Baucus gave girlfriend $14K raise

posted at 10:55 am on December 11, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The controversy over Max Baucus’ relationship with his staffer and her nomination for a US Attorney slot deepens today, with a Politico report that strongly suggests that Baucus used public money to favor Melodee Hanes.  As their relationship turned personal in 2008, Baucus gave her a $14,000 salary increase.  The story about Baucus’ withdrawal of Hanes’ nomination also got challenged:

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, gave a nearly $14,000 pay raise to a female staffer in 2008, at the time he was becoming romantically involved with her, and later that year took her on a taxpayer-funded trip to Southeast Asia and the Middle East, though foreign policy was not her specialty.

Late last Friday, Baucus acknowledged his relationship with Melodee Hanes, whom he nominated for the job of U.S. attorney in Montana, after it was first reported on the website MainJustice.com. But he said that Hanes withdrew from consideration for the job when the relationship became more serious. The next day, he dismissed calls for an ethics investigation, saying, “I went out of my way to be up and up.”

Since his announcement, more details of the relationship have emerged, raising questions about a workplace romance between a boss and employee that Baucus tried to keep quiet and also contradicting his explanation for why Hanes’s nomination was withdrawn.

Jodi Ravi, a former reporter for the Missoulian revealed over the weekend that the paper informed Baucus in March that it was poised to publish a story about Hanes’s relationship with the senator and the fact that he had nominated her for the U.S. attorney job.  The next day, Hanes withdrew from consideration. According to the Missoulian, Baucus’s office never acknowledged a relationship between the two, and the paper did not run a story.

This demonstrates why office romances are almost always a terrible idea, especially between executives and their staffers, even when intentions are honorable.  As Newsweek’s Kate Dailey wrote earlier this week, Hanes had a record of serious accomplishment before going to work for Baucus.  She had worked as a prosecutor for years, although not without controversy, and had a bright future even before joining Baucus’ team.

However, Dailey’s contention that Hanes is “not a bimbo” depends on the definition one uses.  People can be forgiven for assuming that someone who sleeps with the boss and then gets a $14,000 per year raise and a nomination for an important political appointment is indeed a “bimbo” who uses horizontal qualifications to move ahead.  Even if that employee has worked hard (non-horizontally) for both of those, the assumption will be that the personal relationship and the increased opportunities are not just coincidental. And it’s almost certain that they would be right to make that assumption.

Baucus’ staff were certainly aware of the relationship.  How else did the Missoulian hear about it?  If nothing else, Hanes’ inclusion on foreign-policy trips (at taxpayer expense) when her responsibilities had nothing to do with foreign policy would have provided people close to the situation with obvious conclusions.  Such dynamics distort working relationships, create jealousies and resentments, and handicap the capabilities of the team, regardless of whether it’s in the public or private sector, which is why most private-sector companies actively discourage such relationships.

The ethics of this situation go beyond the personal, although Baucus’ personal ethics here are unimpressive, to say the least.  Were taxpayer funds used by Baucus to woo Hanes and to keep her connected to him?  Should Hanes have been included on foreign-policy junkets and paid per diems on taxpayer money?  Mostly, how did Hanes get her current position at the DoJ, given all we have discovered about Baucus’ efforts on her behalf earlier, and is this a patronage job meant to feather their bed and distance Baucus from further ethics probes?

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Of course he did. Think of all her extra duties.

Track-A-'Crat on December 11, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Dang, and all those years I thought that sleeping with someone for money and power made you a hooker. Who knew? I coulda been a contenda.

katy the mean old lady on December 11, 2009 at 11:01 AM

At least he avoided the appearance of impropriety. I know how important that is to the Democrats.

/s

Lily on December 11, 2009 at 11:01 AM

So we’ve established what Baucus’s girlfriend is, now we’re just learning about the price, correct?

Rational Thought on December 11, 2009 at 11:02 AM

John

Devrbd on December 11, 2009 at 11:03 AM

…who uses horizontal qualifications to move ahead.

Ed, that’s a pretty good turn of phrase. Keep zinging those arrows!

jwolf on December 11, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Don’t go dipping your pen in the company ink.

joeswampy on December 11, 2009 at 11:06 AM

Saw the headline and thought, “geez, did ol’ Max spend that much on the Little Blue Pill?”

MrScribbler on December 11, 2009 at 11:06 AM

Most
Ethical
Congress…

EVER!!!!

…or, at least that is what “Stretch” Pelosi was telling us.

