Shock Audio: Facing ‘Obligations’ From Leadership, Democrat Congresswoman Leaves Voicemail for Lobby

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Shock Audio: Facing ‘Obligations’ From Leadership, Democrat Congresswoman Leaves Voicemail for Lobby

Posted: 9/15/2010 6:32:06 PM EDT

Shock Audio: Facing ‘Obligations’ From Leadership, Democrat Congresswoman Leaves Voicemail for Lobbyist Cash

by

Capitol Confidential

A couple weeks ago, House Member Eleanor Holmes Norton made a
fundraising call to a lobbyist. The lobbyist wasn’t available, so Holmes
Norton left a voicemail.

We have been given a copy of that message. The audio is below.
By way of background, with their prospects for November quickly
deteriorating, Congressional Democrats are scrambling to assemble the
financial resources they hope can stave off their electoral armageddon.
Speaker Pelosi and her leadership team are putting a lot of pressure
on Democrat members to pony up campaign contributions to the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee. In the article linked above, Politico
noted:

In August, Pelosi and other top leaders wrote members,
saying, "We need to know your commitment is to maintaining a strong
Democratic majority now” and pleading with them to call "to let us know
what you are able to do and when.”

The pressure is especially strong on members from "safe” districts,
who need little campaign money of their own to win reelection. The
catch, though, is that many of these members haven’t amassed vast
campaign war-chests, for the simple reason that they haven’t needed
them. So, they are scrambling to meet their Pelosi-imposed obligations.
Holmes Norton is from one such "safe” district–the District of Columbia.

In the following voicemail recording, Holmes Norton seeks a campaign
contribution from the lobbyist and even mentions that she hadn’t
previously asked for a donation. Such is the pressure Speaker Pelosi
has placed on the members. But, it is the content of Holmes Norton’s
message that is interesting. (Note: the first few seconds of the
recording, where the name of the lobbyist is said by Holmes Norton, have
been redacted by the source.)

Her message raises many concerns.

1. At the very beginning of the message, Holmes Norton notes that the lobbyist:

ha[s] given to other colleagues of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

Beyond being a bit heavy-handed, where did she get this information?
Such donations are listed in FEC reports, but it is a violation to use
that information to solicit campaign donations.

2. More serious, however, is her frequent mention of her seniority
and her Chairmanship of a subcommittee. She is attempting to solicit
funds based on her past actions taken in her official capacity in
Congress. She is implying to the lobbyist that, should he decline to
donate, he will be turning down a senior member of Congress who Chairs a
subcommittee highly relevant to his "sector”.

3. Worse than that, she details her role overseeing a large economic
development project in the District, funded by "stimulus” funds. It
would appear that either the lobbyist has an interest in this project,
or the Congresswoman thinks he does, as she states she is "frankly
surprised” the lobbyist hasn’t given to her. Especially, she notes,
because of her

long and deep work …in fact it has been by major work on the committee and subcommittee it’s been essentially in your sector

"In your sector.” This raises additional concerns, and we note potentially relevant laws here:

She who promises, directly or indirectly, any government
contract or other government benefit (provided for or made possible by
any Act of Congress) as a reward for a political contribution shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor (18 U.S.C. § 600).

She who attempts to cause anyone to make a political
contribution by denying or threatening to deny any government payment or
other government benefit (provided for or made possible, in whole or in
part, by any Act of Congress) shall be guilty of a misdemeanor (18
U.S.C. § 601).

Then there are the House Ethics rules, according to House Ethics Manual (2008 Edition):

p. 147: "[N]o solicitation of a campaign or political
contribution may be linked to an action taken or to be taken by a Member
… in his or her official capacity. … The Standards Committee has long
advised Members … that they should always exercise caution to avoid even
the appearance that solicitations of campaign contributions are
connected in any way with an action taken or to be taken in their
official capacity. … [A] Member should not sponsor or participate in
any solicitation that offers donors any special access to the Member in
the Member’s official capacity.”

p. 150: "[A] Member may not accept any contribution that
is linked with an action that the Member has taken or is being asked to
take. A corollary of these rules is that Members … are not to take or
withhold any official action on the basis of the campaign contributions
or support of the involved individuals …. Members … are likewise
prohibited from threatening punitive action on the basis of such
considerations.”

4. We don’t know from where she made this call, but it is a relevant
inquiry. It is, after all, illegal to solicit campaign funds on federal
property.

