Shouldn’t John McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, be forced to repay Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac…?

Posted on November 22nd, 2011 by admin1 in republican political consulting

Read all about in last weeks NEWSWEEK… here is the link to the site and the story: http://www.newsweek.com/id/160561

…and, a synopsis of their story:

Since 2006, the federally sponsored mortgage giant Freddie Mac has paid at least $345,000 to the lobbying and consulting firm of John McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, according to two sources familiar with the arrangement.

Freddie Mac had previously paid an advocacy group run by Davis, called the Homeownership Alliance, $30,000 a month until the end of 2005, when that group was dissolved. That relationship was the subject of a New York Times story Monday, which drew angry denunciations from the McCain campaign. McCain and his aides have vehemently objected to suggestions that Davis has ties to Freddie Mac—an especially sensitive issue given that the Republican presidential candidate has blamed "the lobbyists, politicians and bureaucrats" for the mortgage crisis that recently prompted the Bush administration to take over both Freddie Mac and its companion, Fannie Mae, and put them under federal conservatorship.

But neither the Times story—nor the McCain campaign—revealed that Davis’s lobbying firm, Davis Manafort, based in Washington, D.C., continued to receive $15,000 a month from Freddie Mac until last month—long after the Homeownership Alliance had been terminated.

The two sources, who requested anonymity discussing sensitive information, told NEWSWEEK that Davis himself approached Freddie Mac in 2006 and asked for a new consulting arrangement that would allow his firm to continue to be paid. The arrangement was approved by Hollis McLoughlin, Freddie Mac’s senior vice president for external relations, because "he [Davis] was John McCain’s campaign manager and it was felt you couldn’t say no," said one of the sources. [McLoughlin did not return phone calls].

When asked about his own campaign manager’s associations with the mortgage giants, McCain, in an interview with CNBC on Sunday night, said that Davis "has had nothing to do" with the Homeownship Alliance since it disbanded and "I’ll be glad to have his record examined by anybody who wants to look at it." (The Homeownership Alliance was set up and funded by both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to promote the goal of home ownership and counter efforts to impose tighter regulations on the two federally sponsored entities.)

Davis, in a conference call arranged by the McCain campaign Monday, said, "It’s been over three years since there’s been any activity in this area and since I had any contact with those folks." Davis also said he "had a severed leave of absence" from his lobbying and consulting firm, and "I’ve taken no compensation from my firm for 18 months." (A campaign spokesman said that Davis receives no partnership distribution under his arrangement).

It is not unusual for major corporations to enter into consulting retainers so that individuals could be available if needed. And the two sources stressed that Davis at no time made any threats or demands on Freddie Mac. But the sources indicated that Freddie Mac seldom called on Davis or the firm. On one occasion, Davis was asked to attend a meeting of the firm’s political-action committee during the 2006 campaign in order to give the Republican Party’s perspective on the upcoming elections. In addition, Davis did meet with McLoughlin for breakfast on "one or two" occasions. Other than that, one source said, Davis "doesn’t do anything" for Freddie Mac. The firm "doesn’t even talk to him." In addition, Freddie Mac has had no contact with Davis Manafort other than receiving monthly invoices from the firm and paying them.

But the money could be perceived as helping Freddie Mac ensure a good relationship with one of McCain’s top aides in the event that he became president. The payments, along with other lobbying and consulting contracts, are expected to be terminated by the new federal overseers, the sources said.
Every time McCain brings up tit, Obamas people can bring up tat…

Starr’s post contradicted your post, when she said, "Obama gives back the $122,000+ he received which was only second to what Dodd received."

Apparently, someone is lying or mistaken.

If Freddie Mac gave McCain $345,000, and Obama $122,000, it’s quite impossible for Obama to be second only to Dodd. The only way for both your numbers to be accurate is for Obama to be third to Dodd (1st) and McCain (2nd) or for Obama to be third to McCain (1st) and Dodd (2nd.)

So I did some fact-checking.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/19/fact-check-did-obama-profit-from-fannie-and-freddie/

It seems to depend on what totals you’re looking at.

Obama received $126,349 (a tiny fraction of the approximately $390 million his campaign has raised) from EMPLOYEES of Fannie and Freddie. This, compared to McCain’s $21,550.

HOWEVER… looking at private donations from EMPLOYEES doesn’t give a true picture.

The New York Times has published a separate list looking at contributions from "directors, officers, and lobbyists for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" for the 2008 campaign cycle. That list — using figures from the Federal Election Commission — shows McCain receiving $169,000, while Obama received only $16,000.

I think this is MUCH MORE SIGNIFICANT…

Employees are just private people.

If Fannie and Freddie’s JANITOR donated $100 to Obama, that would be included in the first number, and frankly, who could possibly have any problem with that?

But Fannie and Freddie DIRECTORS, OFFICERS and LOBBYISTS are another matter. Something FAR MORE SERIOUS… and to the charge of having more significant contributions from that group, Obama is innocent and McCain is guilty.

The numbers don’t correlate, but that can logically be explained: The Newsweek article is including 2006 donations while the New York Times figures in the CNN Fact check focuses on 2008 election donations.

It seems that when one CHECKS ones FACTS — McCain received more shady contributions from Fannie and Freddie than Obama.

2 Comments on “Shouldn’t John McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, be forced to repay Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac…?”

  1. starrfyrre

    Sure, as soon as Obama gives back the $122,000+ he received which was only second to what Dodd received.References :

  2. Charles V

    Starr’s post contradicted your post, when she said, "Obama gives back the $122,000+ he received which was only second to what Dodd received."

    Apparently, someone is lying or mistaken.

    If Freddie Mac gave McCain $345,000, and Obama $122,000, it’s quite impossible for Obama to be second only to Dodd. The only way for both your numbers to be accurate is for Obama to be third to Dodd (1st) and McCain (2nd) or for Obama to be third to McCain (1st) and Dodd (2nd.)

    So I did some fact-checking.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/19/fact-check-did-obama-profit-from-fannie-and-freddie/

    It seems to depend on what totals you’re looking at.

    Obama received $126,349 (a tiny fraction of the approximately $390 million his campaign has raised) from EMPLOYEES of Fannie and Freddie. This, compared to McCain’s $21,550.

    HOWEVER… looking at private donations from EMPLOYEES doesn’t give a true picture.

    The New York Times has published a separate list looking at contributions from "directors, officers, and lobbyists for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" for the 2008 campaign cycle. That list — using figures from the Federal Election Commission — shows McCain receiving $169,000, while Obama received only $16,000.

    I think this is MUCH MORE SIGNIFICANT…

    Employees are just private people.

    If Fannie and Freddie’s JANITOR donated $100 to Obama, that would be included in the first number, and frankly, who could possibly have any problem with that?

    But Fannie and Freddie DIRECTORS, OFFICERS and LOBBYISTS are another matter. Something FAR MORE SERIOUS… and to the charge of having more significant contributions from that group, Obama is innocent and McCain is guilty.

    The numbers don’t correlate, but that can logically be explained: The Newsweek article is including 2006 donations while the New York Times figures in the CNN Fact check focuses on 2008 election donations.

    It seems that when one CHECKS ones FACTS — McCain received more shady contributions from Fannie and Freddie than Obama.References :

Leave a Reply

More News