Rep. Ragel ordered to pay fine

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Congressman Charles Rangel and his campaign have agreed to pay $23,000 stemming from his use of a rent-stabilized apartment in New York City as a campaign office.
The New York Times reports that the Federal Election Commission found that the Harlem Democrat accepted campaign contributions beyond the legal limit when he leased the apartment at a price below market rate.
City and state guidelines require rent-stabilized apartments be solely used as a primary residence.
Rangel moved his campaign office out of the apartment soon after the leasing arrangement became public.
His spokeswoman told the Times that the agreement to pay the civil fine was not an admission of guilt.
The 81-year-old congressman announced last week that he'll run for a 22nd term. He was convicted on House ethics charges in 2010.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...lled-apartment/?test=latestnews#ixzz1qK9GT7Ve

Convicted of ethics violations and THEN he went and used government subsidized housing for his political campaign. If he was in PA, we would have sent him to jail for using public money for his personal campaign.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
In PA, a bunch of dems and reps in our state government are being both investigated, charged, and jailed for the use of public money for their personal campaign. It started with someone reporting a bunch of dems for doing it, but the investigation jumped the aisle. I think it is up to 5 of them now.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I can't get too excited about Rangel's ethics (to the extent they exist) because while he stands against pretty much everything I believe in, he is an authentic American hero. So I tend to give him a pass on the typical politician graft. He's also virtually entirely a self-made man, having accomplished a great deal from very little. He's also one of those politicians with the courage of his convictions - if he votes for it, he'll come on the air and defend it. Far too many politicians try to be all things to all people even outside of a campaign.

I hate to see his graft and I disagree with his politics, but he's still someone I greatly admire.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,907
11,398
136
I can't get too excited about Rangel's ethics (to the extent they exist) because while he stands against pretty much everything I believe in, he is an authentic American hero. So I tend to give him a pass on the typical politician graft. He's also virtually entirely a self-made man, having accomplished a great deal from very little. He's also one of those politicians with the courage of his convictions - if he votes for it, he'll come on the air and defend it. Far too many politicians try to be all things to all people even outside of a campaign.

I hate to see his graft and I disagree with his politics, but he's still someone I greatly admire.

Agree or disagree with his politics, he was a very effective politician. It's a shame that these pols especially if they've been in for so long and have a secure district, get drunk with power and think they are untouchable. For me he lost any respect I had for him.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...lled-apartment/?test=latestnews#ixzz1qK9GT7Ve

Convicted of ethics violations and THEN he went and used government subsidized housing for his political campaign. If he was in PA, we would have sent him to jail for using public money for his personal campaign.

Rent stabilized apartments are not, absent particular circumstances, "government subsidized." Many many people live in rent-controlled or rent-stabilized apartments in NYC - this is the only reason anyone but fairly wealthy people can live in Manhattan. The landlord, not the government, bears the expense of the rent stabilization. Accordingly, no public funds are involved.

It is evident from the short article you posted that this was in no way a "government subsidized" apartment, since the alleged violation is acceptance of illegal campaign contributions. Conceptually, the allegation is that he accepted "contributions" from his landlord by receiving a rent stabilization discount on his campaign headquarters.
 
Last edited:

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,824
2,613
136
Unless I'm missing something isn't he being fined by the FEC for the exact same violation he got in trouble for with Congress? OP protrays it as Ragel doing something bad again after getting tagged by Congress but I don't think that's the case.

Ragel is like Ted Stevens, crusty old politician that believes the rules don't apply to them.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
oh! i thought he said he was innocent
full FEC document
http://nlpc.org/files/FECRangel.pdf

In fairness, while I agree it looks as though he did do this, people and companies routinely enter into settlement agreements while still maintaining they did nothing wrong (to use a current example, recall the National Restaurant Association's settling complaints of sexual harassment against Herman Cain). He continues to deny any wrongdoing. Personally I don't consider this the Crime of the Century anyway, but at the same time I support reasonable regulation of campaign financing and have no problem with the FEC taking action.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Unless I'm missing something isn't he being fined by the FEC for the exact same violation he got in trouble for with Congress? OP protrays it as Ragel doing something bad again after getting tagged by Congress but I don't think that's the case.

Ragel is like Ted Stevens, crusty old politician that believes the rules don't apply to them.
in 2008, Rangel faced ethics violations for:

-renting multiple rent-controlled apartments for himself (and tearing down the walls between them to make one giant apartment)
-using his political office to raise money for his private foundation
-hiding income made from renting out his villa in the Dominican Republic

this new allegation looks pretty tame by comparison and seems to just be accusing him of renting out a private residence at below-market rates to serve as his campaign headquarters.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
At least spell his name right in the title. Too bad they won't spell his name right in prison where he belongs.
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,084
14
81
fobot.com
Personally I don't consider this the Crime of the Century anyway, ....

no, certainly not
there is much worse 'legal' corruption undertaken by most representatives/senators than this

to me the biggest take away is how 'career' politicians cannot see why they shouldn't do this stuff, how it erodes confidence of the citizens in the system
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Rent stabilized apartments are not, absent particular circumstances, "government subsidized." Many many people live in rent-controlled or rent-stabilized apartments in NYC - this is the only reason anyone but fairly wealthy people can live in Manhattan. The landlord, not the government, bears the expense of the rent stabilization. Accordingly, no public funds are involved.

