home

Obama Donor Received $50,000 State Grant

Barack Obama's new politics may not be exactly the same as his old politics. The LA Times reports he wrote a letter for a donor and client requesting and obtaining a $50,000 grant for a ping pong ball venture.

After an unsuccessful campaign for Congress in 2000, Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama faced serious financial pressure: numerous debts, limited cash and a law practice he had neglected for a year. Help arrived in early 2001 from a significant new legal client -- a longtime political supporter.

Chicago entrepreneur Robert Blackwell Jr. paid Obama an $8,000-a-month retainer to give legal advice to his growing technology firm, Electronic Knowledge Interchange. It allowed Obama to supplement his $58,000 part-time state Senate salary for over a year with regular payments from Blackwell's firm that eventually totaled $112,000.

After receiving his last paycheck from EKI:

Obama sent a request on state Senate letterhead urging Illinois officials to provide a $50,000 tourism promotion grant to another Blackwell company, Killerspin.

More...

Killerspin is in the business of ping pong ball equipment and tournaments.

With support from Obama, other state officials and an Obama aide who went to work part time for Killerspin, the company eventually obtained $320,000 in state grants between 2002 and 2004 to subsidize its tournaments.

Obama's campaign responds:

Obama's presidential campaign rejects any suggestion that there was a connection between the legal work, the campaign contribution and the help with the grant. "Any implication that Sen. Obama would risk an ethical breach in order to secure a small grant for a pingpong tournament is nuts," said David Axelrod, Obama's chief political advisor.

....Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, who provided The Times with details of Obama's compensation from EKI, said Obama did nothing wrong acting on behalf of Killerspin. He said the state senator simply wrote a letter backing a worthy project developed by a constituent.

Given Obama's campaign themes of transparency and ethics in Government, shouldn't he have been particularly sensitive to this kind of recommendation?

Killerspin's owner, Blackwell, was a political supporter and friend as well. Both men lived on Chicago's South Side. Blackwell, a savvy and successful entrepreneur, was one of the first donors to Obama's early campaigns, including the state senator's failed bid for a congressional seat in 2000. In the presidential race he is credited on Obama's website with committing to raise $100,000 to $200,000 for Obama's campaign.

The Times points to Obama's autobiography to show he was broke at the time:

In his book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama tells how his finances had deteriorated to such a point that his credit card was initially rejected when he tried to rent a car at the 2000 Democratic convention in Los Angeles. He said he had originally planned to dedicate that summer "to catching up on work at the law practice that I'd left unattended during the campaign (a neglect that had left me more or less broke)."

While the fees went to the law firm Obama worked for,

The entire EKI retainer went to Obama, who was considered "of counsel" to the firm, according to details provided to The Times by the Obama campaign and confirmed by Miner. Blackwell said he had no knowledge of Obama's finances and hired Obama solely based on his abilities. "His personal financial situation was not and is not my concern," Blackwell said. "I hired Barack because he is a brilliant person and a lawyer with great insight and judgment."

Blackwell was a major source of income for Obama:

Obama's tax returns show that he made no money from his law practice in 2000, the year of his unsuccessful run for a congressional seat. But that changed in 2001, when Obama reported $98,158 income for providing legal services. Of that, $80,000 was from Blackwell's company.

In 2002, the state senator reported $34,491 from legal services and speeches. Of that, $32,000 came from the EKI legal assignment, which ended in April 2002 by mutual agreement, as Obama ceased the practice of law and looked ahead to the possibility of running for the U.S. Senate.

Then there's this:

Illinois ethics disclosure forms are designed to reveal possible financial conflicts by lawmakers. On disclosure forms for 2001 and 2002, Obama did not specify that EKI provided him with the bulk of the private-sector compensation he received. As was his custom, he attached a multi-page list of all the law firm's clients, which included EKI among hundreds. Illinois law does not require more specific disclosure.

Stanley Brand, a Washington lawyer who counsels members of Congress and others on ethics rules, said he would have advised a lawmaker in Obama's circumstances to separately disclose such a singularly important client and not simply include it on a list of hundreds of firm clients, even if the law does not explicitly require it. "I would say you should disclose that to protect and insulate yourself against the charge that you are concealing it," Brand said.

I'll give Obama's campaign the last word:

Gibbs said the letter Obama wrote on behalf of the Killerspin-backed tournament was appropriate and entirely unrelated to any payments by Blackwell's other firm for Obama's legal services.

"He wrote the letter on behalf of a constituent" with a worthy cause, Gibbs said, noting that the contest was broadcast internationally, reaching as many as 200 million viewers in 156 countries.