PimFortuynsGhost on December 11, 2009 at 11:07 AM

My mom lives in Montana and this is the Democratic talking point the news stations give:

But she was qualified!

Hopefully the people of Montana will not fall for the lie.

conservative pilgrim on December 11, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Does everyone know that when a Federal employee goes to an industry seminar, they are not allow to accept a free meal? There must be an invoice sent to pay for any food.

That is how close they watch the little people working for the government. Congressman, “not so much”

TexasRedbud on December 11, 2009 at 11:08 AM

Hopefully the people of Montana will not fall for the lie.

conservative pilgrim on December 11, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Not my mom of course, but all the hard-core, hippy liberals that live there. And there are lots of them.

conservative pilgrim on December 11, 2009 at 11:09 AM

The really disgusting thing about cases like this is that they make more people assume that all women are using sex to get ahead, and this really hurts the honerst, smart women who aren’t. When I was younger I worked in a federal agnecy where there were clearly women sleeping their way to the top, and even with my degree from Harvard most people just assumed that I was one of those women. It sucked.

rockmom on December 11, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Hey guys, relax … he’s a democrat. It’s ok.

darwin on December 11, 2009 at 11:09 AM

rockmom on December 11, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Good point. I’m sure we’ll see Eugene Robinson address this in his next column.

conservative pilgrim on December 11, 2009 at 11:10 AM

It’s a darn good thing he isn’t being examined and vetted by the people that harrassed and continue to harrass Sarah Palin or he would be destroyed by this obvious conflict of interest. Fortunately the same people that try to destroy a woman for not having an abortion are ok with Democrats paying staffers for affection.

SgtRed on December 11, 2009 at 11:11 AM

Move along. Nothing to see here.

Change!

JammieWearingFool on December 11, 2009 at 11:11 AM

Right now, Baucus is on bended knee, thanking God for TIGER WOODS!

Tiger’s hogging the headlines and Baucus gets a PASS.

And where are all those Senator Stevens screamers these days?

GoldenEagle4444 on December 11, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Impeahment?

milemarker2020 on December 11, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Crap! He just got reelected last year. That means Montana voters can’t kick the bum out til 2014. Can you believe this bum’s been in the Senate for 30 years? No wonder we have so many corrupt politicians.

Doughboy on December 11, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Probably to compensate her for the plethera of stockings she’s worn the knees out on. That girly stuff is expensive.

SilverStar830 on December 11, 2009 at 11:14 AM

The time for you to resign is getting closer, Max. Merry Christmas!

NathanG on December 11, 2009 at 11:15 AM

Oh and today’s his birthday! Happy Birthday!/sarc

NathanG on December 11, 2009 at 11:15 AM

SilverStar830 on December 11, 2009 at 11:14 AM

That’s why Monica used knee pads.

PappaMac on December 11, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Nothing like using tax payer money for services rendered.

You would think this would be criminal or something….

/dripping sarc

TheAdmiral on December 11, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Throw the bums out!

Is there a list of the biggest crooks on Capitol Hill along with a one sentence description of their primary offense?

Charlie Rangle – Tax Evasion

Chris Dodd –

Maxine Waters -

Barney Frank -

etc.

joedoe on December 11, 2009 at 11:17 AM

Hey, this just shows the honorable intent of the Safe Schools Czar’s sex ed campaign – he’s preparing young Democrats to get ahead in life! The DNC way!

Wind Rider on December 11, 2009 at 11:20 AM

test

Weight of Glory on December 11, 2009 at 11:23 AM

That’s a Piece Prize!

LibTired on December 11, 2009 at 11:24 AM

My mom lives in Montana and this is the Democratic talking point the news stations give:

But she was qualified!

conservative pilgrim on December 11, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Well, maybe the bleach blonde reporterettes are speaking from experience, about what is qualified or not, for $14,000.

MNHawk on December 11, 2009 at 11:24 AM

but….but…but… HE”S A DEMOCRAT!!!!!!!

grapeknutz on December 11, 2009 at 11:24 AM

But she was qualified!

Baucus gave girlfriend $14K raise

That must be some prime stuff.

“I went out of my way to be up and up.”

Meaning he also spent taxpayer money on Viarga

MikeA on December 11, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Gives new meaning to the word “qualifications”.

GarandFan on December 11, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Well, she’s an expert on foreign affairs now.

davidk on December 11, 2009 at 11:27 AM

One last apology for our senator and I am done apologizing for this tool. er, dem tool, er… He’s got to be at least 14yrs her senior. Does he play golf?

