It’s not true! It’s not true! Sorry, but it is.
Kelo land had an ad-watch last evening on the Dykstra ad where he points out that Tim Johnson recieved $61k from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Predictably, the Jarding…. Sorry, Johnson campaign squealed about it like a stuck pig:
It’s this television ad, that has the Johnson campaign all fired up.
“It’s unfortunately not true,” said Steve Jarding, Johnson’s campaign manager.
Jarding says Dykstra is trying to confuse and mislead voters.
“He’s a desperate candidate in a desperate campaign and it’s unfortunate, but some of the claims he makes in it he can not justify,” said Jarding.
“Tim Johnson took $61-thousand dollars in contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but voted against tougher oversight.”
Jarding says that’s not true.
Obviously, the Dykstra campaign stands by their numbers.
The best part is when KELO points out that “If you’d like to look at the contributions for yourself click here.” And what do you find?
Why, that looks like Tim Johnson got $61,000 from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Just a few thousand more than Nancy Pelosi.
Sorry “Senator” Jarding. No matter how much you protest, It is true. And the truth can be a difficult thing to spin.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
It’s not true, PP, and I think you know it. Did you read the chart? Did you find John Thune and even (gulp) John McCain on there? They are you know.
Thune’s total is $11,000 or so, and McCain’s (McCurtains) around $20,000.
But McCain will scream to high heaven if you try to say he took any money from the PAC — and he would be right.
In your example here the $20,000 figure is the amount Tim got from the PAC. The $41,000 number is from private individuals. So to say that Tim got $61,000 from Fannie May and Freddie Mac is false. Jarding is correct.
When you were a State employee and you gave someone a political donation, was that really a contribution from the state of South Dakota?
C’mon, PP.
PP sez: “the truth can be a difficult thing to spin.”
And then tries to do just that.
When will he ever learn?
Bill, I saw it. And Stephanie’s was about 16k.
The 41k came from private citizens, yes. Private citizens who work at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. And I’m sure they gave it from the great goodness of their hearts, as opposed to a Senator who best supported their financial interests.
Yes, yes. It was all from goodness.
Please.
Bill at 10:09.
You are splitting hairs and you may not know much about fundraising. The fact that Freddie and Fannie’s PACs were not responsible for the full amount, versus employees being part of it, is not material to the argument.
Do you really think that the employees of the two don’t pay attention to what their PAC does or are not aware of Johnson’s postion on the Banking Committee or his opposition to stricter regulations of the two entitites, especially since he had a former staff person working at Freddie?
C’mon.
The ad is fair.
Same point, PP. Try to answer it. When you gave money to a political campaign while you were a state employee, did that come from you, or the people of South Dakota?
If contributions from employees aren’t relevant than why is it required to report the contributor’s place of employment?
10:30, This is the same argument as PP is having with the proponents of IM10 only this time, he’s taking the other side.
Not really Bill. I’m not saying they can’t donate. But I am saying the contribution of their cousin isn’t important.
PP, this whole argument is the equivalent of a house of cards falling and the King of Diamonds (and one Joker who’s not even in the game) trying to blame the Six of Hearts for it. Ridiculous.
Don’t blow the wrong steam. This is yet another way to give. It is done in a lump sum for the most part. It all depends who controls the decision.
So Johnson did get the money from Fannie & Freddie. It is an employee pool.
Get real people know this or at least many do.
So, does Johnson deny he voted against tougher oversight? Johnson collected at least $20,000 from pacs from Freddie and Fannie. It also appears employees who have no interest in his race other than the fact that he has a say in regulating the company they work for gave him $41,000. I am willing to bet most of these people are from out of state. What is their interest? Is it possible he votes against tougher oversight in order to benefit the companies they work for and by extension, themselves? He gets money from people who benefit by the way he votes and the way he votes turns out to be contrary to the interests of his constituents. Yes, that is news.
Fleming… talk about spin. What if Denny Sanford gave $10k to a party and his PAC gave another $10k… and then add the top 10 execs from the same company giving to the PAC and to individual Senators. You bet I’d package that as coming from that ‘industry.’ Your analogy to a state employee is pretty weak.
