Disgraced Rep. Aaron Schock Leaves Office $3 Million Richer And With A Pension

[babylonsister]

What a country!

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/03/18/disgraced-rep-aaron-schock-leaves-office-3-million-richer-and-with-a-pension/

Disgraced Rep. Aaron Schock Leaves Office $3 Million Richer And With A Pension
Author: Wendy Gittleson March 18, 2015 7:42 pm


U.S. Rep. Aaron Schock of Illinois has made quite an impression over his six years in office. While in office, he has lived a life of exceptional opulence, including decorating his office to resemble the PBS show “Downton Abbey” for the tune of a taxpayer-funded $40,000.

He’s taken lavish vacations, entertains donors in grand style, and before Tuesday, he thumbed his nose at anyone who complained. That was then. Today, Aaron Schock is soon to be a former Congressman who resigned amid scandal and shame – this time for overcharging the government for personal mileage.

Before you say he got what’s coming to him, you might want to take a breath. Aaron Schock is leaving office under the cloud of scandal, but he is also leaving as a much, much richer man and, unless he goes to prison, he will receive a pension when he retires.

Schock, who is just 33, is a business man and an entrepreneur. Still, in 2012, his personal net worth was far below that of his average colleagues. In fact, Ballotpedia estimates that he might have had a negative net worth. They average his projected net worth in 2012 at $535,000.

Today, he’s worth more than $3 million, thanks to campaign contributions which he’s allowed to keep:

As of Dec. 31, the last reporting date Schock cash-on-hand balances in his political funds totaled $3,354,228:

*Schock for Congress, $3,290,781.

*GOP Generation Y, $36,285.

*Schock Victory Fund, $27,162.

Source: Chicago Sun Times

Since he served more than five years in Congress, he’s also eligible for a $17,748 total pension when he turns 62, assuming he doesn’t go to prison.

Schock’s base salary is $174,000. The pension for a lawmaker in Schock’s category is calculated by this formula: salary x years of service x .017; for Schock it’s $174,000 x 6 x .017 = $17,748.

Until we overturn Citizens United and get money out of politics, we are going to see more and more people enter into politics just to get rich. It’s not about their salary. It’s not even about the pensions. It’s about the obscene amounts of campaign contributions that they can keep.

[mucifer]

1. He might end up Jesse Jackson Jr's roommate

[Fred Sanders]

2. Being a willing corrupt pawn of the wealthy beats having to work for a living. Political Moochers.

Media, are you on this, or in on this?

......

Sorry..just had to have a morning chuckle....I know the answer.

[LiberalFighter]

3. He can't use the money for personal use.

The Federal Election Commission regulation dealing with left-over funds states the funds may be used for any lawful purpose, but they can’t be converted to personal use. Some members donate the funds to non-profit organizations, charities, educational institutions, political parties, candidates (within permitted limits), or refund contributions to the original donors.

[babylonsister]

6. I'm not sure about that...

a big loophole is apparently PACs. And I know this article is old.


http://abcnews.go.com/Business/campaign-finance-senators-house-members-campaign-funds-retire/story?id=10203316

Senators and House Members Can Keep Campaign Funds on the Way Out

snip//

Lucrative Loophole

Of the 25 members of Congress who have said they are stepping down, 18 have leadership PACs with a combined $850,000, according to CRP analysis.

"There's a wide gap, if not a gulf, between what lawmakers can do with regular campaign money versus leadership PAC money," said Dave Levinthal, communications director for the Washington, D.C.-based CRP. "The question comes up: What can politicians do with the leftover PAC money, and the answer is pretty much whatever they want."

[bottomofthehill]

10. He can still get to the money

He can create his own non-profit, and use the money to pay "Expenses" much like he has been treating the money now...only with less oversight and fewer restrictions as he is no longer a Member of the House

[cali]

4. and he didn't, as far as I know, draft a single piece of legislation during his years on the hill.

[pipoman]

5. Is it 17k per year? Or "total" like the article reads?

[babylonsister]

7. I imagine it's per year, total.

[bottomofthehill]

8. That is per year

That is per year, adjusted for inflation for life, but only after he is retirement eligible, which i think is when he is 62. So, i dont think hr can start to draw on it for 30 years.

[City Lights]

9. Well, things have worked out quite well for him.

Ugh.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. I think I just figured out how to end poverty in America.

Elect everyone to Congress and then have them resign in disgrace.

[yeoman6987]

12. Most politicians are wealthy after they leave due to being in Congress

You look at almost everyone of them and they benefitted from their time in office. Most are not as bold as this guy to take the money with a trail.

[dixiegrrrrl]

13. pics of his office here:

http://tinyurl.com/mrwk7se

This new breed of politicians are big on hubris, it seems.
In Greek tragedy, hubris led to nemesis, as we see in this case.

[Tom Ripley]

14. Fabulous!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

15. It's the pension that annoys me.

I don't actually care if Republicans shuffle their cash around. Let's face it, the campaign donations were from people who thought that Schock was worth electing, and probably think other, equally corrupt Republicans are worth electing. So I'd rather they gave their money to a grifter who probably won't give it to other Republican election campaigns. So that's 3 million Republicans wasted, rather than spending it on electing some other Republican. So let them keep campaign contributions they don't use - that's money that isn't then being spent on getting more corrupt idiots into office.

[MADem]

16. They must've changed the rules on that--it used to be they had to have 12 years in the saddle, I

thought...! I always thought 12 years was pretty short, considering you had to do at least 20 in the military to get the same consideration!

[B Calm]

18. Five years of service now.

How long does a Senator/Representative have to serve to draw retirement and how much?
— Glen B.

Members of Congress are eligible for a pension when they turn 62 if they have completed at least five years of service, according to the Congressional Research Service. Members are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service. The amount of the pension depends on years of service and the average of the highest three years of salary. By law, the starting amount of a member of Congress' retirement annuity cannot exceed 80 percent of his or her final salary.

In 2007, — the most recent year for which numbers available — 435 retired Members of Congress received federal pensions. Of this number, 286 retired under the Civil Service Retirement System, a pension plan for federal employees who served prior to 1984, and received an average annual pension of $63,696. The remaining Congressmen retired under both CSRS or the Federal Employees' Retirement System, a newer pension plan, or under FERS only. In 2007, their average annual pension was $36,732.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/interactivity/congress-question.html

[MADem]

19. That's ridiculous! Disgraceful--they don't work for a damn living, most of 'em, anyway... nt

[B Calm]

20. We should give them 401K and do away with their pensions! That's

what their corporate buddies did to us!

[MADem]

21. Yes, a 401K tied to some of their halfassed investment schemes!

If only life were fair...

[CanonRay]

17. I wonder what all the suckers who donated to that 3 million would say now?

[freshwest]

22. They'll say, WTG, buddy! Now how do I get some of that action?