< Smart on Crime | Latest North Carolina Voter Registration Stats >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Money laundering? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:56:57 PM EST
    I just read another story on this issue that someone directed me to at Contrarian Commentary. The author asserts that "Barack Obama laundered money through a law firm to conceal the source of his income."

    http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/

    Not being a lawyer, I don't know if this constitutes money laundering or not. But I'd be interested in your take, Jeralyn.


    Being a lawyer (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:17:17 PM EST
    but not familiar with Illinois law, I would say what Obama did was probably legal but was the kind of thing that give our profession a bad name.

    Mr. Hope-Change-Unity isn't supposed to be the kind of person who does things like that.

    Parent

    double standard (1.00 / 0) (#81)
    by madeinUSA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:59:53 PM EST
    It seems when Barack takes a stand he is a weasel for it but Hillary is just charming for it. Digg through Hillary's past cases and you'd see stuff that'll make Karl Rove look like Mother Theresa. Let's not go digging where we don't want to be exposed. But wait, the republicans will do it for us anyway. They already invested in it for more than 2 years now.

    Parent
    Puh-lease (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by angie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:07:54 PM EST
    The GOP & Ken Starr spent MILLIONS investigating Bill & Hillary and they came up with exactly ZERO dirt on Hillary.

    Parent
    Silly. Axelrove has anything the GOP has (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:08:22 PM EST
    with Obama's millions for oppo research, and Obama/Axelrove would have used it by now.  They have  been sending out daily messages about what to use against her, and never did they need it more than in recent weeks with Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania.

    Parent
    AxelRove....high 5....good one!! (none / 0) (#88)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:11:54 PM EST
    Are You Trying To Okey Doke Us? (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:11:13 PM EST
    Sen. Clinton has been vetted to the nth degree...your boy, not so much.  Do not try to change the subject here, we are talking Obama, not Clinton.  This isn't HuffPo you know.

    Parent
    You Are Absolutely Correct....Caution Do Not (none / 0) (#42)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:03:54 PM EST
    Go To Huffington Post, As You Might Be Adversely Affected By The Spin Going On Over This Item.

    They kill me....this to them (obama supporters)is not a big deal; just the press playing gotcha with obama.

    Parent

    What I would be interested to know is (none / 0) (#55)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:41:35 PM EST
    how many of his contributors got a letter written for them that got them a nice grant or contract. The name Tony Rezko comes to mind. Are there any others? Is there a way to cross-check his large contributors with his "letters on behalf of a constituent"? I bet the GOP has the list already. Sigh.

    Parent
    I want to know (none / 0) (#56)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:44:35 PM EST
    what other letters, other than for ping-pong, did Obama write for EKI, which has a ton of government and hospital contracts.  It's not about the ping-pong, people!  Blackwell has a real job.  This is just a hobby.

    Parent
    I Think There was something with Rezko's pal, (none / 0) (#76)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:43:12 PM EST
    Davis, which then tied into how Michelle Obama got that 200% raise at her job after Obama became senator....anybody remember that?

    Parent
    Being a lawyer myself (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by angie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:36:49 PM EST
    I would like to see Obama's time sheets for the work he did for EIK.  The simple fact is that what most people call a retainer today is really an advance -- the money you get from the client goes into a trust account and as you actually do the work then that money can be moved from the trust account to your general account -- only at that point (after the work is actually done and billed) is the money the attorney's. A true retainer is a set amount of money given to an attorney to ensure that the attorney is available for whatever work you may have for him.  The difference is that a true retainer is the attorney's money from the moment he gets it, and without any work being done. This true retainer arrangement simply doesn't happen any more, and in the rare case that it does, the attorney would have to be on par with    Clarence Darrow.  I cannot believe that Obama is/was such an attorney -- not so new out of law school as the timing of this story. So, while I can't say it is money laundering based on what I'm reading here, it does not pass the smell test for me and should raise some serious questions with the IL bar.

    Parent
    And when the lawyer is a legislator (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:55:29 PM EST
    -- as the story says, it would seem important to keep this all very separate and clear in accounting, and on the up-and-up.  For the sake of the firm, too.  

    Maybe we need to learn more about the firm.  A lot more.

    Parent

    Same Law Firm Obama Worked For When (none / 0) (#45)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:08:30 PM EST
    he represented Tony Rezko against Obama's own constituents?  To me, that is a huge conflict of interest.  Am I wrong?

    Parent
    His firm (none / 0) (#82)
    by madeinUSA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:01:54 PM EST
    His firm represented tony rezko and a group of churches on the south side of chicago. Cherry picking are we?

