read our release below:
Alliance for a Better Minnesota Asks Coleman to Refund Toussie Funds
Bush Recanted Planned Pardon of Swindler,
Father Maxed Out to Coleman Re-Election
Saint Paul, Minn. -- Alliance for a Better Minnesota (ABM) a grassroots lobbying and online organizing group that works with progressive groups, requested today that U.S. Senator Norm Coleman refund the $4,600 his campaign received from Robert Toussie, the father of convicted swindler Isaac R. Toussie who ran a scheme funneling funds from working-class homeowners in New York state, and his wife. Both father and son were named in a class action suit filed on behalf of homeowners who lost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Isaac Toussie has entered the news lately because he is the only person in recent history known to have been pardoned by a President -- and then un-pardoned. News reports indicate that President Bush decided against the recommendation to pardon Isaac Toussie when the severity of his crimes came to light.
“At a time when most people are trying to hold on to everything they have, we need our elected officials to take our side,” said Denise Cardinal, Executive Director of Alliance for a Better Minnesota. “Clearly, the Toussie family is not on the side of working Americans, and the funds donated to Senator Coleman from Robert Toussie may have come from questionable sources. We’re asking the Senator to return those funds.”
The news about Toussie’s donation to Coleman comes on the heels of other news reports state that Coleman will be using funds raised for his re-election campaign to pay for legal fees associated with a reported ongoing FBI investigation and lawsuit. The lawsuit, filed in Texas, states that Coleman’s friend Nasser Kazeminy funneled $75,000 to Coleman through the Senator’s wife. ABM has asked the FEC to look into the matter.
Copies of the letter ABM sent to the Senator’s office and the FEC can be found at: www.allianceminnesota.org
ABM is also providing Minnesotans the chance to sign a petition to show the FBI and the Senate Select Committee on Ethics support for the investigation by visiting: http://pnmn.bluestatedigital.com/page/petition/Investigatenorm
####
Read it here, or below:
Office of Senator Norm Coleman
2550 University Ave W
Suite 100N
St. Paul, MN 55114
To Senator Norm Coleman:
It has recently been reported that your campaign has received $4,600 from Robert Toussie and his wife in contributions.
Recent news reports of the Toussie family’s involvement in a housing scheme that swindled hundreds of thousands of dollars from hard-working people in New York state has brought the campaign contributions into question.
Other news reports from last week show President Bush took the unprecedented move of rescinding a pardon for Isaac Toussie, Robert’s son, because the crimes were so onerous.
With these revelations, we respectfully ask you to return the campaign contributions made by the Toussie family to your reelection effort.
Thank you,
Denise Cardinal
Alliance for a Better Minnesota
1600 University Ave. W. Suit 309B
Saint Paul, MN 55104
Read about it here:
http://www.minnpost.com/braublog/2008/12/25/5537/bush_pardon_donor_gave_4600_to_coleman
Alliance for a Better Minnesota Calls on Congress, FBI for Coleman Ethics Investigation
Saint Paul, Minn. – Alliance for a Better Minnesota (ABM) a grassroots lobbying and online organizing group that works with progressive groups, is calling on the Senate Select Committee on Ethics to look into allegations made in a lawsuit filing that U.S. Senator Norm Coleman had accepted cash gifts totaling $75,000.
ABM is also asking the Minneapolis Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to look into the matter, which according to court documents, meant Nasser Kazeminy – a Coleman donor and close friend – fraudulently ordered the payment of corporate funds that were not legitimate transactions.
“These are serious allegations. With all of the news media covering these lawsuits, which state that money was funneled to Norm Coleman, we need to know what actually happened. There should be a thorough, formal investigation,” said Denise Cardinal the Executive Director of Alliance for a Better Minnesota. “Minnesotans deserve to know the truth.”
