The Center for American Progress has researched the many DeVos political action committees and discovered that they have given campaign cash to 10 of the 12 Republicans on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. This is the Committee that will pass judgment on her fitness to be US Secretary of a Education.
“A number of media outlets and researchers have described the hundreds of millions of dollars the DeVos family has poured into right-wing causes for many years. A few have noted their pattern of giving to members of the Senate. But none have revealed a complete and up-to-date tally of her financial sway over the Senate that will consider her nomination.
“DeVos has taken this pay-for-play approach before. Just consider the impact she had in her home state of Michigan last year. As a reward for passing a no-accountability charter school law in the state, the DeVos family once gave state Republicans $1.45 million in a seven-week period. That’s about an average of $25,000 a day. “A filthy, moneyed kiss” is how the Detroit Free Press’ editorial page editor described the lobbying effort.”
The Senate hearings should be a love fest, with senators scrambling to praise her long experience as a friend of private and religious schools and lobbyist for vouchers.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I hope this information gets into the hands and minds of staffers and Democratic members of the HELP committee so there is at least some question about ethics, hers and members who have received big money from her and are voting for her.
LikeLike
After witnessing Congress’s reaction to Mr. Trump’s ethics challenges I am not at all confident that an argument against ethics will carry the day against anyone. By failing to launch a full throated protest against Mr. Trump’s unethical conduct Congress has shown its true colors. And if anyone believes the Democrats have a corner on ethics, I offer the vote on Bernie Sanders amendment on lowering pharmaceutical costs as Exhibit A: thirteen Democrats who received over $3,000,000 in campaign contributions from Big Pharma since 2011 opposed the amendment. We are now witnessing why it is important to get money out of politics. MAYBE that will make it possible to get ethics back in.
LikeLike
All of this on the ASSUMPTION that she knew that a) trump would win, and b) she would be asked by trump, and c) ALL 52 Republican senators will vote for her.
Now there’s a gamble
LikeLike
No, Rudy, that assumption doesn’t hold. They are not saying that she gave the senators those “donations” for the specific act of voting for her nomination. In no way shape or form is that the case.
What is being shown is that 10 of 12 members should recuse themselves from the confirmation vote, hell they can stay on the committee and ask all the softball questions they want but should not vote on her. Quid pro quo or not it certainly is the appearance of such which is the problem and the fact that that quid pro quo can never be confirmed is why the appearance of it is so problematic.
None of those after the thought things you cite are a part of the equation-they are after the fact. Those “assumptions” can only be made after she was appointed because without the appointment we probably wouldn’t even know about those “donations”.
LikeLike
Duane, the “pay to play” term means “you give me money and I will give you..,” or “if you want something, you need to give me…”
I live next door to a state that just sent a governor to jail for just that! “You give me money, and I will give you Obama’s senate seat…”
There are so many variables in the Devos situation that the use of that term is purposely misleading.
Should the senators recuse themselves? If this is “common practice” and was done when previous administrations were in similar situations, you have a good reason to demand.
But I don’t know if there is an healthy situation, comparable to the current one.
I know that FDR was really good in getting friends into government / cabinet positions, many of whom were wealthy too.
I know Grant was good in finding jobs for relatives, and JFK did the same for some of his friends and relatives.
A really smart man said, centuries ago, that “there is nothing new under the sun.”
LikeLike
Rudy,
Trump and DeVos are saints to you. Not me.
There has NEVER. Been a cabinet so loaded with billionaires, never in our history.
Do you think that billionaires care about you? Do they empathize with working folks?
LikeLike
Do you know how difficult it is for me to write this response?
Where I the world do you get the insane idea that trump and Devos are saints to me??
You used a term that insinuates pre-planning by both trump and Devos.
I am familiar with the “pay to play” idea. Illinois, and Chicago/Springfield specifically, wrote the rule book on that. And it did not matter what flavor of the isle. Three of the last four governors went to prison because of that. And I would not be surprised if the last governor will join them.
Stick to facts, ma’am. Those are scary enough without embellishment.
By the way, I would appreciate it if you would play by your own rules. I won’t insult you. I don’t like being insulted in my own home. However, I don’t insult my guests either, no matter how much of a different opinion they have.
LikeLike
Rudy,
Your constant naysaying is extremely irritating. I think you comment here just to be annoying. It is hard to take you seriously when you are constantly negative. Yes, this is my blog, not yours. I can say whatever I want. You can’t. If you start your own blog, you can control the content.