As Holmes Norton repeatedly notes on the call, she is a senior member
of Congress. She knows or should know all of this. First elected to
Congress in 1990, she took her law degree from Yale University and
clerked for U.S. District Court Judge Leon Higginbotham before working
as an assistant legal director at the ACLU, law professor at NYU,
Chairman of the NYC Human Rights Commission, and Chairman of the EEOC.
She is a tenured law professor at Georgetown University and serves on
the boards of three Fortune 500 companies.

That a Member like Holmes Norton would leave the foregoing voicemail
message must be a testament to the kind of pressure Speaker Pelosi has
put on her members. Indeed, she acknowledges this in the call:

As the senior member of the um, committee and a
sub-committee chair, we have (chuckles) obligations to raise, uh funds.
And, I think it must have been me who hasn’t, frankly, uh, done my
homework to ask for a contribution earlier. So I’m trying to make up for
it by asking for one now, when we particularly, uh, need, uh
contributions, particularly those of us who have the seniority and
chairmanships and are in a position to raise the funds.

Note: Beginning this morning, we made several attempts
throughout the day to contact Holmes Norton’s office. At least two email
requests for comments were sent to the Congresswoman’s Communications
Director. Three phones calls and messages were also left. None of these
were returned. We made clear we were on deadline, but we held the story
for almost an entire day to give Holmes Norton’s office a chance to
respond. If we receive a response from her office, we will update the
post.

Below is the full transcript of the call:

This is, uh, Eleanor Norton, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes
Norton. Uh, I noticed that you have given to uh, other colleagues on
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I am a, um, Senior
Member, a twenty year veteran and am Chair of the Sub-committee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management. I’m
handling the largest economic development project in the United States
now, the Homeland Security Compound of three buildings being built on
the uh, old St. Elizabeth’s hospital site in the District of Columbia
along with uh, fifteen other, uh, sites here for, that are part of the
stimulus .

I was, frankly, uh, uh, surprised to see that we don’t have a record,
so far as I can tell, of your having given to me despite my uh, long
and deep uh, work. In fact, it’s been my major work, uh, on the
committee and sub-committee it’s been essentially in your sector.

I am, I’m simply candidly calling to ask for a contribution. As the
senior member of the um, committee and a sub-committee chair, we have
(chuckles) obligations to raise, uh funds. And, I think it must have
been me who hasn’t, frankly, uh, done my homework to ask for a
contribution earlier. So I’m trying to make up for it by asking for one
now, when we particularly, uh, need, uh contributions, particularly
those of us who have the seniority and chairmanships and are in a
position to raise the funds.

I’m asking you to give to Citizens for Eleanor Holmes Norton, PO Box
70626, DC, 20024. I’ll send you a follow-up note with appreciation for
having heard me out. Thanks again.

http://biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2010/09/15/shock-audio-facing-obligations-from-leadership-democrat-house-member-puts-the-squeeze-on-lobbyist/

Posted: 9/15/2010 6:34:23 PM EDT

[#1]

another member of the CBC?

Posted: 9/15/2010 6:40:01 PM EDT

[#2]

Uh, she is uh, a libtard, uh idiot and uh, it would be uh best if she uh, just uh choked herself. Uhm yeah.

Posted: 9/15/2010 6:41:23 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Shock Audio: Facing ‘Obligations’ From Leadership, Democrat Congresswoman Leaves Voicemail for Lobbyist Cash

by Capitol Confidential

A couple weeks ago, House Member Eleanor Holmes Norton made a fundraising call to a lobbyist. The lobbyist wasn’t available, so Holmes Norton left a voicemail.

We have been given a copy of that message. The audio is below.

By way of background, with their prospects for November quickly deteriorating, Congressional Democrats are scrambling to assemble the financial resources they hope can stave off their electoral armageddon. Speaker Pelosi and her leadership team are putting a lot of pressure on Democrat members to pony up campaign contributions to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In the article linked above, Politico noted:

In August, Pelosi and other top leaders wrote members, saying, "We need to know your commitment is to maintaining a strong Democratic majority now” and pleading with them to call "to let us know what you are able to do and when.”

The pressure is especially strong on members from "safe” districts, who need little campaign money of their own to win reelection. The catch, though, is that many of these members haven’t amassed vast campaign war-chests, for the simple reason that they haven’t needed them. So, they are scrambling to meet their Pelosi-imposed obligations. Holmes Norton is from one such "safe” district–the District of Columbia.

In the following voicemail recording, Holmes Norton seeks a campaign contribution from the lobbyist and even mentions that she hadn’t previously asked for a donation. Such is the pressure Speaker Pelosi has placed on the members. But, it is the content of Holmes Norton’s message that is interesting. (Note: the first few seconds of the recording, where the name of the lobbyist is said by Holmes Norton, have been redacted by the source.)

