Another CBC scholarship scandal?
posted at 9:30 am on September 10, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
The Congressional Black Caucus has another scandal on its hands relating to the use of their charitable scholarships and nepotism. After the exposure of Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson’s awards to her grandchildren and other family members and her attempts to mislead people about her actions, the CBC promised to audit the program and the use their members make of it. They can add another member to the priority list, according to Politico:
Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.) awarded three scholarships from the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation to his stepdaughter and wife’s niece between 2003 and 2005, according to records from the non-profit group. …
In 2003, Emmaundia Whitaker, the niece of Vivian Creighton Bishop, who is Bishop’s wife, was awarded an education scholarship. She was also given a similar award in 2005.
And in 2003, Aayesha Owens Reese, the congressman’s stepdaughter, was granted an education scholarship as well.
Bishop offered a different defense than Johnson. He claims that the CBC didn’t make nepotism against the rules until 2008, which means that he had no bar on awarding his stepdaughter and niece the scholarships.
That’s certainly a novel defense, but not likely to convince anyone. The scholarships were publicly intended as charity, a way to impact the community by giving underprivileged students an opportunity to get an education they otherwise may miss. Instead, the two Representatives turned it into an entitlement program for the children and grandchildren of the already-powerful. Regardless of whether the CBC had explicit language barring the awarding of funds to family members, anyone with a sense of ethics would have known that putting that scholarship money into the hands of their own family violated the ostensible spirit of the charity. It also shows Bishop and Johnson as greedy, self-absorbed malefactors whose only consideration of the power they hold is how it can personally benefit themselves and their family.
In Bishop’s case, let’s also not forget that any scholarship money his stepdaughter received meant less money out of Bishop’s own pocket for tuition. That’s only one step removed from just keeping the money for himself.
Clearly the CBC doesn’t do much checking on the handling of its charitable funds. How difficult would it have been to discover that Reese was Bishop’s stepdaughter, anyway? Those people and corporations who donate money to the CBC scholarship fund should rethink their choices in charitable giving.
Update: The Washington Times reprinted my post on Johnson from earlier this week. Be sure to read it and thank them for the recognition.
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
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
So democrats abuse their power and steal money intended for charity. What a revelation!
Monica on September 10, 2010 at 9:33 AM
But…but…but…we think about the children! OUR children!
Steve Z on September 10, 2010 at 9:33 AM
You are soooooo racist, legal system.
Living4Him5534 on September 10, 2010 at 9:34 AM
Claude Rains could not be reached for comment.
Del Dolemonte on September 10, 2010 at 9:36 AM
What did the Congressional White Caucus have to say about this?
viking01 on September 10, 2010 at 9:36 AM
I wonder how long until someone says this is all racist because they are all black? You know it is going to happen.
Johnnyreb on September 10, 2010 at 9:36 AM
And this will be one of the core constituencies in the Democrat Party after the midterms once the Blue Dogs get wiped out.
Doughboy on September 10, 2010 at 9:37 AM
The problem with draining the swamp is that it raises quite a stink!
AubieJon on September 10, 2010 at 9:37 AM
No longer Congressional Black Caucus, now Corrupt Black Caucus.
rbj on September 10, 2010 at 9:38 AM
Hmmmm, I wonder if he posts at HotAir?
*runs to nearest fallout shelter*
Laura in Maryland on September 10, 2010 at 9:39 AM
They’re just spreading the wealth.
artist on September 10, 2010 at 9:40 AM
What is the betting line on three quarters of the members of the CBC having done the same thing?
Vashta.Nerada on September 10, 2010 at 9:41 AM
Is this news? Too whom?
tarpon on September 10, 2010 at 9:43 AM
There’s the problem.
jwolf on September 10, 2010 at 9:43 AM
But they’re entitled, aren’t they?
OldEnglish on September 10, 2010 at 9:44 AM
Headline: Democrats Steal from Children’s Charities
faraway on September 10, 2010 at 9:45 AM
Another seat goes GOP!
