After what had been a scandal-plagued year for House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, the local congressman must have been looking to turn over a new leaf in 2009. But it only took three days into the new year to find his name making headlines for murky dealings—this time with a potential conflict of interest in soliciting charitable donations from the recently bailed out insurance giant AIG. And this time it's not even the Post breathing down Rangel's neck as usual, but an investigative cover story in today's New York Times.
Rangel turned to AIG and its former CEO and hefty shareholder Maurice Greenberg while raising funds for a school of public service being built in his honor by CCNY (the opening of which has been delayed with Rangel under investigation). Around the time he was seeking $10 million from the insurance company and had secured $5 million from Greenberg (almost half the total amount raised), he defended against a conflict by saying, “I can’t think of one piece of legislation that impacts them, and there has never been a time that they’ve raised any legislation to me." He also wrote during the same period, “So far as I am aware, none of those whom I wrote had any pending requests into my office, lobbied me regarding any legislation before my committee, or asked me for assistance on legislation in which they had a special interest.”
But less than a month after he met with AIG officials looking for the donation, Rangel received a letter from Edward Cloonan, the highest-ranking AIG official at the meeting asking him to support the extension of a tax provision designed to help American-based multinational companies lower their obligation to the IRS, which was set to expire. Rangel, who had opposed the tax change AIG was seeking, ultimately allowed it to be added to a bill he sponsored.
While Rangel would not have been allowed to solicit his own funds from a company he was dealing with on the house floor, his aides say house rules did not prohibit members of Congress from raising money for nonprofit organizations, even from people or companies with interests before the government. They also defend that AIG dealings he turned over the the congressional ethics investigation underway on him are only concerned with those instances in which he had written to potential donors on Congressional stationery, not those he might have met with personally in seeking donations.
As far as any entanglement with his CCNY sales pitch and the bailout sought by AIG—originally for $85 billion and then up to $150 bil—Rangel appears to be in the clear. Chief orchestrator of the bailout(s) Congressman Barney Frank tells the Times, “To say that Chairman Rangel has had minimal involvement in the bailout negotiations would be overstating things.”





How's Nancy Pelosis's boast of having "The Most Ethical Congress in History" going?
And how do you know it isn't? "Most ethical" is a relative term. It doesn't necessarily mean ethical, just more than any before.
Sometimes I wonder if Rangel and Blagojevich are following the Bush model of being corrupt and f'd up bastards, having this known by the public, but completely ignoring the accusations and holding on to power. It's a pretty sad trend.
At this point Rangel gets the same question Bush voters deserve, "How in the hell could you keep supporting this jerk?"
Another drop in the ocean of his misdeeds. This guy's been busy doing many of the wrong things.
uh, Billy, it's $85 BILLION, not puny millions.
uh, Billy, it's $85 BILLION, not puny millions.
Proof that the New York Slimes just can't resist taking another poke at a prominent Republican lawmaker! This media bias is just so blatant - I don't see why anybody would read that crummy rag.
First they avoid saying anything nice about the good things happening in Iraq, instead obsessing about a few bad apples in Abu Gharaib.
Then, they sit on the John Edward's affair until there is photographic evidence. I mean, it was good enough for the National Enquirer, why not the Slimes?
Meanwhile, they print horrible, horrible lies about John McCain, and flowery love letters to Obama. Oh sure, Obama won all the debates. Tell me another one.
And now THIS! How can you not see the BIAS?
Rangel is a democrat.
I agree the NYT has a left leaning bias. So what? Can you name one mainstream media source that doesn't exhibit some bias one way or the other. Read multiple sources, form your own point of view.
Judging by all the other loonie-tunes, neo-con claptrap in your posting, I would assume that Charlie Rangel is the poster-boy for everything you think is wrong with New York/America/The Universe.
But you jump in to defend him just because the Times digs up some dirt.
The old Reagan "my enemy's enemy is my friend" policy.
Remember how that went for us in Afghanistan in the end.
1,2,3 above.....right on the money.
This guy's an embarrassment...