Where are the Ethics Police on this one?
As chairperson and ranking member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee (MILCON) from 2001 through the end of 2005, Sen. Dianne Feinstein supervised the appropriation of billions of dollars a year for specific military construction projects. Two defense contractors whose interests were largely controlled by her husband, financier Richard C. Blum, benefited from decisions made by Feinstein as leader of this powerful subcommittee.
From 1997 through the end of 2005, with Feinstein's knowledge, Blum was a majority owner (75% of the stock) of both URS Corp. and Perini Corp.
She lobbied Pentagon officials in public hearings to support defense projects that she favored, some of which already were or subsequently became URS or Perini contracts. From 2001 to 2005, URS earned $792 million from military construction and environmental cleanup projects approved by MILCON; Perini earned $759 million from such MILCON projects.
In her annual Public Financial Disclosure Reports, Feinstein records a sizeable family income from large investments in Perini, but she has not publicly acknowledged the conflict of interest between her job as a congressional appropriator and her husband's longtime control of Perini and URS.
Feinstein was even notified of upcoming contracts that would benefit Perini, in order for her to AVOID conflict of interest. Instead, she used that knowledge to guarantee acceptance of the right projects to benefit her.
Beginning in 2003, both Perini and URS were awarded a series of open-ended contracts for military construction work around the world, including in Iraq and Afghanistan. Under Feinstein's leadership, MILCON regularly approved specific project "task orders" that were issued to Perini and URS under these contracts.
This is one example among many in the article.
The original article, that I read, is HERE.
But a quick Google search turns up many more sources.
I'm too busy at work to comment much yet. Read the articles. It's appalling, but I guess the press is too busy covering Skooter Libby and the fired AGs.
But a quick Google search turns up many more sources.
I'm too busy at work to comment much yet. Read the articles. It's appalling, but I guess the press is too busy covering Skooter Libby and the fired AGs.
posted by Exador at
8:58 AM
4 Comments:
Very interesting. I note that she has resigned from the committee in question. I'm suspecting from what I'm reading that she's also more culpable for the vet care debacle than is commonly being reported -- so just keep your tinfoil panties on, that will be coming out soon.
Incidentally, the research for that expose article was funded by The Nation's Investigative Fund. Yep, it was brought to you by those ultra-lefty independent media types, damn their worthless hides. Perhaps the mainstream media is just a little less liberal than you suppose?
SMOOCH!
By
bridgett, at 9:29 AM
I wouldn't consider The Nation to be mainstream media.
I'll consider them less left-wing when I see the story in the NY Times or on CNN, or hear it from Perky Couric.
By
Exador, at 4:46 AM
The Nation has a weekly paper circulation of 187,625 and the website draws over 800,000 unique visitors a month. (To put that in perspective, the New Republic has a weekly circulation of around 155,000 -- though I'd guess the Freepers number at least a million.) While it's no Time magazine, it does reach a whole lotta people.
However, I'm starting to question some details of Boyle's story. From my research, Feinstein was chair only in 2001. After that, Republicans controlled the House. It looks like Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R, TX) was the chair when the contracts under examination were awarded; the committee then was composed of 6 Rs, 4 Ds -- so while she was "ranking member" (with longest service), she was in the political minority and would have needed some help from the majority to influence any vote. Feinstein's husband also apparently divested his controlling shares in 2005. I'm guessing that this was probably why the Republican-controlled Ethics Committee (which we might presume would be eager to slap her) cleared her. Or maybe they just wanted to keep a lid on who did what with mil. contracts, which is a disgusting and shameful story waiting to break.
By
bridgett, at 11:02 AM
You have a good point about the R's controlling the committee, but don't be naive. Even then, she was the SENIOR member, even if not the chairperson.
Besides, just the fact that she had a VOTE is a huge conflict of interest.
Yes, she quit and her husband divested AFTER years of making millions in contracts.
Just because she bailed before getting caught, doesn't make her innocent.
By
Exador, at 7:19 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home