Oh, nevermind.
mankai on September 10, 2010 at 9:45 AM
And you know the headline really would be in that style if the fault had lain with the other party.
jwolf on September 10, 2010 at 9:48 AM
DOJ can’t touch this. This is social justice.
seven on September 10, 2010 at 9:48 AM
Do you REALLY think that those who
were extorteddonated to the CBC didn’t think that they were attempting to influencing corrupt politians?barnone on September 10, 2010 at 9:49 AM
Where is the outcry from the poor urban communities that this charity was supposed to help? Why do they keep voting for these overseers who keep them oppressed.
Laura in Maryland on September 10, 2010 at 9:51 AM
Regardless of what happens to these Congresscritters, investigate the recipients too. I ask again for someone more familiar with the process, might the students have made themselves subject to punishment by signing paperwork with a statement saying they were not related to CBC members (as at least the 2008 and 2006 forms are reported to have included), such as:
- Loans that required revealing scholarship monies received
- Other scholarships with similar requirements
- Department of Education forms (FAFSA) that require such revelations
In these last few years as I was completing my degree, I had to reveal not just my earnings, but also my bank balances on the FAFSA form each year, just to APPLY for loans that would not necessarily be subsidized (they ended up being split between sub and unsub). As a single person making a good living working full time, I purposely didn’t seek money that might otherwise go to families, so I don’t have as good a recollection of what needed to be revealed there, but I suspect the question was asked. Did the CBC scholarship recipients who were also related to CBC members or their staff always answer truthfully? Did these congressional spawn lie to the almighty government!?!?
raybury on September 10, 2010 at 9:52 AM
These Democrat liberals are pure slime. Who in their right minds could have elected this scum.
rplat on September 10, 2010 at 9:52 AM
Eddie Bernice Johnson’s excuse was actually worse. She said she wouldn’t have given the scholarship money to her family members if there were “more worthy applicants in my district”. (Dallas Morning News, 8/29/10)
Wow! What a slap in the face of her constituents.
And believe me, her opponent, Stephen Broden, is making hay of this as we speak! He’s got a new ad presenting students from the district saying “I am worthy”. Great stuff!
parteagirl on September 10, 2010 at 9:52 AM
In Bishop’s case, let’s also not forget that any scholarship money his stepdaughter received meant less money out of Bishop’s own pocket for tuition.
If Bishop is responsible for her education, yes. But if her biological father still has child support obligations, responsibility for the costs of the step-daughter’s rests on him, i.e., the bio father, and the girl’s mother; any contributions from Bishop would be voluntary. Point being, unless you have facts to back up this assertion, it’s merely speculation, a specious allegation, and intellectually lazy.
Jazz on September 10, 2010 at 9:53 AM
He’s entitled, geez!
Jayrae on September 10, 2010 at 9:54 AM
Sorry for this moment of childishness but “Emmaundia Whitaker”?
Cindy Munford on September 10, 2010 at 9:55 AM
Is this part of all the ‘fairness’ and ‘spreading the wealth around’ that I keep hearing Democrats preaching? Nice.
Ethikkks! This is a racist code word that proves the racism inherent in the system. Or something. /sarc
bitsy on September 10, 2010 at 9:56 AM
Apologies to Our Bishop. I do love him so, but only in an internet kind of way.
Laura in Maryland on September 10, 2010 at 9:56 AM
Bull. In the Anderson Cooper interview he said that the 2006 application said that relatives and employees were not eligible.
mrsmwp on September 10, 2010 at 9:57 AM
Hey can I get me one of them scholarships too? Oh wait, that’s right, whites need not apply.
Does the CBC have a “BLACKS ONLY” water fountain too?
Akzed on September 10, 2010 at 9:57 AM
This goes a little beyond nepotism and into self-dealing.