Her message raises many concerns.

1. At the very beginning of the message, Holmes Norton notes that the lobbyist:

ha[s] given to other colleagues of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

Beyond being a bit heavy-handed, where did she get this information? Such donations are listed in FEC reports, but it is a violation to use that information to solicit campaign donations.

2. More serious, however, is her frequent mention of her seniority and her Chairmanship of a subcommittee. She is attempting to solicit funds based on her past actions taken in her official capacity in Congress. She is implying to the lobbyist that, should he decline to donate, he will be turning down a senior member of Congress who Chairs a subcommittee highly relevant to his "sector”.

3. Worse than that, she details her role overseeing a large economic development project in the District, funded by "stimulus” funds. It would appear that either the lobbyist has an interest in this project, or the Congresswoman thinks he does, as she states she is "frankly surprised” the lobbyist hasn’t given to her. Especially, she notes, because of her

long and deep work …in fact it has been by major work on the committee and subcommittee it’s been essentially in your sector

"In your sector.” This raises additional concerns, and we note potentially relevant laws here:

She who promises, directly or indirectly, any government contract or other government benefit (provided for or made possible by any Act of Congress) as a reward for a political contribution shall be guilty of a misdemeanor (18 U.S.C. § 600).

She who attempts to cause anyone to make a political contribution by denying or threatening to deny any government payment or other government benefit (provided for or made possible, in whole or in part, by any Act of Congress) shall be guilty of a misdemeanor (18 U.S.C. § 601).

Then there are the House Ethics rules, according to House Ethics Manual (2008 Edition):

p. 147: "[N]o solicitation of a campaign or political contribution may be linked to an action taken or to be taken by a Member … in his or her official capacity. … The Standards Committee has long advised Members … that they should always exercise caution to avoid even the appearance that solicitations of campaign contributions are connected in any way with an action taken or to be taken in their official capacity. … [A] Member should not sponsor or participate in any solicitation that offers donors any special access to the Member in the Member’s official capacity.”

p. 150: "[A] Member may not accept any contribution that is linked with an action that the Member has taken or is being asked to take. A corollary of these rules is that Members … are not to take or withhold any official action on the basis of the campaign contributions or support of the involved individuals …. Members … are likewise prohibited from threatening punitive action on the basis of such considerations.”

4. We don’t know from where she made this call, but it is a relevant inquiry. It is, after all, illegal to solicit campaign funds on federal property.

As Holmes Norton repeatedly notes on the call, she is a senior member of Congress. She knows or should know all of this. First elected to Congress in 1990, she took her law degree from Yale University and clerked for U.S. District Court Judge Leon Higginbotham before working as an assistant legal director at the ACLU, law professor at NYU, Chairman of the NYC Human Rights Commission, and Chairman of the EEOC. She is a tenured law professor at Georgetown University and serves on the boards of three Fortune 500 companies.

That a Member like Holmes Norton would leave the foregoing voicemail message must be a testament to the kind of pressure Speaker Pelosi has put on her members. Indeed, she acknowledges this in the call:

As the senior member of the um, committee and a sub-committee chair, we have (chuckles) obligations to raise, uh funds. And, I think it must have been me who hasn’t, frankly, uh, done my homework to ask for a contribution earlier. So I’m trying to make up for it by asking for one now, when we particularly, uh, need, uh contributions, particularly those of us who have the seniority and chairmanships and are in a position to raise the funds.

Note: Beginning this morning, we made several attempts throughout the day to contact Holmes Norton’s office. At least two email requests for comments were sent to the Congresswoman’s Communications Director. Three phones calls and messages were also left. None of these were returned. We made clear we were on deadline, but we held the story for almost an entire day to give Holmes Norton’s office a chance to respond. If we receive a response from her office, we will update the post.

Below is the full transcript of the call:

This is, uh, Eleanor Norton, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. Uh, I noticed that you have given to uh, other colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I am a, um, Senior Member, a twenty year veteran and am Chair of the Sub-committee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management. I’m handling the largest economic development project in the United States now, the Homeland Security Compound of three buildings being built on the uh, old St. Elizabeth’s hospital site in the District of Columbia along with uh, fifteen other, uh, sites here for, that are part of the stimulus .

I was, frankly, uh, uh, surprised to see that we don’t have a record, so far as I can tell, of your having given to me despite my uh, long and deep uh, work. In fact, it’s been my major work, uh, on the committee and sub-committee it’s been essentially in your sector.