Kissmygrits on December 11, 2009 at 11:27 AM

Well, maybe the bleach blonde reporterettes are speaking from experience, about what is qualified or not, for $14,000.

MNHawk on December 11, 2009 at 11:24 AM

FYI–there are male reporters out there who read teleprompters written by the newsroom editors.

conservative pilgrim on December 11, 2009 at 11:27 AM

I thought we needed congress to keep the insurers honest?

kringeesmom on December 11, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Since no one else has said, that must be some good nookie.

Amadeus on December 11, 2009 at 11:33 AM

***
Why shouldn’t “Max” Baucus give his “main squeeze” Melodee Hanes a $14K raise–using taxpayer money? She gave him a bunch of “raises”! Like the kids say, “What goes around comes around!” Lighten up–she just did a good job “working under (and over) her boss”. AKA sleeping your way to the top.
***
Impeach or fire any of our so called “representatives” who are dishonest and / or lack integrity. Vote them out in the 2010 and 2012 elections. No more CorruptocRATS of either party.
***
John Bibb
***

rocketman on December 11, 2009 at 11:33 AM

everyone in baucus’s office who didn’t get a similar raise should sue baucus for sex discrimination and harassment.

reliapundit on December 11, 2009 at 11:34 AM

How could you possibly believe or trust a liberal from Montana of all places? This doesn’t compute at any level.

volsense on December 11, 2009 at 11:35 AM

“I went out of my way to be up and up.”

Baucus was up and up alright, but in another sense of the phrase.

TXUS on December 11, 2009 at 11:36 AM

I dunno. Max seems pretty shrewd. On a per event basis, he paid a lot less than Spitzer did. And better yet he had no out of pocket expenses.

Mr. D on December 11, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Amadeus on December 11, 2009 at 11:33 AM

But have you seen her picture? Now that there woman is flat out coyote ugly.

TXUS on December 11, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Wait till we get our Hanes on you!

BetseyRoss on December 11, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Doesn’t anyone else here think that the timing of these Baucus tails (cq) is a little unusual?
Baucus isn’t getting it done with health care. So, under the bus he goes.
Rahmbo the leaker strikes again???

either orr on December 11, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Gives new meaning to the word “qualifications”.

GarandFan on December 11, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Perhaps that was swallifactions.

Aviator on December 11, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Wait till we get our Hanes on you!

BetseyRoss on December 11, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Heh. Love it!

NathanG on December 11, 2009 at 11:48 AM

So what’s going to happen to him?

Oh wait I know he’s a Demorat so

Nothing!

Brat4life on December 11, 2009 at 11:56 AM

test fire, test fire.

ted c on December 11, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Yayy! It works. *feels like a kid when the pool opens back up for the summer*

ted c on December 11, 2009 at 11:57 AM

However, Dailey’s contention that Hanes is “not a bimbo” depends on the definition one uses. People can be forgiven for assuming that someone who sleeps with the boss and then gets a $14,000 per year raise and a nomination for an important political appointment is indeed a “bimbo” who uses horizontal qualifications to move ahead. Even if that employee has worked hard (non-horizontally) for both of those, the assumption will be that the personal relationship and the increased opportunities are not just coincidental. And it’s almost certain that they would be right to make that assumption.

This is delicious.

Umm, Senator Baucus–your “not a bimbo” is on the phone….

ted c on December 11, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Baucus and Ensign need to go!

NathanG on December 11, 2009 at 12:12 PM

Crap! He just got reelected last year. That means Montana voters can’t kick the bum out til 2014. Can you believe this bum’s been in the Senate for 30 years? No wonder we have so many corrupt politicians.

Doughboy on December 11, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Uh not so. MT statue allows for any official that represents the state can be recalled by the citizens of MT

ConservativePartyNow on December 11, 2009 at 12:13 PM

At least Tiger was using his own money for sex and not ours.

TXUS on December 11, 2009 at 12:19 PM

She must be good. Tiger paid $15,000 for his hooker.

PappaMac on December 11, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Melodee Hanes is nothing more than an extremely expensive whore. Baucus can only afford her services because he’s paying with public money. You’d have to have Tiger Woods money to be a private client of this class of prostitute.

highhopes on December 11, 2009 at 12:25 PM

Baucus, in doing sex to his gf, was also doing sex to the rest of us. So where’s my $14,000?

rbj on December 11, 2009 at 12:26 PM

That must be some prime stuff.