Getting your brother in law a job through favoritism is bad enough, but granting your own step-daughter free money is much worse. I mean, who was going to pay for that tuition if not for the scholarship? Right, the congressman and his wife.
forest on September 10, 2010 at 9:58 AM
Unless, of course, he’s dead. But being the stickler for detail and research that you purport to be, you’ve already checked that out, I’m sure.
AubieJon on September 10, 2010 at 9:59 AM
I suspect that the “contributions” for this fund were collected in a shakedown by Jesse Jackson or a similar operator.
jwolf on September 10, 2010 at 10:00 AM
racist
iam7545 on September 10, 2010 at 10:01 AM
This reminds me of Kwame Kilpartrick and his “charitable” foundation that was really the paycheck source for family members.
Granted, Kilpatrick is a disgraced felon now but his mother is still in the House and my gosh…………what if this kind of nepotism was even slightly hinted at on the Republican side?
Yeah, right, if it were Republican his mother would have been out of office and every aspect of their lives investigated. AND the famous John Conyers line about not knowing what family members were doing would not fly.
ORconservative on September 10, 2010 at 10:01 AM
I haven’t seen this ad and I’m in the district.
Maybe he needs some money to get this aired.
It sounds like it would make an impact.
cozmo on September 10, 2010 at 10:02 AM
Dat ain’t steelin’ dats reparations.
viking01 on September 10, 2010 at 10:03 AM
A nepotistic mind is a terrible thing to waste!
pilamaye on September 10, 2010 at 10:04 AM
Uh, yeah, my wife and I keep our finances completely separate and I feel no responsibility what-so-ever for a child that is hers but not mine. And we have accountants to make sure none of my money will be spent to further that education, or take up slack from my wife, for money she spent on that education.
Lefty pretzel logic.
cozmo on September 10, 2010 at 10:06 AM
Here’s the link to Stephen Broden’s response video. Pass it along!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXnmZvmcGTk
parteagirl on September 10, 2010 at 10:07 AM
Man, you walked a mile to make a one inch point. ROFL
Bishop on September 10, 2010 at 10:07 AM
Unless, of course, he’s dead. But being the stickler for detail and research that you purport to be, you’ve already checked that out, I’m sure.
AubieJon on September 10, 2010 at 9:59 AM
In which case, unless Bishop has adopted her (which would make her his daughter), the responsibility is still belongs to the girl’s mother and any contributions from Bishop would be voluntary. Point being, unless Ed has the facts to back up this assertion, it’s merely speculation, a specious allegation, and intellectually lazy.
And it’s not on me to do the research – I didn’t make the affirmative statement. Ed did.
Jazz on September 10, 2010 at 10:07 AM
Bush’s fault….
SPGuy on September 10, 2010 at 10:07 AM
See the squirt?????
This is like noticing an errant discharge of milk in a stadium sized barn on a corporate dairy farm.
The corruption and dishonesty in our institutions of higher education could make Bluebeard cry.
Read the book Outliers then factor in the concept of “playing the system’. He fails to do that adequately.
Now somebody do Inspector Renauld’s line…
IlikedAUH2O on September 10, 2010 at 10:08 AM
Don’t we all know the rules?
One accusation against a Congressional Black Caucus member is a concern.
Two or more accusations means the accuser is a racist.
albill on September 10, 2010 at 10:09 AM
This is interesting, apparently whether a scholarship is taxable depends on how the money is used. If you are seeking a degree, just make sure it goes toward your tuition even if that means other money (which is fungible after all) goes to the keg fund.
Sending the check to the school would seem to be a protection in this case, but the students and their parents are probably in the clear anyway. If the checks Eddie Bernice Johnson asked to be directed to the students went to them after Texas Christian University had received all of their tuition and other “course-related” funds (as opposed to money for room and board), there might be a problem for them. But it would be hard to prove the money didn’t, say, pay down a Visa account that had been used to buy textbooks, so the IRS can probably find better audit targets.
raybury on September 10, 2010 at 10:12 AM
Anyone else think that the next Congress should have the Ethics Committee perform an audit on the last 10 years of CBC scholarships?