All I’m saying is that above PP claims
$61,000 came from organization.
It didn’t.
Therefore, he’s wrong and Jarding is right.
End of story.
Bill you are wrong and so is Jarding. An employee contribution is the same as the company in that it comes from the employees who work for the company. Like I stated before @11:24 it come from the same business in different forms. EG: pac and employee!
I want to make a statement about the news media and how they claim to come to the truth. I don’t feel they do, look at the 04 election. Diedrich v Herseth. When “someone” was making calls against the Diedrich campaign claiming he wrote a Bill against education funding; the media showed the Herseth team’s phone answering machine as “so called proof” that they did not do the lie. How was it a lie and not called out, well, it was Elmer Dietrich’s Bill.
This goes to show that the media does not state a fact when it is black and white. They might bring something out but when the truth is in black and white they don’t clear the issue.
One more thing, if this matter was ever cleared I have no idea, but I do not believe it was. I would think the media might research an issue a little more.
You make it sound like employees in companies are slaves to “the man,” 76.
Who knows? Maybe to you, they are. But our companies employees donate to whatever campaign they please, and their contributions are in no way representative of my company’s political position.
Bill, either your niave or skirting the issue. If TJ was assisting Freddie and Fannie, you know full well that the individuals in charge took their employees aside and said something like: “hey, TJ’s helping us and making sure that they don’t tighten the ropes on us. I hope that you like your new car/boat/house because of your job here. Therefore, I’m strongly suggesting that for the security of your job, that you will donate $1,000 to TJ. Put your spouse in for another $1,000 also…..”
I’ve seen this happen multiple, multiple times, whether its for the dog catcher or Senate races. Employees don’t willy, nilly give money (in concerted effort) to the same candidate without substantial pressure from above. Executive employees have NO say in this. They make the ching, they pay the man helping them. That’s how it goes. To say otherwise, you either don’t have a realistic grasp of politics or are bs’ing again… This occurs in SD every single hour of every single day.
TJ played it perfectly, he got on Banking, looked the other way when controls wanted to be tightened and when all hell broke loose, he voted against the bailout so as to not show criticism of his own actions. Jarding and his henchmen are working overtme on this one.
I did not say anything about a company being a “slave”. However, on a side note, I believe some employees do feel like slaves, but that is another topic. What was stated was that the contributions were coming from a company even if it was the employees.
We could look at the Education Association, (SDEA) and how they contribute to candidates. Which seems to be an issue brought up many times. Not all teachers are Dems beieve it or not!
I agree with DUH! I would have brought it up, but was waiting to see if someone, anyone would chime in.
Duh, see my house of cards metaphor above. Believe me, I know how it works and what you guys are trying to do, but it ain’t gonna happen. Take a look at that sheet again and notice who the top 5 people on the list are as far as PAC contributions go. Tell me, is there an “R” or a “D” next to their name? And then tell me how much this is all TJ’s fault. Baloney.
Bill, you are twisting where this segment of the issue is going. I do not have to look, Dodd is # 1, he is the Chair, Obama is # 2 and then if memory works Kerry is # 3.
Doesn’t matter. The fact is Johnson did take money, he was 2nd in line of chairship on the committee. And most important the funds are still coming from the company one way or the other. Can you dispute the facts? I don’t think so. One more thing, didn’t he also voted down more goverence over F&F…hummmmm
Billy:
Here you go:
Dodd, Christopher J S CT D $165,400 $48,500 $116,900
Obama, Barack S IL D $126,349 $6,000 $120,349
Kerry, John S MA D $111,000 $2,000 $109,000
Bennett, Robert F S UT R $107,999 $71,499 $36,500
Bachus, Spencer H AL R $103,300 $70,500 $32,800
3 dems, 2 reps.
So what’s your point? SD’s TJ’s on the banking committee. SD’s TJ’s up for reelection. SD’s TJ’s from SD. Oh, your prez pick Obama is #2. I’m sure there are identical discussions on blogs in other states where their representatives are up for reelection. Your point is irrelevant. We’re talking about SD Senator TJ and his South Dakota reelection and his hand in the financial mess with F and F. SD’s TJ’s in this up to his butt. Again, it’s an issue with his fitness to serve SD, I don’t give a rip about anyone else on the list.
i have a question: what are these regulations that johnson voted down? i keep hearing that, but i’m not quite sure what regulations we should’ve enacted against f&f.
i know of some regulations we should’ve killed. but not the ones we should’ve enacted.
just curious.