LikeLike
I have absolutely no problem with wealthy people serving in government. It should not and must not be a barrier. Two icons of democratic politicians, Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy were extremely wealthy. Should there be a limit on a person’s net worth, before they can serve in government?
LikeLike
Of course, rich people should serve in government. But they should remove all financial conflicts of interest. They must disclose their finances to protect against self-dealing and corruption. That is true of everyone in office, whether rich or not.
LikeLike
Politifact had been quoted as a reliable source of information…
True Giuliani
Financial conflict-of-interest “laws don’t apply to the president, right? So, the president doesn’t have to have a blind trust.”
— Rudy Giuliani on Sunday, November 13th, 2016 in CNN’s “State of the Union”
Giuliani: President Trump will be exempt from conflict-of-interest laws
By Lauren Carroll on Wednesday, November 16th, 2016 at 11:00 a.m.
CNN’s Jake Tapper interviews former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani about President-elect Donald Trump’s transition into the White House, Nov. 13, 2016. (CNN)
How President-elect Donald Trump will handle his extensive businesses and financial holdings — and the potential conflict of interest that comes with them — when he gets into the Oval Office remains an open question.
Trump has said his children will manage his business dealings. Many presidents in the past have put their assets in a blind trust, which is when an independent trustee manages another person’s assets without the person’s input.
But Trump doesn’t actually have to do any of this because the financial conflict-of-interest laws don’t apply to him as president, said former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who is reportedly on the short list for a seat on Trump’s cabinet.
“Well, first of all, you realize that those laws don’t apply to the president, right?” Giuliani told CNN’s Jake Tapper Nov. 13. “So, the president doesn’t have to have a blind trust. For some reason, when the law was written, the president was exempt.”
Giuliani has the law pretty much right. Trump, as president, has no legal obligation to detach himself from his businesses and financial interests.
The law at issue is Title 18 Section 208 of the U.S. code. It says federal executive branch employees can’t participate in government matters in which they or their immediate family has a financial interest.
Because of this law, some federal employees put their investments in a blind trust. This allows them to sidestep the regulation and participate in a matter that might otherwise pose a conflict of interest.
But the president and the vice president, despite being executive branch employees, are exempt. According to the law’s definitions, Title 18 Section 208 does not apply to them, nor does it apply to members of Congress or federal judges.
“It appears that presidents have mostly escaped the normal web of ethics and conflict-of-interest laws,” said Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan government accountability watchdog.
Amey added that presidents are allowed to accept gifts in many cases, too.
It’s been this way since at least 1974, when the Justice Department issued a letter saying Title 18 Section 208 did not apply to the president. Congress expressly codified the exemptions in 1989.
In the 1974 letter, the Justice Department said the legislative history of this conflict-of-interest provision indicated that it was never intended to apply to the president. Additionally, the Justice Department said placing conflict-of-interest laws on the president could constrain him in a potentially unconstitutional manner, though it did not give specific examples.
“As the head of the executive branch, the president may not be able to — and arguably under the Constitution it might not be possible to require the president to — recuse from government decisions,” said Richard Briffault, a professor of legislation at Columbia Law School.
While Title 18 Section 208 is the primary conflict-of-interest provision, there are other relevant rules, including a couple that don’t exempt the president.
Trump and Vice President Mike Pence will have to disclose their finances, which is required of all high-level federal employees, Briffault said. But the disclosures are not as detailed as federal tax returns, which Trump has not released.
Then there’s the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, which bans U.S. government employees from accepting presents or compensation from foreign governments, noted Kathleen Clark, an expert on legal ethics and a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis.
The Trump Organization has numerous foreign ties, including several overseas real estate deals with possible foreign government connections. In 2012, for example, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan attended a ribbon cutting ceremony for Trump Towers Mall in Istanbul.
“If any of Trump’s business arrangements involve the receipt of payments from foreign governments, I believe that he, or his entities from which he receives money, would have to forgo those payments, or he would have to detach from those entities,” Clark said.
But it’s not fully clear that presidents are bound by the Emoluments Clause, and no court has weighed into answer this question.
The way the clause is constructred — that it doesn’t specify the president, unlike other provisions in the Constitution, for example — and the fact that President George Washington himself took gifts from the French government without asking Congress for permission, together make a good case that it doesn’t apply to presidents, said Seth Barrett Tillman, a professor at Maynooth University in Ireland who has studied the clause.
