJJ or his people said you will $1,000,000 (or so pledged) by X date. Will you then give me the seat."

It does not matter that Blago does not get a bag full of cash for his own use or he gets to use it to run for office. Making that puid pro quo explicit, as opposed to "I will host a fundraiser in the future for you because I think you are the bees knees" is where the illegality lies.

[JackRiddler]

7. Yeah, I sort of get it, but let's be truthful...

According to what you say, his violation was in being too forthright about what the system is. If only he'd kept his mouth shut, or put it in more euphemistic and "deniable" terms, it would be all right. Because so far that's the only difference I can see between him and others who deliver their favors in a slightly less overt fashion. Please disabuse me of the notion if I'm false here. (And again: Not excusing or condoning Blago -- rather, condemning a corrupt system that needs to be completely replaced with public financing.)

[AngryAmish]

8. I know more than a few Illinois lobbyists

This is their job: (when the legislature is in session. When it is not then they have regular law practices.)

The sidle up to senator A or house member B or aid C. They say: you know, Hospital D has been good for your community for years. It is the go-to place. They want to install a new wing (which you can't do in Illinois without state government OK). How about it?

Senator A would be stupid to say give me $100,000 to vote for it. Senator A decides to go for it or not. If he votes for it, then the next day or two the lobbyist shows up at his campaign office and buys 50 tickets to a fundraiser. Or five people from his office buy lesser amounts. And maybe ten executives for the hospital buy 12 tickets apiece. Or hospital "consultants" (read political fixers) buy a bunch of tickets.

The deal was done. It just was not explicit and thus legal in Illinois.


(BTW, some hospitals take to hiring the wives of prominent politicians at high salaries for little work at specially made up positions just to get political capital in Springfield. She can make calls and get things done in Springfield also. Sometimes the husbands of these wives rise to very, very, very high office.)

[JackRiddler]

9. Exactly. This is how it works in Albany, New York (based on my own experiences)

and pretty much everywhere else.

So the whole trick is to be subtle, for example don't be your own bag man for the loot. Blago is being hauled in for showing the poor manners that make the rest of these cats look bad, but the essential act (taking money for a political favor, contributions for a vote or appointment) is the bread and butter of the system.

Private campaign finance is corrupt by definition. More "ethics" and "reporting" rules merely add steps to the dance. We catch a few more sloppy men with class-anger issues, like Blago (I can imagine he was impatient about the etiquette!) but nothing changes. At best, smoother operators replace them. Nothing will change until parties and campaigns are publicly financed.