I doubt that these two morons were using the only ones using the scholarship fund to benefit their relatives and those of their aides.
teke184 on September 10, 2010 at 10:13 AM
But it was for the children.
Tommy_G on September 10, 2010 at 10:13 AM
Ouch,
It needs to be cut down to 30 seconds and run on the local TV and radio.
cozmo on September 10, 2010 at 10:14 AM
Uh, yeah, my wife and I keep our finances completely separate and I feel no responsibility what-so-ever for a child that is hers but not mine.
cozmo on September 10, 2010 at 10:06 AM
Your personal sense of obligation is admirable. However, the fact that your relationship is structured such that you fund the education of your wife’s progeny without a court order or an order of filiation has no bearing on whether that money is obligated to come out of your pocket. It’s a voluntary choice on your part, much the same as money spent on a vacation or at the bar on a Friday night. If Bishop has no relation to the girl, any moneys he spends for her benefit is a discretionary expense and his own choice.
Jazz on September 10, 2010 at 10:14 AM
Man, you walked a mile to make a one inch point. ROFL
Bishop on September 10, 2010 at 10:07 AM
And rigorous accuracy hurts conservatives how?
Jazz on September 10, 2010 at 10:15 AM
But lefty pretzel logic works. John Conyers’ wife took 100K from a sludge company and he saidd their accounts are separate, he didn’t know.
a few thousand, I might believe. The kind of coin Monica was getting, no way.
ORconservative on September 10, 2010 at 10:17 AM
First off, I cannot believe the CBC Foundation only got around to instituting nepotism rules in 2008, since it’s inception in 1976, 34 years ago!
Second, if this is truly the case, then a much more thorough investigation is warranted before 2008 since there are public laws of some sort prohibiting Charities from doling out money to at least immediate family members at least when the members are part of the governing office of a charity. So, Sanford Bishop’s problem isn’t the only problem because Vivian Bishop was an Assistant Treasurer of the Foundation in 2003 and Chair of CBC Spouses in 2005.
Dusty on September 10, 2010 at 10:18 AM
countdown until CNN runs the story…..3…..2…..1…..
SDarchitect on September 10, 2010 at 10:20 AM
That’s the best one yet. Neopotism is fine unless there’s a rule against it. After all, what other reason could there be to get into politics. heh!
jeanie on September 10, 2010 at 10:20 AM
I’ll try to remember that as you pick apart the forest trying to find the individual trees.
Your concern about the unresolved nature of this man’s stepchild has been noted, will there be anything else?
Bishop on September 10, 2010 at 10:20 AM
That’s just the same logic you are using and how Bishop’s relationship would have to be structured in order for your idea that he saves no money using the funds for his step daughter. If that is how his relationship is, he would have let us know to cover his own rear.
He either ripped off qualified needy people, or he has no relationship with his acknowledged step daughter in order for her to qualify.
Given the two extremes, what are the chances that he saved no money?
cozmo on September 10, 2010 at 10:23 AM
Thank you. That jumped out at me, too. Sure, it’s possible that the scholarship tangentially helped Bishop’s bottom line, but there’s no way of knowing for sure. If I were Ed, I’d strike that passage from the post.
KGB on September 10, 2010 at 10:27 AM
Your concern about the unresolved nature of this man’s stepchild has been noted, will there be anything else?
Actually, my concern is that people who speak for conservatives don’t commit unforced errors. A single error of a few cents on a single balance sheet makes no nevermind. Repeated several times and compounded with interest over time, and the integrity of an entire system of bookkeeping gets called into question. Keeping small items in check prevents larger errors.
Jazz on September 10, 2010 at 10:27 AM
Jazz, you have a small point that the research could have been done.