Our ruling
Giuliani said financial conflict-of-interest “laws don’t apply to the president, right? So, the president doesn’t have to have a blind trust.”
The president is, in fact, exempt from the primary conflict-of-interest provision in the U.S. code. So presidents do not have any legal obligation to put their financial holdings in a blind trust or to detach themselves from their financial interests in any way.
As president, Trump will have to comply with financial disclosure requirements, however, and it’s possible he is constrained by a clause in the Constitution regarding income from foreign governments.
We rate Giuliani’s claim True.
Update Jan. 12, 2017: We have updated this story to add more information about the Emoluments Clause. Our rating remains unchanged.
Share the Facts
Politifact Rating:
True
Financial conflict-of-interest “laws don’t apply to the president, right? So, the president doesn’t have to have a blind trust.”
Rudy Giuliani
Former New York Mayor
In CNN’s State of
LikeLike
agreed
LikeLike
That agreed was to Duane not Rudy .
LikeLike
Rudy — in a (failed) attempt to make Duane look silly or wrong, you are deliberately and needlessly adopting an extremely narrow definition of “pay to play.” It CAN, and often does, refer to specific money or services given, in an effort to drive a “specific” result. But it can, and often does, also simply refer to the wholesale sprinkling around of vast quantities of money or other value on the general “playing field,” with the hope of influencing — or of being included, at some point, in — the game.
I generally find that when I get all tight fisted and niggling about an argument — and start drilling down (with little or no point) on minor details — it is because I am trying to defend a weak or indefensible point.
LikeLike
What made you think I was trying to make Duane look silly or wrong???
Move close to Illinois, and you get an earful of this expression and the way it is most often used.
My issue is with insinuations.
LikeLike
Jem
To your point .
“While there were big money beneficiaries of these trade deals, most of the politicians who supported them probably did not need to be bought with campaign contributions. Instead, they likely supported these deals because they thought they were the right thing to do. After all, they mostly associate with people who benefit from these trade deals, either through higher corporate profits or from being able to buy cheaper cars and clothes. Politicians are less likely to associate with the auto workers or textile workers who were losing jobs or retail clerks getting lower pay.
In most cases, it probably never even occurred to the politicians voting for the pacts that there was a serious downside. Politicians are people who get elected by making friends and raising money, not by being policy wonks or political philosophers. Being an expert on the issues that Congress or the president addresses is not part of the job description.
Furthermore, even if they looked beyond their friends they could find media outlets like The Washington Post touting the virtues of “free trade.” Never mind that these deals did nothing to reduce the barriers that protected highly paid professionals like doctors or lawyers or that they actually increased patent protection on drugs and other products. Since these forms of protectionism benefited the wealthy, the deals could still be called “free trade” pacts.” D.B.
That is the way influence works, the auto worker seldom gets a voice at the Table . The money that labor has to offer politicians pales in comparison to the money from the Oligarchy and can not be spread around . The vast sums of cash poured into local races assures not only anti labor pro-privatization schemes in Public Schools and other services. It assures that gerrymandering will occur that shifts power on the State and National level as well .
Which then leads to the specter of the coup in NC .Even when a state wide race is won it is difficult to spread enough money to local races that for many years have been targeted by right wing money. Rendering a new governor powerless. Powerless to alter the gerrymandering that renders a president powerless .
All of this leads to Democrats chasing dollars as well . They drop their pro worker, pro labor stances, adopting a neo-liberal ideology
They make their appeal for cash on the basis of social issues they may share in common with the movers and shakers in corporate America and the Oligarchy. Then they adopt neo liberal Ideology on education on trade …. …
Yesterday 12 or 13 Democrats joined with Republicans to kill a Sanders amendment that would have allowed Americans to order their drugs from Canada where the price is significantly lower.
Who is Chief among the recipients of money from Big Pharma .
Of course Booker , Menendez, Warner .
My congressmen was Steve Israel former head of the DCCC. Was there a coincidence that he refused to take a stand on TPP this fall? Did it have anything to do with the fact that TPP was very favorable to increased drug patents/ profits? Did I mention his largest donors were major Pharma?
Steve now that you left congress lets see where you land.!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
If I may reiterate what I meant in saying that your assumptions are not valid.
