Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lobbyists Running Santorum's Faith-Based Charity
WTAE TV Pittsburgh ^ | March 8, 2006 | Jim Parsons

Posted on 03/08/2012 4:17:05 PM PST by red flanker

Sen. Rick Santorum calls himself the Republican point man on lobbying reform in Washington.

But Santorum's reform plan doesn't deal at all with lobbyists running charities on behalf of members of Congress.

Good thing for the Senator, because Team 4 has discovered that's exactly who's in charge of his charity, Operation Good Neighbor.

Santorum has been handing out lots of checks from his charity, Operation Good Neighbor, since he formed it in 2001.

"To me, it was part of a mission that I set out, which is I'm a great believer in the non-profit sector. I strongly believe we have an obligation to try to get more money into that," Santorum said.

But Santorum's charity has also put money -- $216,000 -- into unexplained travel and meetings through 2004.

(Excerpt) Read more at wtae.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: charity; santorum; santorumcharity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last
Comment #1 Removed by Moderator

To: red flanker

nice try buddy. while you’re at it, how about bringing up Newt’s unexplained travel and other expenses during the campaign that have yet to be fully disclosed at a satisfactory level as previously reported. Personal donations seem to be going directly into personal accounts.


2 posted on 03/08/2012 4:20:43 PM PST by parksstp (I pick RIck! (If he's good enough for Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, he's good enough for me))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: parksstp

got a link?


3 posted on 03/08/2012 4:21:49 PM PST by true believer forever (If Newt is good enough for Sarah, he's good enough for me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: red flanker
Nice racket.


4 posted on 03/08/2012 4:22:48 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Let us prey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: red flanker

Santorum running around saying he is not wealthy and is like the rest of US Citizens. This great talk only Christian is lying through his teeth.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/how-rick-santorum-got-2-million-virginia-estate/418636


5 posted on 03/08/2012 4:22:56 PM PST by YukonGreen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: true believer forever

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/17/questions-surface-gingrich-campaign-travel-payment/?page=all


6 posted on 03/08/2012 4:25:45 PM PST by parksstp (I pick RIck! (If he's good enough for Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, he's good enough for me))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: YukonGreen
I wrote this, and footnoted it to death, to try and appeal to santorum supporters' logic and show them I respected their intellect. So far, it's working a little, but it's hard work...
Pious 2



7 posted on 03/08/2012 4:26:04 PM PST by true believer forever (If Newt is good enough for Sarah, he's good enough for me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: red flanker
About the "Jim Parsons" who penned this piece...from his LinkedIn page...

*2009 & 2006 First Place winner of Society of Environmental Journalists' Awards for Reporting on the Environment
*2010 2nd Place winner of Society of Environmental Journalists' Awards for Reporting on the Environment
*2010 Emmy nominee for Best Investigative Reporting and Best Environmental Reporting, Mid-Atlantic Chapter
*Member of SEJ's (Society of Environmental Journalists) First Amendment Task Force

Sounds like a leftist whacko to me, but if he promotes your agenda, feel free to hop in bed with him. Just don't expect the rest of us to take him seriously.

8 posted on 03/08/2012 4:30:08 PM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

Thank you for vetting the author. Well done.


9 posted on 03/08/2012 4:34:47 PM PST by marstegreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

The messenger must die!


10 posted on 03/08/2012 4:36:58 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Let us prey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
Sounds like a leftist whacko to me, but if he promotes your agenda, feel free to hop in bed with him.

You'll notice a lot of far left crap coming out of a small group here.
11 posted on 03/08/2012 4:39:14 PM PST by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!
The messenger must die!

I really enjoy your quirky sense of humor, Rcat.

12 posted on 03/08/2012 4:39:40 PM PST by arasina (So there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: red flanker

I’m just going to give it to you straight.

When I hear Santorum talk, I don’t trust him. Sure, he’s sort of conservative sometimes, but he mostly sounds like a guy trying to get votes.

It’s very different with Newt. He sounds like he means what he says, really thinks about it and believes it.


