Rep. Tim Bishop, D-Southampton, is firing back at a Politico.com report that claims the five-term congressman's re-election campaign tried to shake down a wealthy Southampton resident in exchange for a favor.
In the story, Politico said Eric Semler, a hedge fund manager, needed help getting a fireworks permit as part of his son's Bar Mitzvah party in late May. With the celebration date fast approaching, he turned to Bishop for help. Bishop's daughter and fundraiser, Molly Bishop, then emailed Semler looking for a campaign contribution, according to the report.
But Bishop said Semler's request and any solicitations from his campaign were in no way connected.
Bishop told Politico, "When we fast-track a passport request, and when people get back from Europe and send me $100 in gratitude, is that coercion? No.”
In the story, Semler also defended Bishop, saying "Tim never said anything to me about a donation. I didn’t know he was running for re-election. After the fact, after I got the permit, I did receive a request for a donation. He didn’t tell me, one of his campaign people told me, that he was in a hot race and needed a lot of support. I would love to support a guy like that.”
But Bishop's challenger, Republican Randy Altschuler, of St. James, seized on the controversy.
"In reading Congressman Bishop’s defense, it’s stunningly clear that after 10 years in Congress he doesn’t even understand House Ethics rules, which clearly state that soliciting campaign contributions of any size linked with official action is strictly prohibited, especially when the request for official action is pending or has occurred," said Diana Weir, Altschuler's campaign manager, in a statement released Wednesday afternoon.
Weir called Molly Bishop's solicitation "inappropriate and unethical" and suggested that it may even be criminal.
Bishop in turn sent out a statement Wednesday evening rebuking the Altschuler campaign.
“I am deeply troubled by Randy Altschuler, senior executives in the Grucci fireworks company, Diana Weir, a former Felix Grucci political operative, teaming up to make outrageous, unfounded attacks on my character and my family," Bishop stated. "Given their history of making unfounded personal attacks on me, these new reckless accusations of criminal activity should not be a surprise."
Bishop was first elected to Congress in 2002 when he defeated one-term Rep. Felix Grucci.
His campaign noted that "out of an abundance of caution," Bishop donated the Semlers' campaign contributions to charities that benefit veterans, Long Island 9-1-1 Veterans, Honor Flight Long Island, and U.S. Veterans Motorcycle Club Long Island Chapter.
Do you think the request for a donation was fair game? Let us know in the comments.
Coercion? No, but still a clear and obvious violation of House Ethics rules in that it ties a payment to an official act - a fact that seems to elude Congressman Bishop. Whether it's $100 or $10,000 makes no difference, it's a violation. It's like the old joke about the woman who accepts a $1million offer for sex and is then outraged when the offer is changed to $50. "What kind of girl do you think I am?" she protests, to which the man replies "I thought we'd already established that... now we're just haggling over price." Well Mr. Bishop, I think you're $100 analogy just established what kind of congressman you are.
Quote: "Bishop told Politico, "When we fast-track a passport request, and when people get back from Europe and send me $100 in gratitude, is that coercion? No.” Coercion? No, but still a clear and obvious violation of House Ethics rules in that it ties a payment to an official act - a fact that seems to elude Congressman Bishop. Whether it's $100 or $10,000 makes no difference, it's a violation." You are misreading the rules. According to your interpretation, a congressman would be prohibited from accepting a donation from anyone for whom he had every performed constituent service. Furthermore, in every "crime", the element of "mens rea" (evil intent) as well as the evil act ("actus reus") must be present for the behavior to be criminal. Since Tim Bishop did not perceive the donation as a quid-pro-quo for his service, he is not culpable, just as he is not culpable of an ethics violation for accepting a $100 donation from someone for whom he expedited a passport. Congressmen live and die on the basis of constituent service (Thank god!) Your senator could not be less approachable if he lived on the moon but your rep will actually DO things for you if you present a cogent request that is feasible. Unfortunately, among the thousands of requests from honorable constituents that a congressman processes, there will be an occasional devious stinker.
And I believe you're the one misreading the rules; firstly, strict liability laws do not require mens rea to apply, and attendant circumstances often replace traditional mens rea culpability. But even so, you can't just "perceive" the rules however you want to.
The reason for a constituent's donation (e.g. "gratitude") says nothing about a congressman's reason for performing constituent service. If he didn't act in expectation of a payoff, he's not culpable. Are you seriously asserting that the Ethics Committee rules are strict liability? I don't read any language therein to suggest that.