    Parent
    angie (none / 0) (#102)
    by cal1942 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:59:35 PM EST
    looking back at the story, EKI paid legal fees to Obama's law firm. The retainer went exclusively to Obama.

    I'm not an attorney but it looks like the retainer (would be interesting if Obama logged any time)was personal financial assistance, maybe something not quite as clean as the Nixon 'slush fund' of Checkers fame.

    To a layman like me it doesn't appear illegal but it sure looks like quid pro quo since Blackwell eventually received $320,000 (greased by Obama)for an enterprise serving his own amusement.

    Another thought not directly related to this but interesting nonetheless.  The Illinois Legislature is part-time meeting only 70 days a year.

    Part-time legislatures are inherently weak, in fact leaving a power vacuum.  That vacuum is usually filled by either a more powerful executive branch or by LOBBYISTS or both.

    A member of a part-time legislature it would seem to me would have very weak experience in legislative matters and rely very heavily on lobbyists or are limited in the scope of potential legislative activity.

    Have people ever given any thought to how very little government experience Obama has? To me it would certainly downgrade his years as a State Senator considerably.

    Parent

    not remotely money laundering (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:03:44 PM EST
    ridiculous assertion by that site.

    Parent
    Gawd, just the name of the company (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by ineedalife on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:02:00 PM EST
    Killerspin!!??  That is just great. All sorts of subconscious buttons get pushed.

    Of course Obama did nothing wrong (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by angie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:07:09 PM EST
    he never does anything wrong -- forget the fact that if Clarence Darrow were alive today even he would not be getting a "true" retainer for legal representation like newbie attorney Obama did -- Obama is as pure as the driven snow and the idea that $ means anything to him is, as Axelrod so eloquently puts it, "nuts!".  In fact, this is all our fault for even thinking he could ever do anything untoward.

    But did his law firm do something wrong (none / 0) (#11)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:15:14 PM EST
    as this appears to be reported as something Obama did independently from his firm, yet he got paid through it.  Is that legal of the firm, as all the partners ought to get a cut or something, correct?  Even so, is it ethical per the code of the bar?

    I know it would not have been ethical for me to do so through my employer when I was consulting, too. But then, I'm not in the law, and partners may be more autonomous.  I can say, as a state employee in another state, that Illinois' disclosure rules are laughable.  We have to specify the source of every cent from consulting, and we're very limited on how much of it we can do.  (So I don't do it anymore.)  

    And even those state employees with tenure have been fired for violating such rules.  But then, lawyers are good at finding loopholes in laws. :-)

    Parent

    Maybe (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by angie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:47:04 PM EST
    read my comment below about seeing Obama's time sheets for the "work" he did for EIK -- if Obama didn't do real work to earn that money and his firm knew that, then I think that would indicate bad action on his firm as well.
    And yes, usually a % of the money an associate brings into a firm gets divided among the partners -- but is seems Obama hasn't played by any of the "usual" rules at any point in his career, so it why should his arrangement with his law firm be any different.  

    Parent
    Thanks, I saw your post (none / 0) (#33)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:50:25 PM EST
    and figured it was sort of an answer to this, and I appreciate it greatly -- as I have a lot of family and friends in law practice, as partners, and it just doesn't sound like something they or their firms would do.  But then, they're not in Chicago.

    Parent
    and, don't forget (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by angie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:53:50 PM EST
    they're not Obama! ;-)

    Parent
    Obama was "Of Counsel" (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:59:10 PM EST
    which is different from an associate.  Usually it designates an attorney who is no longer practicing, due to retirement or holding politicval office.

    Not all partnerships are organized the same.  Some are set up so that each partner keeps his or her own fees, but they share common expenses for office space and advertising, etc.

    Parent

    Yet he was trying to restart his practice (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:01:28 PM EST
    he says.  So it doesn't compute.

    Parent
    if he wasn't practicing (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by angie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:10:37 PM EST
    why was he being paid for legal services?

    Parent
    Of Counsel has many meanings (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:22:25 PM EST
    "Of Counsel," in my experience, means whatever the parties decide.  It's often some relationship with a firm in between associate & partner; it's a contractual relationship.

    Parent
    How can a 40-year-old be "Of Counsel"? (none / 0) (#57)
    by daryl herbert on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:45:56 PM EST
    Isn't that reserved for elder lawyers with a wealth of experience and expertise?

    It sounds like they gave him a trumped-up job title, much like the hospital puffed up Michelle Obama's job title (without changing job duties) in order to justify giving her a $100k/year raise.

