OH Nancy...say it isn't so: "TPM" Pelosi Paying Thousands to Husband's Firm.

OH Nancy...say it isn't so: "TPM" Pelosi Paying Thousands to Husband's Firm...


Pelosi paying thousands to husband's firm

Pelosi defends payments from her political action committee to her husband's firm

ERICA WERNER
AP News

Oct 02, 2008 16:23 EST

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that it's "just foolish" to suggest that her husband is benefiting from tens of thousands of dollars one of her political committees is paying a firm he owns.

Pelosi, D-Calif., also disputed the notion that the arrangement contradicts her support last year for legislation that would have banned spouses from benefiting, directly or indirectly, from political committees controlled by their husbands or wives.

Paul Pelosi has been treasurer of the speaker's "PAC to the Future" political action committee since last year, after the death of the previous treasurer. The PAC has paid his investment and consulting firm, Financial Leasing Services Inc., more than $50,000 since last year for accounting services and rent, plus at least $20,000 more in prior years.

Pelosi contended Thursday that she was merely complying with the law by reimbursing her husband's firm for what would otherwise amount to improper "in-kind" donations of services to her committee.

"My husband's not a political consultant or anything like that. It is just honoring the law to say if you use the facility, you have to pay for it. And everybody has to do that, and that's again in compliance with the law," Pelosi said.

"He would be happy not to have this on his turf I'm sure," she said. "No, it doesn't benefit my husband. That is foolish to say."

Pelosi's aides said they would review the arrangement after the election.

more at.........
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/10/pelosi_paying_thousands_to_hus.php

from nothing, but it sounds perfectly fine.

Why are you treating it as if it's something of legitimate concern? You shouldn't be. You should be defending her.

of impropriety about it it should have never happened. I am sure there are plenty of accountants that are not related to her that could have been used. No slack from me.

:sarcasm:

Pretty please.

We deserve better than Nancy Pelosi as speaker. This saddens me because I wanted her to do well - I'm a woman. :(

cares about getting his companies portion of 50k, you're crazy. Whats the most he's getting from that 5k? come on. I'm no fan of Pelosi, but this seems a bit ridiculous.

Many Congresscritters wives or husbands and children work as lobbyists or for companies that have an interest in getting lobbyists up there on the hill. It's gone too far and like everything else these days those "Wives/Husbands,College Graduate Children, Neices, Nephews and "Friends of Friends" are so interconnected with the nepotism and favoratism that it's hurting how our government works for the many Americans who aren't so lucky to be so well-placed in DC.

It's time for reform.

was above board. Do your research folks. She has history.

....still, $50000 here, $700 billion there and pretty soon it begins to add up and it look bad....like you don't care for us, the people, like maybe you're in it for yourself....

....by the way nancy, I've been having a hard time paying my bills and buying food....

I'm not a big fan of Nancy's. But isn't this like saying, it shd be illegal for one's spouse to work for one's election?

Ok, they're paying him. But at least you know he's motivated to do a good job.

I'm not sure I see the problem.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

yay for scandals.

if they are in-kind donations then they are not repaid. if they are repaid they are not in-kind donations. this seems to be, at least in part, what Pelosi is saying. it may even be axiomatic. but if repaying means the services are not donations then surely the firm would have created invoices to bill for the services. on the surface, this is either a really simple explanation for a situation where people have gone out of their way to do the right thing; or a really flimsy and easily exposed cover for improper behavior.

. . . in favor of someone who'll be effective in passing his legislation. She's too much of a screwup. This shenanigans can be used as a good pretext to get her out of leadership.