Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Hope the Hess Co. gave them a truck and not a cheap toy one.Follow

#1 Aug 04 2008 at 3:36 PM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
Quote:
Hess Corporation "Office Manager" And Her Husband Both Gave $28,500 To Elect McCain
By Greg Sargent - August 4, 2008, 2:14PM



As we reported below, ten Hess Corporation executives and Hess family members each gave $28,500 to the RNC's committee to elect John McCain president, just days after he reversed his previous opposition to offshore drilling.

But the story gets better.

It turns out that Hess executives aren't the only ones who gave such huge sums to elect McCain -- generosity towards McCain apparently extends down into lower levels of Hess staff. A lower level employee gave the same, too, and so did her husband, even though he works for Amtrak.


Now this is very fishy if the rest of this story is true.

Quote:
The FEC filings show that Alice Rocchio, who's identified as a Hess office manager, and her husband, Pasquale Rocchio, who's described as an Amtrak "track foreman," each separately donated $28,500 to the RNC-McCain fund, which is called McCain Victory 2008. They gave the money on June 24th, the same day that eight other Hess execs and family members each shelled out the same amount.

So the Rocchios, who live in Flushing, Queens, donated a total of $57,000 to McCain's efforts.

I just reached Ms Rocchio and she insisted adamantly that the contributions were theirs.

"It was my option to give," she told me. "This is my favorite candidate...I fully acknowledge that [the donation] was done by myself personally, my own doing." She added that the same went for her husband.

When I pointed out that the Rocchios' job titles seemed to jar a bit with the size of their donations, Ms. Rocchio said that no one could guess the real income levels of other people.

"No one knows what someone's income taxes say," she told me.

Ms. Rocchio declined to say whether the contributions had been bundled by another Hess employee or who bundled them.


Late Update: It should also be noted that FEC reports have no record of any Federal political contributions for the Rocchios before 2008. They both gave the maximum of $2,300 to McCain's campaign this year.


I first saw this story on NY Times The Caucus blog and follow the link posted in another post about Tire pressure. Seems McShane is oftering a air pressure gage to anyone who sends in a donation of $25 or more. IT will be stamped with "Obama Energy Plan"
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#2 Aug 04 2008 at 4:21 PM Rating: Decent
Classic. It's a shame more of these stories don't make the public eye. Every last one of the @#%^ers should be audited.

There was an update, btw:

Quote:
Martin Bernstein, a city assessor at the New York Department of Finance
Queens Assessment Office, has just confirmed to us by phone that the Rocchios rent their home.

Late Update: There's a bit of dispute over whether Flushing, Queens, should be described as "middle class" or "lower middle class." It turns out that the median household income in the Rocchios' zip code is $58,069.


Flushing Queens... Smiley: laugh

Edited, Aug 4th 2008 7:23pm by BrownDuck
#3 Aug 04 2008 at 5:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
No real position on the legitimacy of the donations themselves, but it's always amusing when an implied allegation is made and then kinda smashed to bits in the very same article:

Quote:
As we reported below, ten Hess Corporation executives and Hess family members each gave $28,500 to the RNC's committee to elect John McCain president, just days after he reversed his previous opposition to offshore drilling.


Ah. So we're supposed to believe that this is motivated by the company liking (or buying) McCains position change on this issue. But wait!

Quote:
Late Update: It should also be noted that FEC reports have no record of any Federal political contributions for the Rocchios before 2008. They both gave the maximum of $2,300 to McCain's campaign this year.


Oops! In their haste to try to make the point that these folks could be part of a campaign finance laundering operation, they kinda blew the first point, didn't they?

If this was about the change of position, why did they donate the maximum before he changed?


Dunno. Just found that amusing. I'm sure most people just miss stuff like that...

Edited, Aug 4th 2008 6:35pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4 Aug 04 2008 at 5:49 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts


If this was about the change of position, why did they donate the maximum before he changed?


Dunno. Just found that amusing. I'm sure most people just miss stuff like that...