    Parent

    Backfromohio (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Trickster on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:55:32 PM EST
    Mileage varies on "Of Counsel."  In some firms it's a position for a distinguished practitioner in a semi-advisory position; in others, it's about half a step up from clerical work.

    Parent
    Yes - (none / 0) (#80)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:46:14 PM EST
    any anything in between!

    Parent
    "Of Counsel" ... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:49:40 PM EST
    can also mean "we want to keep you in the firm, but aren't going to make you a partner".

    Parent
    It can also mean (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:47:48 PM EST
    "we like the prestige of having you on the letterhead, even though you aren't really doing any work for the firm."

    I'm a paralegal in a medium-sized, regional law firm.  While I am not privy to all of the financial arrangements lawyers have with the firm, I cannot think of a single instance where an associate has ever been given a sweetheart deal like the one Obama seems to have had.

    What troubles me is that it's almost like the word went out that this was a guy who needed financial help in order to pursue a political career, so work was arranged accordingly, and it would not surprise me to unearth some nexus to Tony Rezko; Obama was apparently playing with the Big Boyz, and Rezko certainly was wired in as one of them.  It simply defies belief that there was no expectation on the part of someone like Blackwell that Obama would not come through with a favor when needed.

    One thing is beginning to resonate: No one has been more audacious at constructing a history and a career than Mr. Obama.

    Parent

    Why was it that... (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Alvord on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:18:29 PM EST
    ...only an Obama political supporter saw Obama's worth as a lawyer?

    ...Blackwell said. "I hired Barack because he is a brilliant person and a lawyer with great insight and judgment."

    Based on these figures no one else seemed to have been that impressed with Obama's value as a lawyer.

    Obama's tax returns show that he made no money from his law practice in 2000, the year of his unsuccessful run for a congressional seat. But that changed in 2001, when Obama reported $98,158 income for providing legal services. Of that, $80,000 was from Blackwell's company.

    In 2002, the state senator reported $34,491 from legal services and speeches. Of that, $32,000 came from the EKI legal assignment, which ended in April 2002 by mutual agreement, as Obama ceased the practice of law and looked ahead to the possibility of running for the U.S. Senate.



    I Thot He Received $112,000 From EKI (none / 0) (#47)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:11:54 PM EST
    I think $112,00 0 total from EIK (none / 0) (#48)
    by angie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:15:06 PM EST
    maybe in 2002 it was just $32k?

    Parent
    There's an alliterative side to this (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:20:02 PM EST
    That can't be ignored.

    Ping pong pork politics.

    How many hot meals does 50k buy for the nation's poor?

    Well.  Duh.

    Ping pong pork (none / 0) (#24)
    by Coral on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:39:25 PM EST
    Got a good laugh out of this. Thanks.

    Parent
    A worthy cause. Hmmm. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:31:26 PM EST
    Millions of viewers in 156 countries watching ping pong doesn't exactly tug at my heart strings.

    Maybe a that communications person speaking for Obama should go back and pick a better rationale for the Senator's interest in advancing that grant.  The children?  Tourism?  Education?  I mean if you're going to defend something like that, you ought to craft something to say that inspires people a little more than Neisen ratings generally do.

    Show of hands please . . . (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:06:45 PM EST
    Anyone watch a ping-pong tournament on the TeeVee lately?

    I can get sucked in by almost any sport, but don't think I've ever come across ping-pong in my many years of channel surfing . . .

    Parent

    rezko pay to play (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by karen for Clinton on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:39:27 PM EST
    Same deal there, with Rezko - as told in the trial it was $25,000 contributions which gave major entitlement and access. Blago is going down soon according to the Chi-town papers. Obama will be right behind him if there is any justice.

    Trial resumes tomorrow.  There might be fireworks.

    PingPong-gate gets honorable status as the most absurdly named of his many scandalous gates.

    Anybody wanna vote this guy in still?

    What part of "not vetted" do they not get?

    And what next? Reeks of "pay to play" (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:48:03 PM EST
    even if legal -- and what else is yet to come about Obama?  And how were they so broke, anyway, with Michelle Obama's pay level then, 'way more than enough for most American families.  Plus his "prof" pay, plus -- what next? what else was he earning the "Chicago Way"?  Probably legal (at least for him; I still don't understand how it was legal for his law firm) -- but not the "new politics" he proclaims.

    This is what is meant when we're told that by comparison, Clinton's vetting has been done and done and done again by Republicans.  I'm trying to recall if anything like this -- like Rezko, like Wright, like Ayers and Dohrn -- in Clinton's past has come out on her in this campaign that wasn't known before?