However, as others have mentioned, I think that you miss the fungibility of the monetary resources.
If he can swing money so that his wife doesn’t have to pay his daughter’s tuition, that is money that his wife (and, unless their accounts are completely separate, he) saves for other purposes.
BTW, I assume these scholarships are for secondary school, and not college? If so, the stepdaughter in question is, legally, an adult, and neither parent has an obligation to pay for the education, correct?
Scott H on September 10, 2010 at 10:28 AM
You’ve spent a lot of time worrying about this, perhaps you should put it to better use and volunteer at an old folks home or something. Seriously, so much angst over a single sentence on a blog.
Bishop on September 10, 2010 at 10:30 AM
But that’s just it. No one can assume that the daughter herself had committed to paying for her own education. If that were the case, the scholarship received would have no bearing on Bishop’s finances.
KGB on September 10, 2010 at 10:31 AM
Waiting for the inevitable ‘this is racist’ charges from the CBC…
redfoxbluestate on September 10, 2010 at 10:32 AM
That’s just the same logic you are using and how Bishop’s relationship would have to be structured in order for your idea that he saves no money using the funds for his step daughter.
I didn’t say that he saved no money. What I said is that the fact that unless Ed has facts that Bishop is paying her education, it’s specious and intellectually lazy to assume that he’s saving money on account of scholarship money given to his step-daughter.
Jazz on September 10, 2010 at 10:34 AM
THIS is my question. Do they even care or do dey jes bees writin a check?
sicoit on September 10, 2010 at 10:36 AM
KGB: I guess my point is that Jazz has stated that only under the auspices of adoption would the Congressman be responsible for her education. I cannot think of any circumstance where someone is financially responsible for another person’s postsecondary education.
The follow-up is that, of course, many if not most college students receive financial assistance in some form (whether directly through tuition or paying for an apartment, or indirectly through giving them a place to live). Considering the fungibility of the money involved, it would be very difficult to say that the Congressman did not benefit in some way, financially, from this reward.
And, naturally, none of this even touches the core issue of nepotism.
Scott H on September 10, 2010 at 10:37 AM
I never read that
Robbing banks was illegal…
But I don’t read much…
Haiku Guy on September 10, 2010 at 10:37 AM
However, as others have mentioned, I think that you miss the fungibility of the monetary resources.
If he can swing money so that his wife doesn’t have to pay his daughter’s tuition, that is money that his wife (and, unless their accounts are completely separate, he) saves for other purposes.
Scott H on September 10, 2010 at 10:28 AM
I didn’t miss anything. I completely understand how blended households work. My concern is about making allegations that can’t be substantiated without more knowledge.
Jazz on September 10, 2010 at 10:37 AM
Jazz: I don’t think it’s intellectually lazy in the least. First, Ed stated that it’s ‘one step removed’. And, again, considering the fungibility issue, it is almost exactly that.
Ed could have been clearer, but I would need a worse example than this to bring it to Ed’s attention.
Scott H on September 10, 2010 at 10:38 AM
Jazz, if you cannot see how fungibility is the key to this point (and you have not yet seen this, considering how you think that this is not sufficient substantiation), I am not sure what else can be said here.
Scott H on September 10, 2010 at 10:39 AM
Normally, a parent paying child support only does so until the child is 18. Rarely do the courts require them to pay for college. In fact, I know of no one who is divorced whose ex has to pay beyond the age of 18.
ladyingray on September 10, 2010 at 10:40 AM
Wow. My stepmother would be hurt to know I have no “relation” to her.
ladyingray on September 10, 2010 at 10:42 AM
All of this corruption aside…..I’m sure there are still people out there, so stuck on stupid, they actually STILL believe Democrats are looking out for the little guy! *sigh*
capejasmine on September 10, 2010 at 10:45 AM
If you’re having trouble opening the link, try copying the address and pasting directly to your browser.