I missed the part where they state the $2300 was before he changed positions. Oh wait, no I didn't. I'm sure most people just make **** up when it's not stated and assume it to be true if it matches what they want to believe.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#5 Aug 04 2008 at 5:52 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,053 posts
Try again Captain, as Smash would saySmiley: lol

The point about the fact about Alice Rocchio and her husband not having donated before 2008 was to show that they had no history of ever making a donation to any campaign before.

Also Hope the IRS look into their income, since it's every hard to believe that an Amtrak track foreman, makes enough to afford to donate that much. Then I could ask my sister, who just happens to work for Amtrak as assistant to V.P in charge of Facilities, how much a track foreman makes with 20 years. There is no mention of how many years he worked at Amtrak, but most quasi government employees retire soon after they can receive full benefits.

____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#6 Aug 04 2008 at 6:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Actually, their first donation was in Feb 2008. It is, however, noteworthy in that it was for the maximum allowed amount.

The real eyebrow raiser is that, in the days after McCain switched his position on drilling, the Rocchio's somehow managed to scrape up nearly $115,000 more dollars between them to donate to McCain, the RNC and a separate committee to elect McCain. Quite a haul for an office manager and a track foreman.

I've no idea if it's legit or not. But the story isn't really when their first donation was but the wealth of contributions in late June.

Edited, Aug 4th 2008 9:05pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#7 Aug 04 2008 at 6:07 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
ElneClare wrote:
Try again Captain, as Smash would saySmiley: lol

The point about the fact about Alice Rocchio and her husband not having donated before 2008 was to show that they had no history of ever making a donation to any campaign before.


Yes. But if we are to assume that this shift means that the company is dumping money on them so that they can make the maximum campaign donations to McCain, then they started doing this *before* he changed his position on drilling.


My point was that the article's initial implication was that this money was funneled to the McCain campaign in exchange for him changing his position on oil drilling. Why else make the point that the 28.5k donations happened "just days after he reversed his previous opposition to offshore drilling"? Whether there is some funneling going on or not, it's clear that it has *nothing* to do with that decision since the first set of donations occurred well beforehand.


I don't think it's shocking to assume that there might be some conservatives who weren't making enough money to donate politically 4 years ago, but are today. Or perhaps they weren't excited about Bush, but are excited about McCain. There are a dozen possible explanations for this. How many employees work for the company? Is the number who donated the maximum to McCain actually unusual? Or just being made to appear that way?


I don't know the answer to those questions, but this whole thing looks long on speculation and innuendo and short on facts...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#8 Aug 04 2008 at 6:10 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

it's clear that it has *nothing* to do with that decision since the first set of donations occurred well beforehand.


Sure. It'd be just as clear if they donated $2 then $100,000,000 when he changes positions. Because scale is completely insignificant here.

ETA: Not that this doesn't happen all the time in every campaign. It's virtually impossible you couldn't find a similar donation to the DNC from an SEIU janitor or whatever. Campaign financing is a joke. That it happens with McCain, the champion of do nothing Campaign Finance "reform" is hardly surprising. He's a Republican, doing the opposite of his stated beliefs is the main requirement for Party membership.





Edited, Aug 4th 2008 10:12pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#9 Aug 04 2008 at 6:19 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I've no idea if it's legit or not. But the story isn't really when their first donation was but the wealth of contributions in late June.


Sure. Hence why I started my first post with a "gee. I have no idea whether they're doing anything wrong or not...".


And if you're not getting that the point of the story is that these donations happened right after McCain changed his position on offshore drilling, you just haven't been looking very hard. There's nothing illegal or suspicious about people working in a field supporting a candidate they believe will be better for their business. The illegality only appears if there's the appearance that the payments to a campaign were part of a quid-pro-quo process.

That's *why* the focus is on the timing of the donations. It's the only real story here...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#10 Aug 04 2008 at 6:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And if you're not getting that the point of the story is that these donations happened right after McCain changed his position on offshore drilling, you just haven't been looking very hard.
Well, duh.

If you didn't understand that the reason why the Rocchio contributions are notable is because of their size immediately following McCain's switch, you're illiterate.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Aug 04 2008 at 6:23 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

There's nothing illegal or suspicious about people working in a field supporting a candidate they believe will be better for their business. The illegality only appears if there's the appearance that the payments to a campaign were part of a quid-pro-quo process.

