$80,000 for a $100 website

Damn, I did a lot of work putting together the CIHL’s new website, and it cost us nowhere near $80,000. Maybe I should move to Washington and hang out a shingle.

Of course, my dad doesn’t have a PAC or congressional committee to spend other people’s money on me…

[quote=“Politico”]Between 2004 and 2007, Rep. Charles Rangel steered nearly $80,000 in campaign cash to an Internet company run by his son – paying lavishly for a pair of political Web sites so poorly designed an expert estimated one should have cost no more than $100 to create.

The payments are apparently legal under federal law, but their disclosure raises new questions about the Ways and Means chairman as he faces House ethics committee probes into his failure to pay taxes on rental income and his alleged use of House stationery to solicit contributions for a public policy center that bears his name.

Rangel’s leadership PAC and congressional committee shelled out $79,560 to Edisonian Innovative Works LLC for “websites,” according to Federal Election Commission filings.

Edisonian Innovative Works, which lists several clients on its homepage – none of them politicians — was founded by Rangel’s son, Steven Charles Rangel, 40, of Greenbelt, Md.
[…]
Still, the sum paid to Rangel’s son was the most paid for Web sites by any House member during the 2004-to-2006 election period, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings provided to Politico by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Rep. Ralph Regula (R-Ohio) and since-ousted Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) were distant runners up, shelling out $44,000 and $30,000 for their Web sites, respectively, during the 2006 cycle.

Both Regula and Shays may have needed the exposure to fend off serious challengers. Rangel, a Harlem Democrat and dean of his state’s House delegation, hasn’t faced serious competition in years and retained his seat with 94 percent of the vote in 2006.

The vast majority of House candidates who set up campaign sites in 2006 paid a relative pittance, with 200 members spending less than $10,000 each for Web sites, according to the CRP analysis.[/quote]

[quote=“Jaboney”]Damn, I did a lot of work putting together the CIHL’s new website, and it cost us nowhere near $80,000. Maybe I should move to Washington and hang out a shingle.

Of course, my dad doesn’t have a PAC or congressional committee to spend other people’s money on me…

[quote=“Politico”]Between 2004 and 2007, Rep. Charles Rangel steered nearly $80,000 in campaign cash to an Internet company run by his son – paying lavishly for a pair of political Web sites so poorly designed an expert estimated one should have cost no more than $100 to create.

The payments are apparently legal under federal law, but their disclosure raises new questions about the Ways and Means chairman as he faces House ethics committee probes into his failure to pay taxes on rental income and his alleged use of House stationery to solicit contributions for a public policy center that bears his name.

Rangel’s leadership PAC and congressional committee shelled out $79,560 to Edisonian Innovative Works LLC for “websites,” according to Federal Election Commission filings.

Edisonian Innovative Works, which lists several clients on its homepage – none of them politicians — was founded by Rangel’s son, Steven Charles Rangel, 40, of Greenbelt, Md.
[…]
Still, the sum paid to Rangel’s son was the most paid for Web sites by any House member during the 2004-to-2006 election period, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings provided to Politico by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Rep. Ralph Regula (R-Ohio) and since-ousted Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) were distant runners up, shelling out $44,000 and $30,000 for their Web sites, respectively, during the 2006 cycle.

Both Regula and Shays may have needed the exposure to fend off serious challengers. Rangel, a Harlem Democrat and dean of his state’s House delegation, hasn’t faced serious competition in years and retained his seat with 94 percent of the vote in 2006.

The vast majority of House candidates who set up campaign sites in 2006 paid a relative pittance, with 200 members spending less than $10,000 each for Web sites, according to the CRP analysis.[/quote][/quote]
It’s quite something. :laughing:
The front page features a dizzying variety of fonts. It’s got a button reading “GIVE CONTRIBUITION” and another button reading “JOIN NEWSLETTER” that triggers a popup saying “Sorry, the newsletter subscription form is not active at this time while our site is undergoing routine maintenace.” But at least there’s a line reading “Thanks you for your patience.”

“The Internet is an Al Gore plot to make us Republicans look bad.”