Stephen Broden’s response to Eddie Bernice Johnson:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXnmZvmcGTk
parteagirl on September 10, 2010 at 10:45 AM
Jazz, let’s go through the steps here.
1. The person received a scholarship. Can we assume that this means that she did not, personally, have the funds to go to college without this scholarship?
2. If you grant 1., then if the scholarship had not been awarded, and this person had still wanted to attend college, some other agency would have had to fund the college.
3. Generally speaking, the parents of a person are the first resort for someone who wants to go to college, and yet cannot afford to do so personally, for funding.
4. If this is for college (and I have seen nothing to dispute this), neither parents nor stepparents are under any financial obligation to pay for this.
5. Granting 4., most parents will pay for their children’s (or stepchildren’s) college if it is found necessary and they are able.
6. If either the mother or stepfather were willing to spend any of their money on their child’s college, then a scholarship saves these people money.
Jazz, can you point to which of these statements you disagree with?
Scott H on September 10, 2010 at 10:46 AM
Let’s hope that after this scandal, the foolish organizations intimidated into paying tribute to the CBC can turn them down and get away with it without too much damage.
slickwillie2001 on September 10, 2010 at 10:51 AM
No one in the CBC was on the plantation but they have no problem keeping others on it.They act like taskmasters.
docflash on September 10, 2010 at 10:55 AM
OK…Broden (Eddie Bernice Johnson’s (R) opponent) won Ten Buck Friday…
$10.00. That’s all…DONATE DONATE DONATE! People are flying in from all over the state to help. Go here http://www.rightklik.net/
I gave $11.02 earlier this week and just did the $10.00 TBF donation. We have a chance ya’ll, but we need your help!
Yellowdog12 on September 10, 2010 at 10:55 AM
The rich and powerful always feel ‘entitled’.
When they hand out goodies as ‘entitlements’ they feel ‘entitled’ to hand them out to you as they are rich and powerful. And when the fig-leaf of government is used, the goal is to make one dependent upon those handing out the ‘entitlement’.
In this case they feel that their own progeny are more ‘entitled’ by being their progeny than the poor who have no title to anything. Charity is done from the heart, the heartless cannot run a charity as they only seek to remove power and concentrate it, not disperse good works and uplift others. They speak of doing good for the poor, but their own come far, far before the poor who are told to be satisfied with their leavings after it has been picked over by their own, first. Thusly it is power and entitlement first, caring for their own second, and telling their lessers that they should be glad something is doled out to them for which they should praise their betters for letting them have any ‘entitlement’ they decide to leave behind in their offal.
ajacksonian on September 10, 2010 at 10:59 AM
Bishop on September 10, 2010 at 10:30 AM
LOL. Yep. His deeply heart-felt concern is underwhelming
kingsjester on September 10, 2010 at 11:00 AM
Here’s a clue: go look up the concept of fungibility of money.
Vashta.Nerada on September 10, 2010 at 11:00 AM
The Stench of CBC Corruption now wafts around:
Rangel
Waters
Johnson
Bishop
The swamp is overflowing Nancy…..better call FEMA!!
Tim_CA on September 10, 2010 at 11:08 AM
There isn’t even a step. He got himself some money from the fund to pay for his daughter’s tuition. Especially if the daughter was a minor.
This man is a crook.
petunia on September 10, 2010 at 11:10 AM
Not unprecedented nor is it unexpected. Wonder what other slimy disgusting things we’re going to find under that rock.
Oldnuke on September 10, 2010 at 11:24 AM
Kudos, Ed, on the reprint!
shibumiglass on September 10, 2010 at 11:25 AM
I bet if you check all financial endeavors of the CBC, you’d find them in the same shape Al Sharpton’s organization is in.
Theres something about that shakedown money.
OxyCon on September 10, 2010 at 11:27 AM
Here’s a clue: go look up the concept of fungibility of money.