MikeA on December 11, 2009 at 11:25 AM

http://www.businessinsider.com/photo-of-melodee-hanes-the-max-baucus-mistress-who-may-have-killed-healthcare-reform-2009-12

Umm. Err. As a taxpayer, can I demand a refund for about 13,995 of that?

MNHawk on December 11, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Melodee? Such a cute name for a genitalia munching Munchkin.

Using public money? Don’t faucus Baucus.

MaiDee on December 11, 2009 at 12:40 PM

One good raise deserves another…

Wyznowski on December 11, 2009 at 12:55 PM

I’ve been waiting to comment for hours.

This reminds me of Rodney Dangerfield on the dance floor of the country club in Caddyshack. Baucus to his girlfriend: “How’d you like to earn $14,000…the hard way.”

BuckeyeSam on December 11, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Uh not so. MT statue allows for any official that represents the state can be recalled by the citizens of MT

ConservativePartyNow on December 11, 2009 at 12:13 PM

Go for it Montana! Don’t let the jerk governor and Senators cower you down!

NathanG on December 11, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Et tu, Baucus?

diogenes on December 11, 2009 at 1:52 PM

***
Give Max Baucus another year for bad taste! Or get him to an opthomologist–STAT! What a photo. I couldn’t drink enough Tequila to make that “lady” look good enough to cross the “threshold”. Not even as a poor G.I. long ago.
***
John Bibb
***

rocketman on December 11, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Hmmm. I’m married. Somehow, I feel that I am being shortchanged. $14K to be a girlfriend?
I think I need to start charging for my services.
Welcome to the democratic party, baucus-waitress sandwiches and murder are free of charge.

HornetSting on December 11, 2009 at 2:02 PM

HornetSting on December 11, 2009 at 2:02 PM

The original “feminists” thought that being married equated to being a prostitute…that you were paid, with a roof, food, clothing…
They were really ugly and nasty little creatures…marriage=prostitute…mother=breeder…

right2bright on December 11, 2009 at 2:06 PM

right2bright on December 11, 2009 at 2:06 PM

I don’t mind being a kept woman, but I want a raise…

HornetSting on December 11, 2009 at 2:07 PM

So his slogan of “Your tax money HARD at work” had another meaning?

right2bright on December 11, 2009 at 2:08 PM

How long does someone have to be in office before they forget that when they go to the cafeteria and score a free meal that they’re eating someone else’s work? That when they order extra flowers for their office they’re “spoiling themselves” with some poor dad’s overtime that he wishes he could be spending with his kids? That when they bring their doxy along with them on a foreign junket they’re using the tax revenue that forced a small business to close down?

When do they forget that they’re servants living off the public dole? Where is there shame and how soon do they lose it?

I figure right after lunch on day 2.

29Victor on December 11, 2009 at 2:08 PM

FYI – latest update from Montana:
http://www.missoulian.com/news/local/article_68fe318e-e617-11de-a508-001cc4c002e0.html

Not related to that article, but just for general background and to give perspective to the non-Montanans here: it is wrong to assume either that (1) Montana is super conservative, or (2) Baucus is considered a “liberal” by most people here.

Although Montana usually votes for GOP presidential candidates, every single statewide elected office is held by a Democrat (with the lone exception of Rep. Rehberg — who is elected statewide because there’s only one congressional district). Both U.S. Senators, Governor, AG, Sec. of State, Auditor, Superintendent — all Ds. (The Lt. Gov. calls himself an R, but he was nominated and elected on the D ticket as Schweitzer’s running mate.) The Legislature goes back and forth, with one house currently held by the Ds and the other by the Rs. Some of the major population centers are heavily democratic, including Butte, Missoula, and Helena. Especially Missoula, which is by far the largest city in the western half of the state and is probably as liberal as Seattle (I’ve lived in both).

To be fair, many elected Democrats in Montana would be considered very conservative Democrats in most other parts of the country. For example, the 2nd Amendment is practically holy writ here.