Quick read the article and tell me what party Rangel is from. oh wait they barely mention it, but all the Republicans got an R and their state after their name. Oh and the one other democrat is listed as [quote]Long Island Democratic Rep. Timothy Bishop[/quote]

This is not Rangel’s (D-NY) first run in with questionable ethics, there’s the house in the Carribean, the tax loophole(worth millions) for a company funding a building with his name on it and claiming 2 homesteads in 2 different states.

Gosh darn it, I still can’t find that (D-NY) anywhere in the article next to his name, oh wait there’s the in the 12th paragraph

I’m sure Pelosi is running a very ethical Shop with Rangel and “Cold Cash” Jefferson(D-LA). What about the tax loophole that she put into a bill for one of her husband’s investments?

Hardly necessary, is it? He’s black. There are no black Republicans in the Congress.

Hardly necessary, is it? He’s black. There are no black Republicans in the Congress.[/quote]

By reading his last name you can’t really tell his race. You have to do a search, check Wikipedia or his own website to find out what race he is.

The issue is that since they point out the two preceding Congressmen as Republicans with the ®, they should point out that Congressman Rangel is a Democrat. By not doing so, the reader infers that Congressman Rangel is a Republican, like the previous two mentioned money wasters. The fact that they didn’t mention his political affiliation until the 12th paragraph, as Okami points out, is odd.

It’s sloppy journalism in the least, and at the worst would be deliberate to trick the readers into believing that only Republicans waste tons of money on websites. I lean towards them being a little sloppy.

As far as the article goes, at least Congressman Rangel won’t be nominated for the Senate position that Senator Clinton will soon be vacating. Hopefully they can find someone who is less of a corrupt bastard for the position.

[quote=“lbksig”][quote=“Jaboney”]
Hardly necessary, is it? He’s black. There are no black Republicans in the Congress.[/quote]

By reading his last name you can’t really tell his race. You have to do a search, check Wikipedia or his own website to find out what race he is.

[/quote]
Of course, a picture of him accompanies the article and the caption correctly identifies him. And so it’s obvious he’s a Democrat for the reason Jaboney explained.

[quote=“Okami”]

This is not Rangel’s (D-NY) first run in with questionable ethics[/quote]
Not to mention the slimy campaign tactics he used against Adam Clayton Powell Jr. in '70. At that time, he campaigned against Powell’s lack of ethics and frequent absences (Powell had to defend himself in court againt ethic-related controversies).

[quote]The issue is that since they point out the two preceding Congressmen as Republicans with the ®, they should point out that Congressman Rangel is a Democrat. By not doing so, the reader infers that Congressman Rangel is a Republican, like the previous two mentioned money wasters. The fact that they didn’t mention his political affiliation until the 12th paragraph, as Okami points out, is odd.

It’s sloppy journalism in the least, and at the worst would be deliberate to trick the readers into believing that only Republicans waste tons of money on websites. I lean towards them being a little sloppy.[/quote]

I think you would be mistaken too if you thought it to be sloppy versus intentional. Read any Eliot Spitzer hooker story and look for the D or pick any random democrat in legal trouble and you will find the same lack of disclosure of their political affiliation versus us always knowing it was a republican that messed up. 90+% of journalists are democrats.

More good news on the “throw out the corrupt bums” front:

[quote=“Politico”]Indicted Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) has lost his New Orleans-based Congressional seat to a little-known Republican attorney, Anh “Joseph” Cao.

With all precincts reporting, Cao has defeated Jefferson 50 to 47 percent. The AP has called the race for Cao.

Even with Jefferson’s ethical woes, his ouster comes as a huge shock. His New Orleans district is one of the most Democratic in the country, giving President Bush only 24 percent of the vote in 2004. And he hadn’t suffered at all politically since indicted for bribery in June 2007, comfortably defeating another Democrat in the Election Day primary.[/quote]

Hey, Okami, check it out: “Indicted Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) has lost his New Orleans-based Congressional seat to a little-known Republican attorney, Anh “Joseph” Cao.”

I’m actually shocked Jefferson lost and Cao won. :noway: Where was Jefferson’s “walking around money” and bag people? Must of been hard with the FBI having him shaking down a businessman on tape in a sting and then taking $100,000 out of his freezer, even though Pelosi didn’t make him give up his committee seats. I still stand by Spitzer though.

I stopped reading after I saw it was for his son. Ah, the ripe smell of patronage in the morning…