    Parent

    not to mention in the least all the books and (none / 0) (#99)
    by thereyougo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:01:32 PM EST
    in her own words, ad nauseum.

    Parent
    I liked "birdgate" (none / 0) (#63)
    by Trickster on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:56:24 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    Oh, brother - isn't anyone concerned that (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:41:13 PM EST
    Obama always seems to be saying he "only wrote a letter," or he "only served on a board," or he "only worked for 5 hours," or "only" did this or that, and we're all just supposed to say, "oh, okay, then?"

    I have the sense that the Obama campaign is involved in some clinging right about now - they're desperately clinging to the "notion that" Obama is a different kind of candidate, that he is transparent in his ethics and transcendent in his politics.

    If they lose thier grip on that, what do they have?  Very little in the way of an argument that he is better qualified and more electable than Clinton.

    Hope the unpledged delegates are paying attention.

    He didn't eat sitting down with them (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:46:40 PM EST
    though which makes all the difference in how important the act of writing the letter is.  

    Sorry.  Couln't resist that snark.

    Parent

    Gives a whole new spin to the (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:46:17 PM EST
    phrase, "He is the ONLY candidate...." doesn't it? Snicker.

    Parent
    right (none / 0) (#83)
    by madeinUSA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:06:56 PM EST
    how come people are so quick to believe any spin on obama regardless but ignore the facts on hillary. i seriously don't get our party and this country. why are we so self delusional and destructive. why do we ignore what is good for us and allow what isn't good for us to take over. i seriously don't get it. i'm signing out!

    Parent
    you will not be missed! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by angie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:13:15 PM EST
    Look...in...mirror (none / 0) (#94)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:29:53 PM EST
    And invert your statement for my response. Some of believe what you believe, but in reverse.

    Parent
    I am not sure (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by facta non verba on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:26:55 PM EST
    how significant this story is but for Obama it is looking like a death by a thousand paper cuts. None in and by themselves is fatal but collectively it is a serious bleed.

    The other problem I foresee is that all this keeps off message and on the defensive. Instead of focusing on issues, he has to spend time backpeddling and fending off questions and putting out fires.

    I realize few Obama supporters thread here, but honestly who knows what else is out there and who wants six months of more steady drip drip drip?

    If I was an Obama supporter (none / 0) (#71)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:14:54 PM EST
    it would be pretty painful.  First, to know that this kind of thing is low hanging fruit for any 527.  Second, because there's no knowing if this is all of it or if there is more "baggage" lurking in the financial reports somewhere.

    Even if it is trivial and almost irrelevant, it's also the stuff that the Media is likely jump on during a slow news week.  I mean, they looked up where Hillary was during a particular event - what won't they do.

    (Yes, I know that's really an example of The Clinton Rules, but we should all know by now that The Clinton Rules can apply to more than just The Clintons.)

    Parent

    What About Rezko...Any Dropped Bombs Heading (none / 0) (#77)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:45:31 PM EST
    Obama's Way?

    Parent
    no (1.00 / 1) (#86)
    by madeinUSA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:10:00 PM EST
    no actually, they found hillary and bill to be more implicated and so the rezko thing has died down. until they think obama may be iimplicated the media will ignore it. the peter paul trial was supposed to begin a while back but got moved to may but it seems there has been a gag order issued on it since the trial will hurt hillary!

    Parent
    And I though you were leaving!? (none / 0) (#93)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:26:45 PM EST
    Do not throw accusatory statements without any supporting facts at all regarding the Clintons and Rezko other than that one in 200 millions photos taken with any constituent who wanted a photo with them.

    Parent
    follow the money (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:35:45 PM EST
    From Able Chicago, EKI explained, along with Blackwell:

    Prior to co-founding Blackwell Consulting Services, Robert founded another technology company, Bytewise International. [this] was a company that specialized in development of complex financial planning systems for large organizations and options pricing, trading and portfolio management systems for the OEX, S&P 500 and foreign currency markets.

    Why the LA Times pounced on ping pong is beyond belief when you take a look at EKI's website, where they list their big clients-mostly Chicago government, and hospitals.

    EKI's partial list of clients is here.

    Follow the money.

    But no one has done more (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:51:55 PM EST
    for ping pong than Obama, of course.