At the time that DeVos gave the contributions (of which she is quoted as saying that she and her husband expect something in return for their monies given) there was no way in hell for her to assume a, b, or c. That could not have occurred. So as it it your assumptions are just that unfounded assumptions that can never be verified. DeVos was not “gambling” on a, b & c to come true so your argument is, well at least to me, specious-has no validity of rhetorical value.
In essence, you are applying impossible and specious assumptions to critique the posting. And that is a very weak point from which to argue.
Or to put it in more mundane Show Me State terms. It is arguing that horse manure tastes great and is less filling because it is called road apples-in other words nonsense.
LikeLike
I see where we have the disturbance.
My reaction was against the term “pay to play.”
In the way that term has been used “next door” over the last 12-15 years has been with an expectation.
“There is a contract, a job, an opportunity open, and if you want part or all of that, grease my palm.”
When that expression was applied to Devos, it makes it sound as if she already knew she would get a position in return for monies donated.
The expression insinuated something impossible.
In Illinois it is a “sure thing.” Rod B., the last governor locked up, was almost running an auction from the sounds of it for Obama’s senate seat.
“Pay to play” was a daily heard expression.
LikeLiked by 1 person
DeVos paid in advance to assure that the Senate Republicans would be avid advocates for her ideas. It was a bonus that the same people she funded will be voting on her nomination.
LikeLike
Good ol Ill Annoy, eh!
LikeLike
Wait, what? You might want to listen to Duane, below.
LikeLike
“money talks, says strange things” -JJ Cale
LikeLike
Of course, the members of this committee were not guaranteed until after the election and swearing in in of the new members.
The win of the senate by republicans was unexpected by most prognosticators.
It’s almost like there is this huge conspiracy to get Devos and others in power, rather than a 1.7 % of the vote, total, in three states!
I guess it’s such a low number because we really don’t want people to know it IS a conspiracy…
LikeLike
So I am reading this book, (“The death and life of the great American school system) and I see the name of Lamar Alexander as secretary of education, his deputy David Kearns. And that got me to wonder. How much did these men know about education? What experience did they have?
Other than having been resident of a university for a short time – none.
And dr Ravitch worked for him.
So that made me wonder: was dr Ravitch of a different mindset about the secretary of education needing to have experience before being appointed to that job???
Was it her experience with secretary Alexander that made her realize that an inexperienced person should not be appointed to such a position?
I’ll keep reading
LikeLike
Rudy,
Lamar Alexander had been governor of Tennessee and President of the University of Tennessee. As governor of Tennessee, he worked on legislation related to schools. He was very involved in education issues.
Clinton’s Secretary of Education was Richard Riley, who had been governor of South Carolina.
If you are reading my book, you may have noticed that southern governors were very involved in efforts to improve their public schools.
Betsy DeVos has no experience as an elected official or an educator. She is a lobbyist for privatization.
LikeLike
I can’t tell you the rules for the Senate, but as a School Board member, I can tell you that when we are faced with an issue of which we must recuse ourselves, we are also not to ask questions about the issue at hand, because we could taint and direct the discussion or impressions of the other members of the Board who will be voting.
LikeLike
“Education is a closed system. It’s a monopoly. A dead end,” DeVos said last year at the South by Southwest education conference in Austin, Texas. She underscored the need to overcome the political class that keeps America bound to a “ridiculously antiquated” mechanism for educating children, especially children of limited means.
I hope DeVos speaks to the public the same way she speaks to groups of ed reformers.
She’s spent the last 30 years in the narrow echo chamber of the “movement”. Maybe she doesn’t know that revealing opposition to public schools isn’t politically savvy. I hope so. It’s really past time we had an honest debate on ed reform privatization plans.
I welcome full bore privatization and anti-public school laws. It’s time this was aired and debated. If we lose, we lose. Let’s get on with it and drop the phony mumbling about “great schools”.
LikeLike
And Betsy’s conflicts of interest are….I’ll get back to you on that. “See how Betsy DeVos responded to Senate questionnaire on conflicts of interest, lobbying”
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/01/see_how_betsy_devos_responded.html
LikeLike
If you really want to see the money they have sprinkled around just look here. (please note there are a few Devos’s that are not affiliated, but they kind of stick out)
https://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?&name=devos&employ=&cand=&state=&cycle=All&soft=&zip=&sort=D&page=1
Also keep in mind this doesn’t include all the Dark Money.
LikeLike