That's *why* the focus is on the timing of the donations. It's the only real story here...


Yeah, no. The significance is that they donated half of their net worth. The chance that this isn't just abject bundling is about .0000000001%. Which on it's face isn't technically illegal. If they didn't report a bag of money handed to them by Hess, on the other hand, it's many kinds of illegal. The fact that they're in a predominately Democratic state with an activist AG doesn't bode particularly well for them.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#12 Aug 04 2008 at 6:35 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

it's clear that it has *nothing* to do with that decision since the first set of donations occurred well beforehand.


Sure. It'd be just as clear if they donated $2 then $100,000,000 when he changes positions. Because scale is completely insignificant here.


You're correct. A 10:1 scale is exactly the same as a 50,000,000:1 scale. Exaggerate much?

When exactly did RNC funds clearly become allotted to McCain as president Smash? While he was presumed to be the nominee in Feb of this year, it wasn't until March that Huckabee officially dropped out. I'm frankly not sure of the RNC rules for campaign funding, so they may have some other timeframe.

Point I'm getting at here is that they donated the maximum to McCain when it became clear that he would be the nominee, then donated the maximum to the RNC sometime later. I don't know enough about the details of when the RNC's funding is "handed over" if you will to a candidate (or even if it officially has yet, since I'd assume that technically doesn't happen until the convention), but there's nothing particularly unusual about this.

Taken in focus, sure. But out of all the donations out there? All the employees at this company? That just seems a bit of a stretch IMO.


And investigating private citizens with only that evidence? Gee. That doesn't have a chilling effect on free speech at all...

Quote:
ETA: Not that this doesn't happen all the time in every campaign. It's virtually impossible you couldn't find a similar donation to the DNC from an SEIU janitor or whatever. Campaign financing is a joke. That it happens with McCain, the champion of do nothing Campaign Finance "reform" is hardly surprising. He's a Republican, doing the opposite of his stated beliefs is the main requirement for Party membership.



Ok. I guess I'm confused here. What do you expect him to do? Refuse to accept any donation from anyone at all because someone might donate to him for a reason he may or may not agree with? Or someone's donation might be second hand money? Does he have some magic powers that allow him to look at a check and know if the person who's name is on it was the original source of the funds?

The point of campaign finance reform is to change the laws so that this sort of thing is harder to do. Arguing that since he's an advocate for said reform that he should be held to a higher standard than existing finance laws is ridiculous. You have to change the law so that it applies to everyone, not apply different standards to different parties and candidates when it's convenient for you to do so.


It's funny how Dems love to push those high standards around when accusing Republicans of some kind of double standard, while they themselves consistently refuse to change the finance laws themselves. It's good for a sound bite and a political attack, but not good enough to make into law I guess...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#13 Aug 04 2008 at 6:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Yeah, no. The significance is that they donated half of their net worth.


No. They donated half of the average yearly income for the area they live in.


Those are different things you know Smash.

Quote:
The chance that this isn't just abject bundling is about .0000000001%. Which on it's face isn't technically illegal. If they didn't report a bag of money handed to them by Hess, on the other hand, it's many kinds of illegal. The fact that they're in a predominately Democratic state with an activist AG doesn't bode particularly well for them.


Look. If you want to argue that an oil company that usually supports Democrat candidates in the state may have funneled some money illegally into the RNC, by all means go ahead.

I'm not sure what this has to do with McCain specifically. Did he know these people? Did he promise them something? What exactly is the allegation here? That a major oil company conspired to funnel a massive half million dollars to a campaign fund, and did so in such a poor way, that even though that represented just 10 donations, they managed to get caught doing it?

So. I assume any investigation of this company would include all donations over the past say 10 years or so and which party and which local politicians they supported? That's "fair" right? Or is it only fair if the recipient is a Republican?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Aug 04 2008 at 6:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
When exactly did RNC funds clearly become allotted to McCain as president Smash?
You forgot the $57,000 to "McCain Victory 2008".
Quote:
A 10:1 scale is exactly the same as a 50,000,000:1 scale
Just to stay honest, we're talking more like a 22:1 scale.

Edited, Aug 4th 2008 9:45pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 Aug 04 2008 at 7:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
When exactly did RNC funds clearly become allotted to McCain as president Smash?
You forgot the $57,000 to "McCain Victory 2008".
Quote:
A 10:1 scale is exactly the same as a 50,000,000:1 scale
Just to stay honest, we're talking more like a 22:1 scale.


Er? did you add a zero in there? Oh wait. I see what you did:

They donated $26,200 each to the RNC (which ultimately funds the GOP presidential nominee's candidate).

They also donated $2,300 each to McCains campaign directly.

The total's you're looking at are agregate for the year Joph. One is the 2,300 dollar donation. The second is the 26,200 donation. The final is the added total of 28,500 dollars. They didn't donate an additional 28k each. That's the *total* to McCain's campaign between the two funds.


Also. For the record, the RNC kicked off its "Victory 2008" campaign drive on July 23rd. I don't think donations posted a week later are suspicious in any way. Do you?

Oops. Got the month wrong. Whatever. Point being that the RNC is still spinning up its campaign...

Edited, Aug 4th 2008 8:33pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#16 Aug 05 2008 at 5:21 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

When exactly did RNC funds clearly become allotted to McCain as president Smash?


When one donates specifically to his election fund, you fucking buffoon.


each separately donated $28,500 to the RNC-McCain fund, which is called McCain Victory 2008. They gave the money on June 24th, the same day that eight other Hess execs and family members each shelled out the same amount.


Heh, I bet most people didn't notice that. By most, of course, I mean fucking partisan hack morons. That's ok, though, we're all used to your complete lack of observational ability, Captain.




The total's you're looking at are agregate for the year Joph. One is the 2,300 dollar donation. The second is the 26,200 donation. The final is the added total of 28,500 dollars. They didn't donate an additional 28k each. That's the *total* to McCain's campaign between the two funds.


Wrong, idiot. When will you learn to read? Thank god there's no math or logic involved in your job *AT ALL*. Christ. The total is $61,600, you fucking clown. Let's see, how can you minimize it anyway...that was $61,600 in q1 and q2 US dollars. That's like a nickel now! This isn't suspicious at all, that these people who rent an apartment in queens donated a 20% down payment on a $300,000 house while driving a 92 Civic! Not at all!


No. They donated half of the average yearly income for the area they live in.


Wrong again, fuckstick! They donated over $60,000. The yearly household income in Flushing according to the 2000 census was under $30,000. So not only did they not donate *half*, they donated *twice as much*. Do you ever, ever, ever, get tired of being so wrong for it to be so easily provable by anyone who cares to?

It's amazing, Captain, it really is.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#18 Aug 05 2008 at 5:43 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Two words...Clinton Chi-coms.


Holy ****, is it 1996? How did I miss this magical time warp where Bill Clinton was running for President again??? Damn, I always miss it.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#20 Aug 05 2008 at 5:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The total's you're looking at are agregate for the year Joph.
You're right. The 28k was the 2.3 + the 26k donation to McCain via the RNC. I counted the RNC twice due to misreading the breakdown.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#21 Aug 05 2008 at 6:58 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

You're right. The 28k was the 2.3 + the 26k donation to McCain via the RNC.


Nope, he's not.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml

It's $30,800 each, unless they randomly gave $2300 less than the maximum to the RNC.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#22 Aug 05 2008 at 7:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
In any event, I added in an extra 20-odd thousand each above and beyond.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#23 Aug 05 2008 at 7:07 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

In any event, I added in an extra 20-odd thousand each above and beyond.


Oh sure, I see. You were both wrong, turns out.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#24 Aug 05 2008 at 7:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Hang on while I argue with the media about how I'm really right no matter what the facts say. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#25 Aug 05 2008 at 7:21 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I think you should. To be fair, the FEC site is confusing. The search is neat, though.

I'm looking up how much Varrus donated to McCain. I'm betting zero.

ETA: Yeah, bupkis. Poor, poor McCain. Rabid supporters who donate no money.

Edited, Aug 5th 2008 11:23am by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#26 Aug 05 2008 at 7:32 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Let's be prefectly clear here. It's only wrong and corrupt when Republicans receive large contributions. I now return you to your regularly scheduled stilted political attacks.

Totem
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 346 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (346)