    That could explain the LA Times angle.  Well, that and how much evil fun that print media might have had in mind, hoping to get all those tv types --  the ones who love to attempt to exude gravitas -- to say . . . ping pong.  Picture Russert saying it, and you'll smile at the thought, too. :-)

    Parent

    Well, I'm starting to wonder if he's done more (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:57:11 PM EST
    for ping pong than Civil Rights . . .   ;)

    Parent
    And Has He Checked In On Crime In Chicago (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:49:01 PM EST
    Maybe it is just me, but Obama seems to lack compassion, good sense, and any degree of empathy.
    That is why he is not connecting with many voters, IMO.

    Parent
    You're (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by facta non verba on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:32:09 PM EST
    too funny. That's a great comment, nobody has done more for ping-pong. <applause>

    Parent
    bravo (1.00 / 1) (#91)
    by madeinUSA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:18:03 PM EST
    just pathetic! let's dig some more we might find enough dirt to cover hillary's. her claim of her everyone knowing her baggage is just laughable. we know it does not make it ok and there's more that most are not aware of yet. keep nitpicking on obama just because he is not about exposing the clintons but respecting them. the republicans will not be as respectful. they live to defeat the clintons why do you think they are buying ads now to defeat barack. Fact is Barack is a spoiler for those right wings. At this point I could care less if we trash Obama to oblivion and Hillary becomes the nominee. One thing for sure, what goes around comes around 360 degress with serious momentum/dirt collected! I just hate to see the right wings get their way again.

    Parent
    Repeat after me (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:31:45 PM EST
    Whatever Sen Obama does is not justified, negated, or somehow related to Sen Clinton. Sen Obama is responsible for his own actions, mistakes and bad judgements. There is reason, logic and responsibility outside the narrow confines of a two person race. Stop believing campaign spin as reality.


    Parent
    pet peeve of mine (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by angie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:35:53 PM EST
    two actually:
    1. If you "could care less" that means you do care -- the proper phrase is "could NOT care less."
    2. People who say they are leaving and then stick around. I mean, the least you could do is sign in with a new screen name -- but nooooo -- you say one thing then do another -- kind of like Obama, actually.
    Now, personally, I don't mind your presence, because I take it as a sign that your guy is in trouble, and I like that.

    Parent
    Oh! (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:02:29 PM EST
    And that is where Rezko and his friend Levine were into their alleged kickback operations. THE DOTS keep getting connected.

    Parent
    Civil Rights Attorney? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:55:26 PM EST
    Can someone help me out here? I thought he was a C.R.A., yet I never really found any solid info about his accomplishments as one. Now it looks like he didn't work much for 2yrs and the work he did was mostly for this guy?


    helping to "make Chicago the table tennis capital of this nation."


    Six months later Blackwell hired Obama to serve as general counsel for his tech company, EKI, which had been launched a few years earlier.


    Blackwell said that "Barack worked extensive hours advising the company on compliance and human resource issues," negotiated contracts, reviewed confidentiality agreements and provided reports on topics requested by the company's senior management. Obama was not involved in soliciting city or state contracts for EKI, Blackwell said, and there was an agreement that he would not contact any government agencies.

    Is this what C.R.A.s do?

    There's another interesting bit (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Trickster on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:04:18 PM EST
    from the Times article:

    The day after Obama wrote his letter urging the awarding of the state funds, Obama's U.S. Senate campaign received a $1,000 donation from Blackwell.

    Ouch!  Curious timing, no?  Is there an explanation for that coinkydink?


    Dismissing The Legality Of This, (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:39:02 PM EST
    I think that any average, unbiased person would think "Pay for Play" after seeing that paragraph.

    Parent
    Personal enrichment (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Munibond on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:08:39 PM EST
    Both this and the Rezko land purchase involve Obama personally, not just his campaign.  Accepting financial favors directly from people who then benefit from your political position is much more troubing to me than politicians doing favors for campaign contributors.
    Obama seems to have trouble managing his personal finances.  Not a good quality in a government official.

    Campaign accounting troubles, too (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:14:56 PM EST
    with yet another new total for how much his campaign received from Rezko that Obama now has handed off to charity, he says.  Latest figures is a quarter of a million, when it started at about half a hundred thou.  Press kept finding more, then Obama's campaign would have to catch up, fess up.  Then press kept finding more, etc.  

    It would seem that good campaign accounting wouldn't have meant having to take six months or something like that to figure out who gave what.

    Parent

    I keep wondering about that.... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:25:37 PM EST
    It seems to me that Michelle was the one supporting the family financially for a number of years.  I don't have any data but I keep hearing a narrative along the lines of "While Barack was playing politician and community activist, Michelle was pulling down the lion's share of the family's income.".

