Smith gives up tainted campaign money, but what about his personal take?

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

Earlier today, I noted that Gordon Smith had taken at least $10,000 this election cycle from indicted Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK).

It didn't take long for Jeff Merkley's team to compile the full money count: $39,000. From Jeff Mapes:

Stevens' political action committee gave $10,000 in 2007 to Smith's current re-election campaign, according to Federal Election Commission records. In 2005 and 2006, Stevens gave a total of $10,000 to help pay off debts left over from Smith's first Senate campaign in 1996.

FEC records also show that various campaign entities for Smith had received $19,000 from two different Stevens political funds in the years before 2003.

Merkley demanded that Smith turn the tainted funds over to charity.

"Senator Smith should donate these contributions to charities to help provide health insurance to Oregon children," said Speaker Jeff Merkley. "Ted Stevens has been indicted on very serious ethical charges. These charges cast an ethical cloud on money he raised from oil companies and others, some of which he passed on to Gordon Smith."

And it didn't take long for Smith to cave in to Jeff Merkley's demands, at least partially. Again, from Mapes:

Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., on Tuesday swiftly joined a parade of GOP senators promising to rid themselves of campaign money that they had received from a powerful Alaska senator, Republican Ted Stevens, who was indicted on felony charges of failing to report gifts and income.

Smith spokeswoman Lindsay Gilbride said in an e-mail that Smith will donate to charity the $10,000 that he received from Stevens for his current re-election campaign. "Given the indictment, donating the money is the appropriate thing to do," Gilbride wrote.

Of course, that's just the first $10,000 that Smith received for his 2008 re-election campaign. For some reason, the Smith folks seem to think that the $10,000 he got in 2005 and 2006 don't count.

I understand why they wouldn't give up the money that was donated for his 2002 race - it's been spent. But Smith should donate to charity the additional $10,000 that he got in 2005 and 2006. After all, that's also part of his 2008 re-election campaign.

And yes, I know that they're going to say it's debt relief for his 1996 campaign. But all that debt was owed to Smith personally. Which just means that Gordon Smith personally pocketed $10,000 in money from Stevens in 2005-2006. Fine by me if Smith donates it to charity from his personal account.

  • (Show?)

    Full disclosure: My firm built Jeff Merkley's campaign website, but I speak only for myself.

  • backbeat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    hahaha

    When is the last time he faced the voters of Oregon? Seems like ages since Wyden gave him cover with a town hall meeting. His staff didn't want to see us when we tried to give them 10,000 Oregon signatures from MoveOn, fall of 2002. The simple request on the petition? "Let the inspections work." Finally staff magically appeared when the tv cameras showed up, and they allowed moveon reps to enter. But only two people mind you. Security. Dirty suit clad hippies stinking up the joint with their simple request: Let the Inspections Work.

    When will you receive us, Senator Smith?

  • Mike (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I wonder what charities Smith (and the others) donate the money to?

    I hope it's not some bogus charity that is nothing more than a Republican front group for money laundering activities, like the one setup by Tom Delay for abused and neglected children that helped finance late night parties and yacht cruises during the '04 GOP convention.

  • custom essay (unverified)
    (Show?)

    funny and so true!

  • (Show?)
    <h2>Seems to me that the real issue is that Smith took the money to begin with -- it's not like Stevens' unethical dealings have been a big secret. The way that Smith disposes of the funds seems like a fairly ephemeral issue, and one that he'll ultimately probably handle in a way that doesn't reflect badly on his campaign; but he can't get away from the fact that he was closely involved with one of the most corrupt politicians of our time. Add that to his strong support of, and close connections to, Trent Lott, and the falsehoods surrounding the Klamath River fish kill issue, and you've got a pretty solid foundation to cast doubt on the guy's suitability for office.</h2>

connect with blueoregon