It is evident from the short article you posted that this was in no way a "government subsidized" apartment, since the alleged violation is acceptance of illegal campaign contributions. Conceptually, the allegation is that he accepted "contributions" from his landlord by receiving a rent stabilization discount on his campaign headquarters.

Using government funds for your campaign are also illegal campaign contributions, but if what you say is true (and I have no reason to believe it is not), then I recant my statement about using government funds. I am still happy we jailed the politicians in PA who did, though.

I did not realize people in New York willingly reduced their rent prices out of the goodness of their heart, that there is no government money involved in it. It does restore some of my faith in humanity. :)
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Using government funds for your campaign are also illegal campaign contributions, but if what you say is true (and I have no reason to believe it is not), then I recant my statement about using government funds. I am still happy we jailed the politicians in PA who did, though.

I did not realize people in New York willingly reduced their rent prices out of the goodness of their heart, that there is no government money involved in it. It does restore some of my faith in humanity. :)

The landlords don't do it as an act of generosity - the laws just restrict the extent to which they can increase rents over time. This means that, for example, the old lady who moved into her Upper West Side apartment in 1965 can still afford to stay, despite the fact that market rents have increased exponentially and her neighbors are now corporate lawyers and portfolio managers. The law provides a host of limitations to protect landlords, such as requirements of continuous tenancy, non-subletting provisions, and (relevant here) the requirement that the resident not use the property to conduct business. Violating any of these can potentially cause the renter to lose the rent control/stabilization protection.

As it happens my sister lives in a rent-controlled apartment in Manhattan and my dad was a longtime member of his co-op board in his midtown co-op building, so I have some familiarity with the laws there.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
The landlords don't do it as an act of generosity - the laws just restrict the extent to which they can increase rents over time. This means that, for example, the old lady who moved into her Upper West Side apartment in 1965 can still afford to stay, despite the fact that market rents have increased exponentially and her neighbors are now corporate lawyers and portfolio managers. The law provides a host of limitations to protect landlords, such as requirements of continuous tenancy, non-subletting provisions, and (relevant here) the requirement that the resident not use the property to conduct business. Violating any of these can potentially cause the renter to lose the rent control/stabilization protection.

As it happens my sister lives in a rent-controlled apartment in Manhattan and my dad was a longtime member of his co-op board in his midtown co-op building, so I have some familiarity with the laws there.

AH! OK. I thought it was more like the guy who rents out his building in Manhattan to non-profits as ludicrously low prices (AA is one of the tenants in the building) so they have access to the resources of a large city, but can still afford to be there.

Did not know about the max price increases. I wonder if that is part of the "Rent is too damn high" party's platform. :)
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Rent stabilized apartments are not, absent particular circumstances, "government subsidized." Many many people live in rent-controlled or rent-stabilized apartments in NYC - this is the only reason anyone but fairly wealthy people can live in Manhattan. The landlord, not the government, bears the expense of the rent stabilization. Accordingly, no public funds are involved.

It is evident from the short article you posted that this was in no way a "government subsidized" apartment, since the alleged violation is acceptance of illegal campaign contributions. Conceptually, the allegation is that he accepted "contributions" from his landlord by receiving a rent stabilization discount on his campaign headquarters.

So do they have "rent stabilized" places for businesses also?

Clearly Rangel was keeping someone who needed it, out of the apartment by using it for his campaign.

Where's the outrage? Oh, that's right he's black so regular rules don't apply.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,665
52,459
136
So do they have "rent stabilized" places for businesses also?

Clearly Ragel was keeping someone who needed it, out of the apartment by using it for his campaign.

Where's the outrage? Oh, that's right he's black so regular rules don't apply.

Seriously man, what is it with you and black people?
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
So do they have "rent stabilized" places for businesses also?

Clearly Ragel was keeping someone who needed it, out of the apartment by using it for his campaign.

Where's the outrage? Oh, that's right he's black so regular rules don't apply.

I don't understand any of this post.

To the best of my knowledge there are no rent-stabilized commercial leases (or at least I have no experience with them - it's possible they exist but I don't know of any).

As I understand the applicable law, if Rangel had vacated the apartment it would cease to enjoy its rent-stabilized status. It's not as though the landlord would move in some Section 8 recipients.

I don't see this as a topic for "outrage." Nobody was hurt other than, arguably, the landlord. Nobody in this thread is defending what Rep. Rangel (allegedly) did. What does his race have to do with anything?

You really do seem to have an issue with black people. Strange choice of avatar in light of that . . .
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
He shouldn't go to jail for this because this was the government's doing. If there had been no government, he wouldn't have been able to do this. I wouldn't vote for him, however, because he truly lacks ethics.
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
You really do seem to have an issue with black people. Strange choice of avatar in light of that . . .

I have a problem with corruption... no matter how small. I also have a problem with hypcites. In this thread I can bash both.

You have a problem with my avatar? Why?