    It's not an uncommon story - but it's one that's not going to play well with social conservatives who hold that the man is the head of the family and the bread winner, not the woman.  Barack's already been working to defuse any suspicion that Michelle could be the next Hillary.  Sure Michelle is smart, hard working and accomplished - but she'll be kept busy playing mom.  No threat to Barack's perceived manliness there!

    Parent

    guess (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by sas on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:13:19 PM EST
    he is just another pol

    Different rules? (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by LCaution on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:38:06 PM EST
    When I read something like this, my first reaction is "what's new?" This is what pols do.  In fact, this is what most people do: you rub my back, I'll rub yours. (CEO salaries are set by board members who are friends or associates; an upper level exec leaves a company & takes his/her top people with them; you babysit for your neighbor & vv.) At some point, of course, it becomes unethical or even criminal, but I don't know exactly when.

    During an election campaign such as this one, however, I do want the same rules to be applied to everybody.  So, in this case, substitute Hillary (or Bill) and tell me if you'd think the same way. Similarly, of course, when something bad comes out about Hillary, people should be required to substitute Obama's name before deciding the merits.

    And I have a bridge in Alaska to sell you. (none / 0) (#1)
    by miriam on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:56:07 PM EST


    See these links: (none / 0) (#7)
    by derridog on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:09:07 PM EST
    Illinois' forefathers, of course (none / 0) (#5)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:04:48 PM EST
    such as Lincoln, who built his career on defending the first big business, railroads, would understand it.  In his case, he redeemmed himself.:-)  We'll see about Senator Obama.

    As it was an Illinois grant (not a federal one), it will be most interesting to see how Illinoisans today view this, when the story gets there.  Then again, they're so accustomed to the Chicago Way, of which this is a perfect example, that it probably won't make much of a ripple.  When so many of the city's pols are in prison, after all. . . .

    "Donor" (none / 0) (#8)
    by DaveOinSF on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:12:09 PM EST
    Calling Blackwell an Obama "Donor" seems to emphasize the money that was given to Obama's campaign as opposed to the $112,000 that was given to Obama personally.

    I would say a better word would be "Investor".

    You can't equivocate (none / 0) (#17)
    by standingup on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:22:00 PM EST
    money earned from a retainer with a personal gift.  Blackwell was a client and a donor.  

    Parent
    How about "Employer" (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by DaveOinSF on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:30:43 PM EST
    What is the purpose (none / 0) (#49)
    by standingup on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:21:40 PM EST
    of trying to suggest that there is something off about Blackwell paying fees to Obama for legal services?  Obama is entitled to earn a living.  The potential problem is with question of the legal work and political donations influencing Obama's decision to help Blackwell get the grant.  

    Parent
    Fees for political favors (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Munibond on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:20:40 PM EST
    Elected officials are not permitted to accept anything of value to them personally in exchange for political favors.  This would include a retainer, even if the government official accepting the retainer eventually provided legal services in exchange.  There is a major distinction between accepting something of value to oneself, personally, and accepting campaign contributions, a distinction that Obama supporters seem not to understand.  I think what Obama did in this instance (and what he did in arranging for Rezko to assist in his house purchase) clearly crosses the line.  It is amazing to me that he has gotten a complete pass from his supporters over the Rezko property purchase, for which there is no credible explanation other than that Rezko was rewarding Obama for past or future favors.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#104)
    by standingup on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:01:48 AM EST
    there is a problem with accepting something of value for political favors. But there is nothing at this point that supports an allegation that the retainer or fees paid to Obama were anything but what has been reported on tax records and his ethics disclosure. It does raise some questions and I don't object to pursuing answers. I do take issue with stating things as fact that can't be established by what is known.

    Parent
    That is of course always the defense (none / 0) (#105)
    by Munibond on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:15:35 AM EST
    Without the resources of a criminal investigation it is nearly impossible to prove that the political favors that follow or coincide with the passing of cash were in exchange for the cash.  But what other explanation is there for the unusual retainer/passthrough to Obama (attorney with no expertise) arrangement.  And what rational explanation has anyone proffered for Rezko's purchase of neighboring lot?    

    Parent
    Do you mean equate? (none / 0) (#19)
    by derridog on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:24:16 PM EST
    Left out of your quotes (none / 0) (#9)
    by bumblebums on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:13:12 PM EST
    An Illinois ethics advocate who worked with Obama, Cynthia Canary, said his disclosure, by listing all the firm's clients, "was a more complete disclosure than you see 80 percent of the time in Illinois." Further, she said that Obama's letter on behalf of the table tennis tournament did not "rise to the level of a conflict of interest" because Obama did not have decision-making authority over the grant.