I am, I’m simply candidly calling to ask for a contribution. As the senior member of the um, committee and a sub-committee chair, we have (chuckles) obligations to raise, uh funds. And, I think it must have been me who hasn’t, frankly, uh, done my homework to ask for a contribution earlier. So I’m trying to make up for it by asking for one now, when we particularly, uh, need, uh contributions, particularly those of us who have the seniority and chairmanships and are in a position to raise the funds.

I’m asking you to give to Citizens for Eleanor Holmes Norton, PO Box 70626, DC, 20024. I’ll send you a follow-up note with appreciation for having heard me out. Thanks again.

so is a voice mail going to be the next illegal wire tap?

Posted: 9/15/2010 7:09:01 PM EDT

[#4]

I don't like the way she refers to herself as a VETERAN. How can these fucks sleep at night. BITCH

Posted: 9/15/2010 7:14:50 PM EDT

[#5]

Laws, rules, ethics and morals are for the OTHER guy, not them.

Democrats don't give a fuck about them, they're only for show and talking points. When push comes to shove, the ONLY thing that matters is maintaining power and forwarding their agenda. Anything that gets in the way of that, well, that's just too damn bad.

Seriously. ANYONE the least bit surprised by this? After all we've been bullshitted for years and since Zero got elected they openly lie to our faces every day.

Posted: 9/15/2010 7:15:36 PM EDT

[#6]

I sooo want to see that cvnt in the unemployment line this November. Please God Please!!!

Posted: 9/15/2010 7:19:39 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

another member of the CBC?

Posted: 9/15/2010 7:23:31 PM EDT

[#8]

Congressional buhLACK Caucus strikes again!

2. More serious, however, is her frequent mention of her seniority
and her Chairmanship of a subcommittee. She is attempting to solicit
funds based on her past actions taken in her official capacity in
Congress. She is implying to the lobbyist that, should he decline to
donate, he will be turning down a senior member of Congress who Chairs a
subcommittee highly relevant to his "sector”.
3. Worse than that, she details her role overseeing a large economic
development project in the District, funded by "stimulus” funds. It
would appear that either the lobbyist has an interest in this project,
or the Congresswoman thinks he does, as she states she is "frankly
surprised” the lobbyist hasn’t given to her. Especially, she notes,
because of her

long and deep work …in fact it has been by major work on the committee and subcommittee it’s been essentially in your sector

"In your sector.” This raises additional concerns, and we note potentially relevant laws here:

She who promises, directly or indirectly, any government
contract or other government benefit (provided for or made possible by
any Act of Congress) as a reward for a political contribution shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor (18 U.S.C. § 600).

She who attempts to cause anyone to make a political
contribution by denying or threatening to deny any government payment or
other government benefit (provided for or made possible, in whole or in
part, by any Act of Congress) shall be guilty of a misdemeanor (18
U.S.C. § 601).

Then there are the House Ethics rules, according to House Ethics Manual (2008 Edition):

p. 147: "[N]o solicitation of a campaign or political
contribution may be linked to an action taken or to be taken by a Member
… in his or her official capacity. … The Standards Committee has long
advised Members … that they should always exercise caution to avoid even
the appearance that solicitations of campaign contributions are
connected in any way with an action taken or to be taken in their
official capacity. … [A] Member should not sponsor or participate in
any solicitation that offers donors any special access to the Member in
the Member’s official capacity.”

p. 150: "[A] Member may not accept any contribution that
is linked with an action that the Member has taken or is being asked to
take. A corollary of these rules is that Members … are not to take or
withhold any official action on the basis of the campaign contributions
or support of the involved individuals …. Members … are likewise
prohibited from threatening punitive action on the basis of such
considerations.”

Ethics, rules and laws don't apply to Democrats.

Especially buhLACK female Democrat Congresswomen.

Challenge them and they may just punch you right in the chest and walk away scot free.

Posted: 9/15/2010 7:25:10 PM EDT

[#9]

Nothing will come of it.

Posted: 9/15/2010 7:26:17 PM EDT

[#10]

You could tell me that Eleanor Norton Holmes delivered a white baby in a hospital, gutted it alive merely seconds later, and feasted on its liver with a Chianti and farva beans by candlelight while the parents, held back by her security goons, writhed in agony and rage, and I'd believe it.

That woman is rotten to the core, through and through absolute evil.

_MaH

Posted: 9/15/2010 7:34:59 PM EDT

[#11]

Wow, just...wow...