13 posted on 03/08/2012 4:40:37 PM PST by reasonisfaith (Or, more accurately---reason serves faith. See W.L. Craig, R. Zacharias, Erwin Lutzer, and others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!
"The messenger must die!"

Nah...they should just have their credibility evaluated, and their agenda(s) exposed.

14 posted on 03/08/2012 4:42:35 PM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: red flanker

Obama just put another lobbyist in his administration.

I’m thinking that’s why this smear on Santorum. Obama was the one who said there would be NO lobbyists in his administration.

but nevermind, this is about smearing Santorum, not facts on Obama. As usual.


15 posted on 03/08/2012 4:44:32 PM PST by Freddd (NoPA ngineers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: parksstp

I read the link story, and another one, from a later date and it seems pretty clear - Newt’s campaign has a disagreement with the FEC, they have corresponded back and forth, and there was an October 27th date for compliance of requested info. So, I guess that means no verdict so far. I am sure the Washington Times consulted only the most pro-Gingrich experts on the matter. No verdict so far. I’ll wait and see how it turns out.

It’s apparent though, Newt wasn’t raising money for a charity, to help poor children and adults, and then misusing it. So far, that much is clear.


16 posted on 03/08/2012 4:45:24 PM PST by true believer forever (If Newt is good enough for Sarah, he's good enough for me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
"When I hear Santorum talk, I don’t trust him."

Yeah, like when he said, "As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights.”

Oh wait, never mind. That was somebody else.

17 posted on 03/08/2012 4:45:44 PM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: true believer forever

I’ve seen your piece around FR, but being a Newt supporter, I didn’t take the time to read it. Until now.

My late father was a veteran of WWII, and few things touch my heart like an old soldier. I liked Santorum pretty well, but not anymore.

Thanks for writing it...I hope it does some good.


18 posted on 03/08/2012 4:46:17 PM PST by CatherineofAragon (I can haz Romney's defeat?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: true believer forever

I’ve seen your piece around FR, but being a Newt supporter, I didn’t take the time to read it. Until now.

My late father was a veteran of WWII, and few things touch my heart like an old soldier. I liked Santorum pretty well, but not anymore.

Thanks for writing it...I hope it does some good.


19 posted on 03/08/2012 4:46:33 PM PST by CatherineofAragon (I can haz Romney's defeat?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: true believer forever

I’ve seen your piece around FR, but being a Newt supporter, I didn’t take the time to read it. Until now.

My late father was a veteran of WWII, and few things touch my heart like an old soldier. I liked Santorum pretty well, but not anymore.

Thanks for writing it...I hope it does some good.


20 posted on 03/08/2012 4:46:45 PM PST by CatherineofAragon (I can haz Romney's defeat?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: true believer forever

I’ve seen your piece around FR, but being a Newt supporter, I didn’t take the time to read it. Until now.

My late father was a veteran of WWII, and few things touch my heart like an old soldier. I liked Santorum pretty well, but not anymore.

Thanks for writing it...I hope it does some good.


21 posted on 03/08/2012 4:47:19 PM PST by CatherineofAragon (I can haz Romney's defeat?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: red flanker
An overhead of 50% to 60% for a faith-based charity that raised millions of dollars over the years should have sent off alarm bells and Santorum and his campaign will not be able to stonewall questions especially during a presidential run.

Oh sh**. This smacks of a scam. I will not give to any Charity that has a 50% overhead. I quit giving to The American Red Cross for that reason. I only give to the Boy Scouts of America and The Salvation Army. (And my church, of course.)
22 posted on 03/08/2012 4:52:18 PM PST by no dems (No RINO-Rom, no Kook-Daddy and no "out of touch" Rev. Rick........Gingrich.... YES!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: parksstp
nice try buddy. while you’re at it, how about bringing up Newt’s unexplained travel and other expenses during the campaign

Hey, I'm a Conservative, but, if Newt and Rick both are on the take, then to hell with both of them. HOW DID WE END UP WITH SUCH SHI**Y CANDIDATES THIS ELECTION CYCLE?
23 posted on 03/08/2012 4:56:03 PM PST by no dems (No RINO-Rom, no Kook-Daddy and no "out of touch" Rev. Rick........Gingrich.... YES!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: YukonGreen; All

Well, Rick boy, now, maybe it’s time for Newt to start demanding that YOU get out of the race.