ABM is also providing Minnesotans the chance to sign a petition to show the FBI and the Senate Select Committee on Ethics support for the investigation by visiting: http://pnmn.bluestatedigital.com/page/petition/Investigatenorm
####
Some folks may or may not know, but not all of the locations provided by the SOS office are accurate -- with each different county in charge of locations and all. The great folks at America Votes independently verified locations, and put it into a nifty spreadsheet you can all find here:
View SlideShare document or Upload your own. (tags: mn polling)
St. Paul, MN - Iraq Veterans Against the War, The MN Nurses Association, USAction, Alliance for a Better MN and Americans United For Change sharply rebuked Norm Coleman today for once again voting for a blank check to continue President Bush's endless and unpopular war and urged him invest in America's future.
"Norm Coleman chose once again to give President Bush a blank check to keep our troops stuck in the crosshairs of a civil war in Iraq with no end in sight," said Donald McFarland, MN spokesperson for USAction. "Norm Coleman continues to fund this three trillion dollar war, while Minnesota's children go without healthcare….it's astounding."
"Time after time Senator Coleman has sided with President Bush on the occupation of Iraq. He has been steadfast in his refusal to listen to the will of the people," said Brandon Day of Iraq Veterans Against the War.
Linda Slattengren, President of the MN Nurses Association remarked, "Americans cannot wait for the end of this war to get access to quality, affordable health care. Imagine what $3 trillion dollars could do to ensure every American had guaranteed health care coverage. Norm Coleman's support for this war means that we are not able to fund the basic needs of American families."
Denise Cardinal of Alliance for a Better MN added, "Norm Coleman is a 'yes man' for George Bush. He continually and consistently supports President Bush's failed Iraqi war strategy even though this war is costing Minnesota taxpayers billions of dollars. But money can't make up for the loss of life in Iraq, and more than 60 Minnesotans have made the ultimate sacrifice. Minnesotans - and Americans - agree this war needs to end. Too bad Norm Coleman isn't listening."
He and his friends in MN are sort of(?) backing off. The AP writes:
McCain backs off waste as cause of bridge collapse
By LIBBY QUAID Associated Press Writer
CLEVELAND (AP) Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Thursday backed off his assertion that pork-barrel spending led to last year's deadly bridge collapse in Minneapolis.
With Democrats criticizing him for citing wasteful spending as the cause of the disaster, McCain told reporters in Cleveland, ''No, I said it would have received a higher priority, which it deserved.''
That statement was in contrast to McCain's remarks to reporters aboard his campaign bus as it rolled through Pennsylvania on Wednesday: ''The bridge in Minneapolis didn't collapse because there wasn't enough money. The bridge in Minneapolis collapsed because so much money was spent on wasteful, unnecessary pork-barrel projects.''
Investigators with the National Transportation Safety Board suspect a design flaw _ undersize steel plates _ and heavy loads of construction materials as the cause of the disaster Aug. 1, according to preliminary findings.
Democrats accused McCain of using a tragedy that killed 13 people and injured 145 others to make a political point.
''The last thing we need is a misinformed presidential aspirant posturing at our expense,'' said Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn. Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., said, ''He is manipulating a tragedy that took 13 lives in order to advance his election campaign.''
Even Republican Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota said McCain was wrong.
''The bridge didn't collapse because there wasn't enough money,'' Coleman said during a conference call with reporters.
''I understand Senator McCain's deep concern about earmarks,'' he said. ''In this instance, I simply think he's wrong if he somehow ties the collapse of the bridge to a funding issue. Let's get the full data.''
The remarks also put Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty _ a national co-chairman of McCain's campaign and potential vice presidential running mate _ in an awkward position. In January, Pawlenty had admonished critics to ''quit exploiting the bridge tragedy to advance their political agenda.''
Pawlenty struck a more cautious tone Thursday. ''I don't know what he's basing that on, other than the general premise that projects got misprioritized throughout time,'' he said. ''We have to let the NTSB weigh in on this before anybody can make a final conclusion.''
On Thursday, McCain said he was worried most about safety.
''All I can do to respond to those critics is, my job is to make America as safe as possible,'' he told reporters. ''My job is to prevent those tragedies, such as the canal that was dug in New Orleans that brought the hurricane up and did more damage to New Orleans.''
The New Orleans project was paid for with a congressional ''earmark,'' funding that lawmakers slip into spending bills outside of the regular funding process.