Posted: 9/15/2010 7:49:42 PM EDT

[#12]

Does anyone wonder why they leaked the voicemail when they are such big democrat supporters? Maybe my tin foils on too tight but this looks like a setup, the dems will wait until the Republicans call for her to be investigated then scream racism and point out that they're going after yet another CBC member. Of course they ignore how guilty all these CBC members are but it really makes you wonder why so many CBC members are crooked. Is it because up until now they have been able to hide behind their race leaving the Republicans too fearful to do anything but kowtow to the CBC?

Posted: 9/15/2010 8:34:06 PM EDT

[#13]

Tell her to go rob a liquor store in her district to get funds.........The obango followers are nearly done and will be by November elections and are getting desperate

Posted: 9/15/2010 8:41:04 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
I don't like the way she refers to herself as a VETERAN. How can these fucks sleep at night. BITCH

She served on the wrong side during the Clone Wars.

Posted: 9/15/2010 8:46:13 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Does anyone wonder why they leaked the voicemail when they are such big democrat supporters? Maybe my tin foils on too tight but this looks like a setup, the dems will wait until the Republicans call for her to be investigated then scream racism and point out that they're going after yet another CBC member. Of course they ignore how guilty all these CBC members are but it really makes you wonder why so many CBC members are crooked. Is it because up until now they have been able to hide behind their race leaving the Republicans too fearful to do anything but kowtow to the CBC?

Apparently they've never given to her before.

Maybe they despise her.

Posted: 9/15/2010 8:53:48 PM EDT

[#16]

Wow, I am starting to think that we may actually be able to clean up Washington.

Posted: 9/15/2010 8:59:00 PM EDT

[#17]

this is what was once called a shakedown

Posted: 9/15/2010 9:01:52 PM EDT

[#18]

Audio tapes like these recorded by the FBI between Alaska state legislators and oil company lobbyists sent several of said REPUBLICAN legislators to prison.

The tapes were really pathetic, too. The Republican legislators were asking for like $3000.

Posted: 9/15/2010 9:04:03 PM EDT

[#19]

"Holmes Norton is from one such "safe” district–the District of Columbia."

How is she a chairman then if she is from DC?

Posted: 9/15/2010 9:11:53 PM EDT

[#20]

Wait, she is supposed to be a non-voting member of congress. And I thought DC was not supposed to be represented because it is not a state.

What the fuck is she even doing there to begin with? Let alone chairing a committee? And now she's shaking down contractors for money, for a position she shouldn't have, in a position she shouldn't be? Threatening future contract payments for make-shift work paid by stimulus money, supposedly against the law?

Have I missed anything here?

Am I still on the planet earth or did I wake up on Mars?

Posted: 9/15/2010 9:41:19 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

"Holmes Norton is from one such "safe” district–the District of Columbia."
How is she a chairman then if she is from DC?

Although she has no final House floor vote privilege, she does have committee vote privileges.
She 'represents' a city with 80% Democrats, over half of them Black - so you gonna disenfranchise a whole city of half a million people with mostly Black Democrats just because of some stinking slavery-supporting Constitution!!?? That's RACIST!!!!

Posted: 9/15/2010 9:54:55 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
I don't like the way she refers to herself as a VETERAN. How can these fucks sleep at night. BITCH

Veteran doesn't always mean military you know.

Posted: 9/15/2010 11:14:25 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Audio tapes like these recorded by the FBI between Alaska state legislators and oil company lobbyists sent several of said REPUBLICAN legislators to prison.

The tapes were really pathetic, too. The Republican legislators were asking for like $3000.

So how much you wanna bet this case goes nowhere

Posted: 9/16/2010 5:50:27 AM EDT

[#24]

Sad thing is that you just know that this is one of thousands of similar calls. And you know Pelosi condones it, if not demands it.

Posted: 9/16/2010 6:05:06 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Sad thing is that you just know that this is one of thousands of similar calls. And you know Pelosi condones it, if not demands it.

This.

They ALL do it. Both sides of the aisle. Thats part of the problem.

Norton is just the latest dingbat to get caught with her claws in the cookie jar, but because her side is in power nothing will happen.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Shock Audio: Facing ‘Obligations’ From Leadership, Democrat Congresswoman Leaves Voicemail for Lobby

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

Shock Audio: Facing ‘Obligations’ From Leadership, Democrat Congresswoman Leaves Voicemail for Lobbyist Cash

Shock Audio: Facing ‘Obligations’ From Leadership, Democrat Congresswoman Leaves Voicemail for Lobbyist Cash

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us