    Obama's wife, Michelle, then a member of the Commission on Chicago Landmarks, reported her husband's work for EKI on a city of Chicago financial disclosure form obtained by the Times. Gibbs said she identified EKI on her form after consulting with her husband.



    Listing all fees, minor and major together (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:54:28 PM EST
    is just like hiding a book that you don't want people to notice, among thousands of volumes in the Library about the same size and color of cover. It just blends.

    Parent
    it's in the article I linked to (none / 0) (#43)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:05:13 PM EST
    I reprinted several of Obama's refutations.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#10)
    by Steve M on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:14:04 PM EST
    Paying $8,000 a month in hopes of getting a $50,000 grant doesn't sound like a great ROI.

    But you missed this part (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by tree on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:20:00 PM EST
    With support from Obama, other state officials and an Obama aide who went to work part time for Killerspin, the company eventually obtained $320,000 in state grants between 2002 and 2004 to subsidize its tournaments.

    $112,000 to make $320,000 in grants sounds like a great investment to me. And that $320,000 in grants probably resulted in much more profits from the tournaments themselves.

    Parent

    Well, I just hope we don't find out (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:44:38 PM EST
    that Obama has written any legislations whilst in the US Senate supportive of the ping pong industry.

    Parent
    What would be more telling (none / 0) (#51)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:25:08 PM EST
    is what Blackwell does for his real job--you know, where he makes his "real" money so that he can pay counsel 8,000 bucks a month the first year when nothing is assured.  The ping pong tournament is obviously some kind of rich man's hobby, or a straw entity for something else--maybe a tax write-off?  

    Parent
    I wouldn't necessarily make (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:58:03 PM EST
    the assumption that the ping pong tournament is a hobby for him.  People find ways to make money on these international events and you would be surprised how much they can make even on the dumbest "events".  It is also helpful when the enterprise is government subsidized.  The government is one investor no one, but the average joe is ever required to pay back.

    Parent
    sorry--Blackwell (none / 0) (#100)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:12:01 PM EST
    is a millionaire, as linked above.

    I've known guys like this for years.  I recognize the signs.  He has hospital and Chicago government contracts under his belt.  He's not playing ping-pong for the money and fame.  His big money comes from knowing the right people and pulling the right strings.

    Parent

    Jeralyn, looks like it ought to be $320,000 (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:59:26 PM EST
    in grants in your headline.  Almost a third of a million for (h/t to poster above) ping pong politics.  Ah, print media love alliterative headlines.  Add in pay to play, and it's going to mean fun ones from the copy desk, much as some of those headlines never may run. :-)

    Parent
    read the rest of the quote... (none / 0) (#18)
    by jeffhas on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:23:35 PM EST
    With support from Obama, other state officials and an Obama aide who went to work part time for Killerspin, the company eventually obtained $320,000 in state grants between 2002 and 2004 to subsidize its tournaments.

    that's not too shabby.

    Parent

    we get the blank stare from Obama supporters (none / 0) (#27)
    by Josey on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:41:32 PM EST
    >>>>The big issue in this campaign is the economy and jobs. But if you were to ask most voters how Senator Obama plans to fight for them on this crucial matter, you're likely to get a blank stare.

    This is why (none / 0) (#38)
    by coolit on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:00:24 PM EST
    we don't need any more debates!  Please!  Don't make him explain anything!  That is so unfair!  We already know everything!  Hope!  Change!  No substance!

    last warning (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:01:44 PM EST
    please stop reprinting your website at the bottom of your comments. It's in your user information.

    Does McCain have NO (none / 0) (#52)
    by waldenpond on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:26:48 PM EST
    earmarks etc at all?  This might not look good up against McCain having none of this in a time when the economy is struggling.  Certainly govt waste will be an issue?

    OMG! (none / 0) (#68)
    by wasabi on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:07:39 PM EST
    Barack is a... POLITICIAN!

    Off topic and troll-ish? N/T (none / 0) (#96)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:32:14 PM EST


    as a cpa, while performing the attest (none / 0) (#103)
    by cpinva on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:54:07 AM EST
    function (an audit), i am required to be independent in both deed and appearance. i'll accept that there is nothing unethical or illegal in the actions of sen. obama, with respect to various donors. however, his problem, at minimum, is one of public perception; it appears, based on the facts, that something unethical or illegal may have occurred.

    he will be forced to expend scarce time explaining all this, to a skeptical public, should he be the dem. nominee. this will be another weight on his campaign.