McCain promises to rid the federal budget of earmarks if he is elected, because he says earmarks take money away from much-needed transportation projects and other priorities.
''And I maintain, again, that I believe that when we fund a bridge to Alaska, fund a highway in Florida that the people there don't even want, then money is diverted from that much-needed project,'' he said.
''Do I know specifically whether it would have replaced that bridge in Minneapolis? No, but I know that funding would have been available for higher-priority projects,'' he said.
When he made the earlier statement, McCain was criticizing Democratic rival Barack Obama for opposing his idea of a summer holiday from federal gas taxes. The other Democratic candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton, supports the proposal.
Obama opposes it because federal gas taxes go into a highway fund for building roads and bridges.
''Remember that bridge in Minneapolis?'' Obama said in Indiana last week. ''We're already short on money in terms of investing.''
On this tax day, as in the past, the Taxpayers League of Minnesota and its fellow so-called “fiscally conservative” groups will be extolling the virtues of what they term “conservative tax policy.”
Upon further examination, this well-sounding description would more accurately be called an “April Fool’s Joke for Working Folk” played on us by lawmakers from Washington to Saint Paul.
Let’s begin with where the taxes don’t come from in a “conservative tax policy.”
They don’t’ come from the rich. Under President George Bush’s tax policy, families that make more than $1 million a year watched their taxes go down 5 percent from 2000 to 2004. Note that Presidential nominee John McCain, U.S. Senator from Minnesota Norm Coleman and Representatives Bachmann and Kline also support making these tax breaks permanent (insert link?).
They don’t come from big companies that make record profits. Oil and gas companies made record profits in the last year. Once again, our Minnesota delegation has supported tax breaks for these same companies to the tune of $5 billion. McCain has proposed $2 billion in tax breaks for health insurance companies (another record-profit-maker) in his new economic plan.
Where do the taxes come from? Well, you and me. Under Bush’s tax plan, families earning up to $75,000 a year make up the large majority of the country’s taxpayers. Yet, middle class families received only half the rate reduction that those $1 million earners received.
In Minnesota, while Governor Pawlenty claims to have kept his no new taxes pledge on a technicality, the reality is that Minnesotans have watched their property taxes go up by about 71 percent since he took office.
The sting of rising property taxes has been felt even more acutely this year. Gas is 50 cents a gallon more than last year, and groceries prices have climbed up as well, in large part because of higher gas and energy prices. Once again, it’s worth noting that these corporations got TAX BREAKS under the current tax policy supported by Coleman, Bachmann and Kline.
Another component of “conservative tax policy” is the way in which those tax dollars are spent. In the case of the Bush administration, and a McCain succession to the presidency, that means 42 cents of every Minnesota tax dollar going to the war in Iraq currently – and more if we continue and expand the scope of the war.
Some tax dollars are also being spent on bailing out the financial institutions responsible, in part, for the current mortgage foreclosure crisis – about $30 billion.
But when it comes to using our tax dollars on those things that improve our lives and pocketbooks, like health care reform or alternative energy, conservatives once again come up short, with only 2.6 cents on every Minnesota tax dollar going to environment, energy and science.
This sad joke has been played on working families for too long, and they’re starting to pay attention. Questions about McCain’s economic policy have gotten sharp at some town hall meetings and Coleman is trying to erase his close ties to President Bush whenever he can in his reelection speeches.
But we need more than explanation and speeches. We need better tax policy and “fiscal conservatives” have proven they don’t have the answer.
