Did Edwards use a foundation, Center for Promise and Opportunity, to bankroll his own political ambitions? If so was he within the law? And even then, what does this say about the unholy alliance in DC between bogus or semi-bogus philanthropic entities and campaign finance?
« Community Foundations and Advisors: Towards a More Effective Collaboration | Main | Candidia, The Root Cause of it All, and Her Best Boy, Bill Schambra »
June 24, 2007
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The comments to this entry are closed.
About
Blogging Philanthropy from A DumpsterTo Whom it May Concern
Gifthub is an immortal work of art in theMenippean Tradition,written in a Padded Cell (he calls it a Dumpster for obvious reasons) in a state of shock by Phil Cubeta, Morals Tutor to America's Wealthiest Families, under an alias, or alter ego, The Happy Tutor, Dungeon Master to the Stars in Wealth Bondage...... More....
Email Phil Cubeta, Morals Tutor to America's Wealthiest Families.
Join the Charity Masquerade Ball.Or, just come as you are.
Search
Wealth Bondage Premium Content
- Provided as a professional courtesy at no extra charge to those with net worth of $25 million or more and/or family income of $500,000 a year or more, and to their Serving Professionals of all genders.
These allegations about Edwards seem to be making much of very little, particularly in light of the outright abuse by Delay and other Republicans in recent history.
Posted by: Gerry | June 25, 2007 at 06:17 AM
Will foundations and other nonprofits have to reveal their donor lists? Transparency is good, but so is confidentiality when raising money from those who value their privacy. When it is truly philanthropy having the lists private makes sense. When it is politics disguised as philanthropy, then transparency seems to make sense.
Posted by: Phil | June 25, 2007 at 08:04 AM
I think it shows just how far, greedy politicians will go to win an election.
Posted by: Matt | June 25, 2007 at 11:06 AM
A lot farther than a semi-bogus foundation, I am sure.
Posted by: Phil | June 25, 2007 at 01:39 PM
Are politicians automatically of suspect morals? Could a politician start a non-profit that is actually for the public good? What would that look like?
The right-wing noise machine has perfected a system of revolving door jobs in non-profits, the government and industry that makes a mockery of any ethical standard we might reasonably suggest. Where was US News and World Report on that story?
Posted by: Gerry | June 25, 2007 at 02:52 PM
That is my question too. The ills are endemic and form a social milieu in DC, apparently. The pots call the kettles black. That does not justify the rampant gamesmanship, but it does make me wish for a good cleansing all around.
Posted by: Phil | June 25, 2007 at 05:11 PM
Oops.
Posted by: PB | June 25, 2007 at 10:23 PM
That TPM post makes me suspect that the powers that be are worried that an actual populist progressive could get on the ballot. Just like the scream that sunk the Dean campaign. It is highly suspicious. I want to know who is behind it.
Posted by: Gerry | June 25, 2007 at 11:54 PM
Thanks, PB, for the link. We came to the same question, Gerry. Democracy in action.
Posted by: Phil | June 26, 2007 at 08:20 AM
Hillary is the only one on the Democratic side that they will countenance. You can see it in all the coverage at this point. That is exactly why we don't want her. She is only progressive in the most pejorative sense, which is a definitive example for Lenore and her "classic liberal" friends.
Posted by: Gerry | June 26, 2007 at 09:52 AM
She will managme and administer with the best interests of the current system in mind. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Posted by: Phil | June 26, 2007 at 11:20 AM