Just the second column, Duh. Those coming directly from the PAC.
The spreadsheet has been sorted by the first column.
Imagine it sorted by the second.
Man you guys are slooooowww today.
If we want to condemn Senator Johnson and Obama for taking donations from employees, why don’t we also do the same thing to Senator McCain for taking more donations from Fannie and Freddie executives?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/19/fact-check-did-obama-profit-from-fannie-and-freddie/
McCain took much more overall from those with vested interests in politics (the executives) than Obama, who got most of his support from employees.
Where is the outrage over this?
Also, can you please help me find where S.190 (the fabled Hagel-McCain bill) created new oversight? Because as far as I can see, all that it did was take oversight from the HUD and give it to private companies.
Dang Bill F., if I had time to respond I would. I am not scared to take the issue on.
I do give a rip, I give a BIG RIP! You ignore the facts that have been stated.
Well, I will be back I have to try earn a paycheck.
You mean the facts that have been mis-stated, 76.
I don’t deny what the spread sheet says, but I do know how to read it.
Take your time, big fella.
Why wouldn’t everyone in SD vote against this clown? If you are going to tell a lie about this, what else are you not telling the truth about Mr. Johnson?
If I were Tim Johnson, I would immediately call Dykstra and set up a townhall type of joint appearance and discuss this like rational people. I would force Dykstra to say to my face that I took money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I would then have the opportunity in an open forum to once and for all put to rest these rumors. But then I am not Tim Johnson and Tim Johnson has said in an interview with the Argus that he is afraid to debate. It is not worth the risk. So, he has to have a surrogate answer this. Why not TJ?
Bill, your analysis is irrelevant and off the point. Let’s go to PAC, Thune’s at a grand. If it’s sorted by the second column, then we have the same ratio of Dems rolling in dough. The big pot (PAC and Individuals who were either forced to give or did it knowing they were feeding the pig) is what matters. Big whoop. TJ is a moron who shirked his duties and should be back in Vermillion (or whereever his address is now (SF?)) playing shuffle board.
Just in on your little chart: This show TJ #3 in percentage raised by PACs as compared to the whole. Now spin that one Billy:
Senate incumbents getting the most from PACs, by percentage of total raised
Name State Total from
PACs Percent of total
Raised from PACs
Mike Enzi (R) Wyoming $1,361,043 72%
Thad Cochran (R) Mississippi $1,039,498 50%
Tim Johnson (D) South Dakota $2,136,758 42%
John A. Barrasso (R) Wyoming $820,134 40%
Max Baucus (D) Montana $4,370,834 40%
Pat Roberts (R) Kansas $1,935,254 39%
Mark Pryor (D) Arkansas $2,098,333 37%
Jack Reed (D) Rhode Island $1,465,611 33%
Ted Stevens (R) Alaska $1,421,693 32%
Susan Collins (R) Maine $2,079,038 32%
Arguing with you is like a circular water board, we keep making points and you spin it back on the issue that we just answered and drench us with it. ARRRGGGG.
Once again, why are we ignoring the contributions made by executives of Fannie Mae? Are you guys actually claiming that the contributions made by employees are more indicative of political pull than contributions made by executives? Because the executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac donated much more to the Republicans than they did to the Democrats.
Xiao: Your argument is more global. I don’t care what the Republican/Democrat from Timbuckto got from a PAC or an executive. I’m concerned about our reining Dem Senator from SD sleeping while at the wheel of the banking committee then failing to support the bailout which was necessary to repair the financial industry to which he was involved and while getting money from PAC, F & F whatever. What’s important to note is that he was doing this while he was ALOT more cognitive than he is now….
Duh, my argument is the WHOLE point. Way to try to change the subject with your new list. Just reference given in the link, and look at the second column.
And quit being so gol-durn crabby, ya know? Dang it anyways.