Coleman Voted Against Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008. In February of 2008, Norm Coleman lined up with Senate Republicans, George Bush and the Mortgage Bankers Association in his vote to block the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 from being considered in the Senate. The Democratic bill would have provided more money for homeowner counseling programs and allowed bankruptcy judges to reduce the terms of a mortgage for people about to lose their houses through foreclosure. The Foreclosure Prevention Act would have directly prevented a quarter of the expected Minnesota foreclosures and the resulting lost value to surrounding homeowners. It would have also helped communities turn over foreclosed properties so that they don’t sit unoccupied, attracting crime and blight and further hurting homeowners. Coleman was not even willing to debate the merits of the bill or try to change the provisions he didn’t like – he voted to block the bill from being considered. [Senate Vote 35, 2/28/08; DSCC Press Release, 2/28/08; New York Times, 2/29/08; DSNews.com]
Bill Included Increase to Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). The Foreclosure Prevention Act would have authorized a $4 billion increase in community development block grants for local governments to buy and recondition foreclosed homes in distressed areas. In a 2007 press release, Coleman claimed to be a champion for the CDBG program: “Coleman has been a champion of the CDBG program and has fought in recent years to prevent harmful cuts to the program. This year, Coleman lead a bipartisan effort to reject the Administration’s proposed 20% cut in funding and instead provide level funding. In 2005, the Senate adopted by a vote of 68-31 a Coleman amendment to Fiscal Year 2006 budget resolution to maintain funding for CDBG and keep CDBG within the Department of Housing and Urban Development.” [Las Vegas Review-Journal, 2/28/08; Office of Senator Coleman, Press Release, 12/12/07; Democratic Policy Committee, 2/28/08]Increase in Community Development Block Grants Would Have Helped Localities Hit Hard by Foreclosures. The increase in CDBG would have provided $4 billion in funding for communities to purchase and redevelop foreclosed-upon properties. Homes that have been foreclosed-upon and are sitting unoccupied on the market can sap neighboring homes of their value, and lead to a cycle of community distress. Title II of S. 2636 allows localities with the highest foreclosure numbers and rates access to Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to use toward purchasing these properties, rehabilitate them if necessary and rent, re-sell or otherwise redevelop them. Productive occupancy of foreclosed homes will help stimulate economic activity and help prevent further loss of home equity in struggling neighborhoods. [Democratic Policy Committee, 2/28/08]
Coleman Voted Against Protecting Debtors from Lenders Who Violate the Truth in Lending Act. In March 2005, Coleman voted against an amendment that would have prohibited high cost mortgage lenders from collecting on their claims in bankruptcy court if they extended credit in violation of the Truth in Lending Act, which requires for lenders to fully disclose terms and conditions in writing. The amendment was rejected 40-58. [S 256, Vote #22, Rejected 40-58 (R1-54; D38-4), 3/3/05]
Coleman in Top Ten Recipients of Campaign Cash from Mortgage Banking Industry Coleman Has Taken $40,540 from the Mortgage Banking Industry Since Running for US Senate:Coleman Took $16,700 from Mortgage Banking Industry; 8th Most of All Senators in ’08 Cycle. According to campaign finance reports, Norm Coleman took $16,700 from the mortgage banking industry during the 2008 election cycle. This places Coleman as the 8th highest recipient of contributions to Senators from the mortgage banking industry during the ’08 election cycle. [Center for Responsive Politics]
Coleman Took $23,840 from Mortgage Banking Industry in ’02; 8th Most of All Senate Candidates in ‘02. According to campaign finance reports, Norm Coleman took $23,840 from the mortgage banking industry during the 2002 election cycle. This placed Coleman as the 8th highest recipient of contributions to Senate candidate from the mortgage banking industry during the ’02 election cycle. [Center for Responsive Politics]
Coleman Took Over $389,000 from the Real Estate Industry. According to campaign finance reports, Norm Coleman took $389,902 in individual, PAC and member donations from the real estate industry since 2003. [Campaign for Responsive Politics]
Coleman Took Over $23,000 from Groups Opposed to Foreclosure Prevention ActColeman Took Over $23,000 from Two Special Interest Groups that Strongly Opposed the Foreclosure Prevention Act. Since his first run for the Senate in 2002, Norm Coleman has taken $23,500 from two groups who recently banded together with other mortgage banking institutions to fight the proposed Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008:
Coleman Took $13,500 from the American Bankers Association, who Vowed to “Lobby Very, Very Strongly” Against the Foreclosure Prevention Act. According to campaign finance reports, Norm Coleman took a total $13,500 from the American Bankers Association: $3,500 during the ’08 election cycle and $10,000 in his ’02 Senate run. When speaking of their opposition to the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008, the president of the American Bankers Association, Edward L. Yingling, said: “We will lobby very, very strongly against it.” [Center for Responsive Politics ’08; Center for Responsive Politics ‘02; Washington Post, 2/22/08]
Coleman Took $10,000 from the Financial Services Roundtable PAC. According to campaign finance reports, Norm Coleman took $2,000 during the ’08 cycle; $2,000 in ’04 and; $6,000 in ’02. [Center for Responsive Politics ’08; Center for Responsive Politics ’04; Center for Responsive Politics ’02]
Saint Paul – Alliance for a Better Minnesota has filed an allegation with the Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor against Lieutenant Governor and former Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation Carol Molnau in light of a recent news story that raised questions about whether she should have disclosed land she owned, and then sold for $3.3 million, near a transportation bill she advocated and voted for.