[Vashta.Nerada on September 10, 2010 at 11:00 AM]
Do you mean like Husband A gives $$$$ to Charity X, of which he gets a income tax deduction and of which Wife A is an Assistant Treasurer, then Husband A’s Congressional office awards college scholarship money to Wife A’s daughter reducing Wife A’s cost of sending her daughter to college, that Husband A reduces the amount of money he has to give Wife A for groceries?
Or do you mean no money changes hands and they keep the money like totally separate but she pays more restaurant tabs and he can splurge and order the surf and turf?
Or, heck, maybe she makes like 5x’s what he makes and he doesn’t benefit at all!
Dusty on September 10, 2010 at 11:30 AM
typical leftism. If it ain’t illegal, it ain’t wrong. No such thing as a moral compass, because if the all mighty legal system doesn’t deny the CBC the right to do something….then it is de facto authorization to do so….
amoral. compasses.
ted c on September 10, 2010 at 11:33 AM
Heh. Unless they calculate and pay seperately their house note, utilities, and insurance, as well as paying and tipping independently whenever they eat together at a restaurant, I’d say the guy received a benefit.
Vashta.Nerada on September 10, 2010 at 11:38 AM
Thank the Lord for the CBC scholarship, then.
I’d hate to be the guy that looks his wife and step daughter in the eyes and tells them. “I have decided that since I have no legal obligation to do so, this girl not being my kid and all, I will not use my discretionary income on her education. But, rest assured, you can feel free to use your own personal money that you have earned yourself, dearest wife.”
Lily on September 10, 2010 at 11:49 AM
I was talking to a black co-worker about the Johnson and Bishop scandals. Her spin? Why, white people have been taking care of their own for centuries and now black folks get to have their turn. I asked her if she thought this was morally right. Doesn’t matter, she said. It’s a simply a case of equal justice – you get yours and now I get mine. Wow.
Kalifornia Kafir on September 10, 2010 at 11:52 AM
Well, by Obama standards, Bishop is nearly “rich”. $165k a year should surely be able to pay for that child’s education. If not, how in the hell do they expect folks making 40k to do it?
Disgusting thieves.
ButterflyDragon on September 10, 2010 at 11:56 AM
Kalifornia Kafir@11:52
Exactly right.You should have asked your co-worker what the CBC has done for HER children.When the race baiters talk about benefits to the black community,what they mean is benefits to themselves,the community be damned.
DDT on September 10, 2010 at 12:28 PM
And, I’m sure, wealthy. Don’t forget wealthy.
Sponge on September 10, 2010 at 12:33 PM
[Vashta.Nerada on September 10, 2010 at 11:38 AM]
I would, too. I’m a little bothered by concentrating on this aspect only, however, and moreso what Ed only alludes to. In 2005, Sanford bishop gave an amount below $5k for the CBC Spouses Education Scholarship Program of which his wife benefited, not to mention an amount under $9 for general purposes. Further his wife Vivian was Chair of the CBC Spouses in 2003 & 2005, and also being, as best I can tell, an Assistant Treasurer of the CBCF in 2003. Note that the Scholarship program is the CBC Spouses Scholarship Program.
There are Federal laws prohibiting persons of substantial influence in a non-profit from receiving any part of the net earnings from one.
Here’s the IRS’ exemption requirements.
Here’s their sanctions page.
Here’s their definition of disqualified person iow, Vivian Bishop), which also includes those who contribute, iow, Sanford Bishop.
Here’s their categorization of Substantial Influence page
What Sanford and Vivian did is easily a violation of Federal law regardless of CBCF by-laws against nepotism.
Dusty on September 10, 2010 at 12:41 PM
Which is why democrats want all charity to go through the government. That way they have a chance to get their hands on it.
Not unlike Judas wanting more charitable donations to Jesus because he kept the bag and was stealing from it.
There Goes The Neighborhood on September 10, 2010 at 1:17 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »