Michelle Obama Attends Beyonce Concert
7 Weird Ways To Bug-Proof Your Picnic
The Congressional Black Caucus has seen better days.
The latest member of the exclusive club of national black lawmakers to come under charges of financial misdeeds is veteran Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas (pictured), who steered thousands of scholarship dollars to relatives and children of her top aide.
Johnson broke the rules of the CBC, which restricts relatives of lawmakers from dipping into the pool of college scholarship money provided by the nonprofit CBC Foundation.
The CBC Foundation provides $10,000 a year for each member of the CBC to hand out in scholarships.
No taxpayer money is involved, only private and corporate donations, but that won't keep Johnson from feeling some pressure from voters in her Dallas County district. Johnson, 74, is expected to cruise to an easy victory over an unknown Republican in the heavily Democratic district.
But that doesn't mean voters won't be disappointed when they cast their votes in November, especially when Johnson offered the lame excuse that she didn't "personally benefit" for handing the money to her grandsons, Kirk and David Johnson, two of her great-nephews, Gregory and Preston Moore, and to the son and daughter of her district political director Rod Givens.
Tweet Of the 43 scholarships her office awarded between 2005 and 2008, 15 went to relatives of Johnson or Givens, according to foundation reports.
Is giving relatives a financial boost against the rules wrong?
Of course!
The Johnson disclosure follows the ethics charges hanging over the head of CBC charter member Rep. Charles Rangel of New York and allegations of financial wrongdoing against Rep. Maxine Waters of California.
It's probably not completely fair to lump each of the lawmakers together because of their CBC affiliation. Do we lump together all white lawmakers charged with wrongdoing under the banner of some Congressional White Caucus?
That fact, however, doesn't excuse the arrogance and greed or misjudgment shown by Johnson, Rangel and Waters.
I find the length of service from all three quite interesting. Is it possible that after serving so long, they simply got a little sloppy in their bookkeeping? Perhaps they just stopped caring as much about blurring the ethical lines of service and fattening their own wallets.
I'm sure some Washington think tank has done a study to see when lawmakers run afoul of the law. I'd be interested in the results. If the pattern shown in the cases of Johnson, Rangel and Waters, who have served 17 years, 40 years and 20 years, respectively, is widely repeated, it makes a good case for term limits.
Meanwhile, will all you lawmakers, regardless of creed or color, stop using your office as an ATM machine!
Comments: (69)
Add a comment
By: nurra on 9/02/2010 9:21AM
Who owns Black voices? Probably like the people who own BET promotional propaganda, my question is who does it really benefit? I have one guess, now you'all think fast.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Andreana on 9/02/2010 12:28PM
You know what, as f’ed up as her actions are, I do not blame her for wanting her family to also have an "opportunity" (especially if they are good students and deserving). For the life of me I have never understood why many organizations/corporations have a “No Family Members Are Eligible” Policy in place - that to me is not a fair/equal practice either. It makes absolutely no sense to me that these organizations can’t simply put a committee in place to oversee that it is not being abused. In Johnson’s case, I do feel she was a bit abusive but I would not bat a shameful eye had it been one “deserving” grandson or one family member of the district - I totally think that is and should be acceptable….and all this is coming from someone who worked throughout my entire college career (minus my freshman year) to pay for school after being told there was no scholarship money available. There will never ever be enough money to fund all kids who have good grades or are deserving and for anyone to conclude they didn’t get any money back when they were in school because it stolen from them – well that’s just absurd in my humble opinion.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: WuzYoungOnceToo on 9/02/2010 2:21PM
What a silly comment. First off, the fact that she was able to write a lump-sum $31k check to pay back the fund means that she could easily have given her friends/family members money out of her own pocket for those four years if her real desire was to give them that "opportunity". Though considering that some of them live in an upper-middle class area of Plano I'd hardly say they were disadvantaged.
As for the reasoning behind anti-nepotism rules against funneling charitable donations to your own friends and family....if you can't figure that one out then you should talk to whatever college you attended and request a refund of your tuition.
Report This
By: Andreana on 9/02/2010 8:05PM
@ WuzYoungOnceToo --> First off I never condoned her actions so back up and go
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Andreana on 9/02/2010 8:17PM
WuzYoungOnceToo: First off I never condoned her actions so back up and go
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Andreana on 9/02/2010 8:18PM
WuzYoungOnceToo: First off I never condoned her actions so back up and go that a way with your attitude and sarcasm. I do not have time for cowardly internet bullying so the very last thing that you should be worrying about is my being worthy of my degree, I mean, what?...personally downing someone via the internet makes you feel good about yourself? I mean really - what's that all about?
I am very aware of the Nepotism Policy and “no” I do not condone someone firing someone to make a position for a family member or hiring and promoting individuals simply because they are family, but if you work for an organization that gives out scholarship and you have a family member that is an honor student and just as deserving as the next person then no, I do not think they should not be considered simply because they happen to be a family member. Period. And just so that you know, no universal "nepotism law" exist at the Federal level that prohibits it in all states. Some states actually feel like and AGREE with my way of thinking and consider employer anti-nepotism policies to be discriminatory, so it is up to the employers/and organization as to whether or not they wish to adopt the policy but it surely is not mandatory. The ‘obvious’ reason for most organizations and corporations putting the policy in place is to avoid lawsuits and has absolutely nothing to do with fairness, so next time know all the FACTS before you come at someone in a very unnecessary belittling manner.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: WuzYoungOnceToo on 9/03/2010 3:14PM
- "First off I never condoned her actions so back up and go that a way with your attitude and sarcasm. I do not have time for cowardly internet bullying so the very last thing that you should be worrying about is my being worthy of my degree, I mean, what?...personally downing someone via the internet makes you feel good about yourself? I mean really - what's that all about?"
Quite the hypersensitive drama queen, aren't you? Any sort of negative response is "bullying" to you? You need to grow a thicker skin, or the real world is going to chew you up.
- "I am very aware of the Nepotism Policy"
I didn't say you weren't. I said you weren't aware of the reasons for it. You said as much yourself.
- "and “no” I do not condone someone firing someone to make a position for a family member or hiring and promoting individuals simply because they are family, but if you work for an organization that gives out scholarship and you have a family member that is an honor student and just as deserving as the next person then no, I do not think they should not be considered simply because they happen to be a family member. Period."
You just proved me right.
- "And just so that you know, no universal "nepotism law" exist at the Federal level that prohibits it in all states."
Uh, yeah...I'm aware of that. I never claimed there was. Nice attempt at a strawman argument though.
- "Some states actually feel like and AGREE with my way of thinking and consider employer anti-nepotism policies to be discriminatory, so it is up to the employers/and organization as to whether or not they wish to adopt the policy but it surely is not mandatory. The ‘obvious’ reason for most organizations and corporations putting the policy in place is to avoid lawsuits and has absolutely nothing to do with fairness, so next time know all the FACTS before you come at someone in a very unnecessary belittling manner."
You need to take your own advice rather than wasting so much time on this clueless, irrelevant, hyper-defensive clap-trap.
Report This
By: Bernie30338 on 9/02/2010 10:15PM
I am sad that the other young people nevr stood a chance 2 get the scholrships. If she could pay it back so quickly, ydidnt she just give the family members the $$$$ and let the kids that truly needed the schlorships,hav them???Al Shrpton/Jesse J arent going 2 weigh in and condemn this. It is wrng 4 her 2 have done this.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: fullpint on 10/28/2010 8:52PM
I hope this is not true but if it is, like she steered the funds to family and friends i hope her community steer her azz out of a her seat! This is getting so disgusting, People like her when they run they are so humble promising their all they get elected, then tried to take all! Greed is their down fall.
Reply to this Comment | Report This