As for Baucus, he manages to get by not causing strong feelings one way or the other, and is always reelected by huge margins (partly because he makes sure he seems a bit more conservative every election year, but then drifts back leftward enough to keep the Ds happy in other years). Last time, he only drew token opposition, and the Republicans botched the effort to even get an actual Republican nominated (the GOP nomination — in an open primary — went to a nice but elderly and eccentric Green Party guy). The “base” on both sides doesn’t like Baucus. The conservatives think he’s too liberal, and the “progressive” liberals think he’s a DINO. Nevertheless, these groups are small enough that nobody usually would stand a chance of taking him out, either in a primary or the general. The GOP here has a very weak bench of potential statewide candidates, with no current statewide office holders. So… I predict that Baucus will either retire or be reelected in 5 years. There’s a slightly less than 50-50 shot that Rehberg could beat him, but he’s already beat Rehberg once before, so I don’t know if Rehberg would give up his safe House seat.

I didn’t really have a point there in saying all that. Just wanted to give some local perspective on Baucus. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

acasilaco on December 11, 2009 at 2:09 PM

I don’t mind being a kept woman, but I want a raise…

HornetSting on December 11, 2009 at 2:07 PM

You did…you get to raise the kids and a husband…at least two raises…

right2bright on December 11, 2009 at 2:09 PM

The original “feminists” thought that being married equated to being a prostitute…that you were paid, with a roof, food, clothing…

right2bright on December 11, 2009 at 2:06 PM

No, the original feminists thought that marriage was an okay thing as long as men got in trouble for beating/raping their wives. Of course they also thought that abortion was an abomination, etc….

It’s the modern feminists (1960s onward) that equate wifedom with whoredom. Of course they then go on to support the “rights” of “sex workers” and see it as a noble and empowering profession. I haven’t gotten that one quite figured out yet, I figure it’s just hormones.

29Victor on December 11, 2009 at 2:11 PM

I didn’t really have a point there in saying all that. Just wanted to give some local perspective on Baucus. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

acasilaco on December 11, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Actually it was interesting…thanks for the insight.

right2bright on December 11, 2009 at 2:11 PM

I don’t mind being a kept woman, but I want a raise…

HornetSting on December 11, 2009 at 2:07 PM
You did…you get to raise the kids and a husband…at least two raises…

right2bright on December 11, 2009 at 2:09 PM

No kids…but I like ‘raising the husband’. Hee hee.

HornetSting on December 11, 2009 at 2:12 PM

29Victor on December 11, 2009 at 2:11 PM

Of course, when I said original, I was thinking Gloria Steiheim (sp?) and her group…

right2bright on December 11, 2009 at 2:13 PM

No kids…but I like ‘raising the husband’. Hee hee.

HornetSting on December 11, 2009 at 2:12 PM

So you do get your “raise”…just would like $14,000 taped to it…

right2bright on December 11, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Of course, when I said original, I was thinking Gloria Steiheim (sp?) and her group…

right2bright on December 11, 2009 at 2:13 PM

Yeah. The first feminists got women the vote and some protection from domestic violence. Gloria’s crowd just gets them abortion scars, single motherhood and poverty. But, hey, if you’re a guy it’s a whole lot easier to get laid then it used to be.

29Victor on December 11, 2009 at 2:17 PM

He shows why Dems want free abortions. To cover their tracks.

seven on December 11, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Of course, when I said original, I was thinking Gloria Steiheim (sp?) and her group…

right2bright on December 11, 2009 at 2:13 PM

As 29Victor points out, the Equal Rights Amendment feminist actually killed off important societal norms. They demeaned as unworthy the job of raising a family and keeping a house. They put forth the idea that females were not fulfilled unless they were raising a family and running a multi-billion dollar company. In short, they pretty much demanded that females work outside of the home.

The 1960s/1970s feminists destroyed traditional culture on such a scale that Gloria and her crowd should be put on trial for crimes against humanity. You can see the results in the crappy movies they show on Lifetime. Man-hating and insecure women struggling with problems….. but always looking for the Alan Alda/Phil Donahue type of whimp that will make their life complete.

highhopes on December 11, 2009 at 3:11 PM

You can just hear the left talking….
“He’s a democrat so it’s OK. No ethics problem. No need to investigate, unless you are looking at those filthy Republicans that fabricated this entire story. Nothing to see here, move along. Don’t you have any Republicans to scrutinize?”

n0doz on December 11, 2009 at 3:19 PM

Low paid ho!
Better talk to Landrieu D. Louisiana

dhunter on December 11, 2009 at 3:37 PM

Our system is corrupt to the core. Can the fall be far behind?

TheBigOldDog on December 11, 2009 at 6:43 PM

How hard and for how long does the average American have to work for $14,000?

Sickening.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 11, 2009 at 9:05 PM