Would any of us be having fun if I did?
It is Republican critics who assert the falsehood that he ad claimed that Romney killed the steelworker's wife. What the ad SAYS is that the steelworker's debased living conditions are the result of Bain Capital putting GST steel into bankruptcy (after extracting $$100M in profit) which is FACT. On the other hand, the steelworker asserts as a matter of BELIEF that Romney didn't care which is not subject to but which "I" also believe. As for Obama's transcripts, "I" certainly never thought that the reason for demanding their release was that they would show Obama to be a foreign student. Rather, the reason is the belief that they will show that he manipulated his status as a minority and as a nominal foreign student (i.e. two foreign fathers) to gain admission to colleges for which he did not qualify academically and to obtain financial aid.
If the House Ethics Manual states that “a Member may not accept any contribution that is linked with an action that the Member has taken or is being asked to take.” then his "expectation" (or claimed expectation) doesn't matter - by his own words in his passport example he's linking the money as "gratitude" for an action he took... and he should know better. Apparently he doesn't.
Help Tim Bishop this fall, fire his ass.
You are opposed to unions because you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about them. If you had paid attention in your history class you would know the history of unions and why they were and still are needed. You are on here a lot making a fool of yourself with your uninformed opinions and mis statements. You need a little more education and a little less enthusiasm for your chosen political party. You make statements that you obviously, heard somewhere, (FOX) and cannot cite a reliable source to back up your statements. You might want to have a little more respect for the other commenters here and a little less name calling.
We don't need term limits. We need INFORMED voters who pay attention to what their elected officials are doing to and how they vote on issues of importance; and STOP voting because of name recognition, the lies they tell us and T V ads. Term limits are for the lazy and the reason you think that they are needed is because lazy people keep voting the same corrupt politicians into office for DECADES.
As I posted before to Annmarie, we do NOT need term limits. We need intelligent, informed voters who pay attention to what their politicians are doing. Term limits are for the LAZY and are not a solution to the problem of corrupt politicians. Voters need to educate themselves and STOP voting for the same corrupt politicians for DECADES because of their party affiliation or name recognition. Don't' try to hand off your responsibility for the outcome of elections by imposing term limits.
A good news story should address both the accusation with supporting evidence and the defense in order not to be biased.
If the politician is corrupt DON'T VOTE FOR HIM. Problem solved. Also a little less disparaging name calling from you guys would be a good thing too.
If you kept up with what your politicians were doing, and believe me there is plenty of information out there for those who want to know, these things would not come as a surprise to you. You are all so busy looking for faults in the other party guys that you neglect to see what your own party is up to. This goes for BOTH parties. PAY ATTENTION PEOPLE, if you knew what the politicians were really up to you would have reason for REAL outrage, and it would also scare the crap out of you. This is why our government is so hot to get it's hands on Julian Assange. They need to make an example out of him so that they can keep their crimes hidden. But the fact is that Americans just don't want to know or are too lazy to find out. THAT's the REAL ethics violation.
You should be ashamed of yourself for making remarks like that. You do it because you have no valid claims to make against the President or any workable plan that the Republicans have because they don't have one. Your name calling is infantile and ignorant.
And the reason for the terms are: House - 2 years: supposed to be a dynamic body that is responsive to national trends and representative of the citizens Senate - 6 years: supposed to be a slower-moving, more deliberative body that is less responsive to trends in order to think ahead better and be representative of the state
I agree that the whole reason "America is dying" is due to voter apathy. Certainly voter apathy has allowed a "two-party" system to take hold and allowed it to exclude other parties through the imposition of tough and expensive rules for getting on the ballot in the various states. Citizens' apathy has allowed media to be slowly morphed into extensions of the two parties. Was there ever an in-depth expose` on the true reasons for starting the Iraq war? Or have there been warnings blasted over the pending Trans-Pacific Pact - NAFTA for Asia? Or any indignation raised over the Patriot Act or FISA? Where is the editorial complaint over the degradation travelers experience every day at our airports? Why haven't travelers opposed such degradation en-mass? I was excited to see young people work so hard to support Ron Paul - they were getting INVOLVED! The "party" and the media made sure that Dr. Paul was "ignored" despite the amazing story that was there to be written. It is hard not to give up in the face of such control. BUT, it won't change until voters rise up and make themselves heard by voting their conscience, not their party. It may be too late.....