“There are a lot of questions that need to be answered,” said Denise Cardinal, Executive Director of Alliance for a Better Minnesota. “Three million dollars is a lot of money.”Below is the language from the filing, which was submitted today:
According to a recent article in the Star Tribune (attached), Lieutenant Governor and former Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation Carol Molnau did not disclose farm land she owned – and was poised to sell to a developer – even though she presented, advocated on behalf of and voted in favor of bills that would affect the value of the land when she was serving in the House of Representatives.Specifically, a bill she sponsored (as chair of the House Transportation Committee in 2000) required the Minnesota Department of Transportation to tell the legislature the status of major highway projects – the highway projects chosen by state legislators. Included in those projects was highway 212, a road that was slated to go near the Molnau property and is now completed as a four-lane divided highway. Molnau sold the property to a developer for $3.3 million just days after the bill was signed into law.
As the highest ranking transportation official in the state, and the second highest ranking elected official, it is important for the public to know if Molnau behaved inappropriately – particularly as it relates to her influence over the use of state funds for road projects. As an elected official, she is accountable for the actions she has taken as an employee of the state, especially those actions related to the office she held as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation.State law provides a code of ethics for executive branch employees. The code forbids an employee to use confidential information to further the employee's private interests; forbids use of state time or property for the employee's private interests, or for any other use not in the interest of the state; requires an employee to attempt to avoid specified conflicts of interest. [Minn. Stats. 43A.38]
Legislators and specified legislative staff must file an annual report on economic interests and also must disclose when taking a decision or action that would affect personal financial interests. House members with an immediate interest in a question must not vote on it. [Minn. Stats. 10A.07; House Rules 2.05]
####
Alliance for a Better Minnesota (ABM) is a Minnesota-based online advocacy and communications organization working to provide cutting edge online tools for working families. ABM is focused primarily on securing major advances in progressive public policy for Minnesota and standing up for working families. You can find out more at www.allianceminnesota.org.
Pawlenty's veto pen wasn't enough to stop the Minnesota legislature from funding much-needed road and bridge repair -- in a way that's much more fiscally solvent than Pawlenty's plan to put it on a credit card and make our kids pay for it.
Coverage of the veto override -- and what it means -- can be found at:
MinnPost did a nice piece about the Minnesota Legislator's gift ban. It brings to mind the ethics legislation passed last year -- while a great first step it doesn't have the teeth needed to get the job done. You can write our Senators and urge them to further toughen up the ethics reform law by clicking here.
Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post has moved the Coleman race from rank 6 to 5 -- which might explain why this week Coleman was running away from his record on supporting the Bush Budget....
The Truth About Norm:
Running Away from years of supporting the Bush Budget
Senator Norm Coleman expressed his concern about the Bush Budget this week in a written statement criticizing the current deficit and some of the President's spending priorities. But the fact is that Coleman consistently supported previous Bush budgets that led the federal government into its current financial mess.
Coleman Followed Bush's Lead, Opposed Federal Spending Limits
2003: Coleman Voted for Bush Budget that Increased Deficit to $2.4 Trillion Over 10 Years. In April of 2003, Coleman for the final budget resolution, which allowed for new tax cuts of up to $550 billion. The budget resolution would increase the federal deficit to record levels of $347 billion in 2003, $385 billion in 2004 and would increase the deficit by $2.4 trillion by 2013. The budget resolution narrowly passed, with Dick Cheney stepping in to break the 50-50 tie. [HConRes 95, 4/11/03, Vote #134; Associated Press, 4/11/03; Democratic Policy Committee, Summary of the FY04 Republican Budget Conference Report, 4/11/03; Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/17/03, www.cbpp.org/4-16-03tax.htm]
Coleman Now Says Congress Needs to "Do More to Address Spending in Washington. In a released statement reacting to the President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2009, Norm Coleman said: "While I am encouraged by the President's overall goal of balancing the budget by 2012, the fact is the federal budget has ballooned to over $3 trillion and the deficit is slated to increase in the short-term due to the combination of difficult economic times, the price tag of the proposed stimulus package, and the on-going costs of the war. Certainly we must do more to address spending in Washington; but raising taxes is not the answer." [Office of Senator Norm Coleman, Statement, 2/4/08]
Coleman Opposed Pay-As-You-Go Spending Limits. Since 2003, Coleman has voted at least five times against measures to create pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules to restrict deficit spending. Coleman voted with the majority of Republicans in each of these votes against spending limits. [SConRes 21, Vote #172, 5/17/07; S1932, Vote #283, 11/3/05; S2020, Vote #340, 11/17/05; SConRes 18, Vote #53, 3/16/05; SConRes 95, Vote #38, 3/10/04; HJRes 51, Vote #200, 5/23/03]
2006: Coleman Voted to Increase Deficit by $168B. In April of 2005, Coleman voted for the FY06 budget, to set broad spending and revenue targets over the next five years. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the budget resolution would increase deficits by $168 billion and debt by more than $600 billion annually. The resolution would allow up to $848.8 billion in discretionary spending for fiscal year 2006 and call for $17 billion in cuts in mandatory spending over five years. It also would give procedural protection to legislation authorizing oil drilling in part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. [SConRes18, Vote #114, 4/28/05; www.cbpp.org/4-28-05bud.htm]
Coleman Followed Bush's Lead, Voted Against Expanding Healthcare to Uninsured
2004: Coleman Voted Against Increasing Healthcare for Uninsured Americans. Coleman voted against an amendment to increase spending by $60 billion over five years to provide health insurance coverage for Americans without insurance. [SCon Res 95, Vote # 47, 3/11/04; Congressional Quarterly, 3/11/04]
Coleman Now Says He's Concerned About Diminished Healthcare Under Bush's Budget. Reacting to President Bush's proposed FY09 budget, Coleman said: "I am concerned, however, that the reductions proposed by the President's budget could result in diminished quality and quantity of healthcare for our most vulnerable populations, and I don't expect the Senate to follow the President's lead on these." [Office of Senator Norm Coleman, Statement, 2/4/08]
Coleman Followed Bush's Lead, Supported Cuts to Medicaid
2005: Coleman Supported Cuts to Medicaid and Medicare. In 2005, Coleman voted with the majority of Republicans for a budget resolution that would cut spending by nearly $40 billion over five years, which included cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, student loans and child support enforcement. [S1932, Vote # 363, 12/21/05]
Coleman Now Says He's Concerned About Cutting Programs for Seniors and Poor Families. Reacting to President Bush's proposed FY09 budget, Coleman said: "At the same time, we need to be mindful of the impact of cutting programs that are crucial to Minnesotans. I am concerned about the proposed reductions in programs that put food on the table for seniors in need, keep impoverished families warm during the winter months, and help urban and rural communities." [Office of Senator Norm Coleman, Statement, 2/4/08]
It is in hot water, though. In addition to Nick Coleman's series of VERY GOOD questions that have yet to be answered, the Star Tribune runs an editorial that rips on the department's excuses for Sonia Pitt -- the one who was "in charge" of emergency preparedness yet didn't come back to the state for more than a week after the bridge collapse.
Nick Coleman continues his close scrutiny of MNDot and Carol Molnau. He asks a series of questions at the bottom, because -- as he wrote:
"This is sadly necessary because, in carefully choreographed interviews, Molnau has been waging a public relations campaign not on behalf of enlightening the taxpayers, but on behalf of saving her own hide."
Posts