Friends (I’m practicing my McCain chops) …. um… friends,
I have to go on the road for a few days and won’t have
time to check in much.
(and a few Palin licks…)
I’m sure by the time I get back,
you’ll have this whole dang thing worked our, fer sher, huh?
You betcha. (wink)
Okie dokie then.
I’ll get back to ya, okay?
See ya.
Billy:
My previous post answered your question. Didn’t change the subject, the above information is on the same site. TJ ranks #3 in PAC money relative to the whole. You chimed on how the rep’s are getting all the PAC money, (TJ might not have gotten the most which is directly related to his effectiveness) but as a percentage, it shows that PACs are in TJ’s shorts more than individuals and more than anyone other than the top 2.
As far as being crabby, it’s becoming more and more my chemical make up. I need a hug.
Comment by 76 on October 8, 2008 @ 11:54 am: “Bill you are wrong and so is Jarding. An employee contribution is the same as the company in that it comes from the employees who work for the company. Like I stated before @11:24 it come from the same business in different forms. EG: pac and employee!”
You are merely expressing your opinion. And you are wrong. PAC campaign contributions and individual employee contributions are VERY different.
Mr. Bill, it’s been a long time no reading the blogs…That there garden of mine, came in all at once, and fer sure, I had to can the dang mayters and beets. Then I had to dehydrate the turnips, rutabakers, kohlrabi, and carrots so I cans makes me a possum soup this winter. Raccoon soup sounds mighty fine too.
Your 5:15 post can be a two-way street…Obama may be an eloquent orator at speeches, but he ers, ahs, and ums when he has to deviate from his practiced lines.
You take care now, ya hear? 
People who jumped in after the debate came; the conversation centered around donations. These donations came from PACs and individuals of F&F.
My point and I believe DUH’s point was: Johnson is 2nd in command of the committee and he also took a nice sum of money from the company. B.F. was trying to spin and say the donations are different. They are not. Look at some of the post above and you can figure it out.
Xiao: I think you had best read a little before trying to get into a comment. Just my humble opinion. I understand when they get long it sometimes is hard to get in the chain of comments and debates.
But BF, I hold to what I stated about it all comes from the same place. Don’t forget BO is # 2 in line from the source.
Should we all talk about voter fraud along with BO’s involvement in the ACORN group or one of his other top people picks. Off topic opps. ACORN sure loved SD in 04.
Bill-
I have a friend who worked for a fortune 500 company. They cant be told who to give money to but upper management has a way of letting you know what is good for your career and what isnt. You know this, your making a very lame attempt to justify it. This add is acurate as Thunes would be for some of the companies executives that bundel there contributions, where there is smoke there is fire. Tim just got caught with a very shady bunch with FREDDIE and Fannie. Sorry
Here’s an article that was forwarded to me. Its a 1999 NY Times article on how the Clinton Administration relaxed the credit barriers in F & F. Very telling article and directly points to the origins of this mess…. The Demos! I didn’t know how to cut and past this, so I hope that it comes through:
If not, here’s the link attachment: Damnit, can’t get it. See below
Fannie Mae Eases credit To Aid Mortgage Lending- New york Times
Page 1 of 2
September 30, 1999
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVENA , HOLMES
ln a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae
Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York
metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not
good enough to qualifu for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by
next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stockholders to maintain its phenominal growth in proftis.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates — anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
“Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment
requirements,” said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. “Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying
significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.”
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that l8 percent of the loans in
the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
In moving. even tentativelv. into this new area of lendine. Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk. which may
not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn prompting government rescue similar to that in the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.
“From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter
Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. “If they fail. the government will have to step up and, bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”
Under Fannie Mae’s pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage
point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 — a rate that currently averages about 7 .76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.
Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy,Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify, for a
mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home
(owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.
Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990’s. The number of
mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 57.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard
University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got
mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.
In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.
Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because
blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.
In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001,50 percent of Fannie Mae’s
and Freddie Mac’s portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the
loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.
The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the
automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit
applicants.
So guys, what about Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager? He’s been paid around two million bucks? Was that an individual thing or a PAC/McCain thing? You can’t have it both ways my friends.
Who’s Senator Jarding?