24 posted on 03/08/2012 4:57:01 PM PST by no dems (No RINO-Rom, no Kook-Daddy and no "out of touch" Rev. Rick........Gingrich.... YES!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack; All
Sounds like a leftist whacko to me, but if he promotes your agenda, feel free to hop in bed with him. Just don't expect the rest of us to take him seriously.

Well, Joe, if you're not working on your second 6-pack about now, I'd say this to you. Let's hear what /Rev. Rick has to say. If he stammers and stumbles his way through this, then it's time for him to go. I do NOT give to any charity that takes 50% for overhead. That's why I NEVER give to The American Red Cross. (Supposedly, they've changed their policy after being exposed, but it's too little too late for me.)

Come on Rev. Rick; let's hear your side of the story. Oh, I bet, you didn't know there was a 50-60 percent overhead did you? Uh huh.....
25 posted on 03/08/2012 5:01:49 PM PST by no dems (No RINO-Rom, no Kook-Daddy and no "out of touch" Rev. Rick........Gingrich.... YES!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: no dems
I'm sure Rick responded to this back in 2006 when this hit piece was first unveiled, no doubt on behalf of Casey's campaign.

Don't you folks have anything new?

26 posted on 03/08/2012 5:04:54 PM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon

thank you. I take a lot of flack for posting my stuff because people call me a blog pimp, but I never post my blog, it is private for a group of young military I mentor, and we value our privacy. And I just decided someone has to try and shake the santorum supporters awake. so I have just gotten tough and let them say what they want.

I am from a military family, also, and I know what you mean. There’s really something about every soldier, no matter what age - the humility and the quiet courage, and the never taking, always giving. for santorum to do this, it is so blatantly obscene, and takes it outside the realm of politics as far as I am concerned. I am sure I am not being unbiased.


27 posted on 03/08/2012 5:04:54 PM PST by true believer forever (If Newt is good enough for Sarah, he's good enough for me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

I’m not trying to dig up anything on Santorum. I just want everyone vetted so there will be no October surprise right before the Election.


28 posted on 03/08/2012 5:07:55 PM PST by no dems (No RINO-Rom, no Kook-Daddy and no "out of touch" Rev. Rick........Gingrich.... YES!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: red flanker

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=167IhlXnN2Y&feature=youtube_gdata_player


30 posted on 03/08/2012 5:19:06 PM PST by Berlin_Freeper (Cometh the hour, cometh the man. NEWT GINGRICH 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: true believer forever

We really do need Newt. Let’s keep praying...


31 posted on 03/08/2012 5:41:24 PM PST by CatherineofAragon (I can haz Romney's defeat?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: red flanker

Bump for later


32 posted on 03/08/2012 5:47:46 PM PST by Amntn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: red flanker

Boy, this posting of propaganda smears from the left wing press never ceases.

A charity that costs money to run! With travel and other expenses!

Regretably, it’s impossible to run a charity without spending that kind of money. Even most religious organizations are forced to spend a good part of their funds on expenses. And, although I haven’t looked recently, many of the best known charities spend more than 90% on expenses. I don’t excuse that, but it seems to be very hard to avoid.


33 posted on 03/08/2012 5:50:00 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: true believer forever
The Washington Post has imposed copyright restrictions against Free Republic. All Washington Post material must be properly excerpted, attributed and a link provided before it can be posted on Free Republic.

A photo image of an article is impossible to excerpt so please do not post photo images of any articles.

Here's an important link to refer to whenever posting published material:

Updated FR Excerpt and Link Only or Deny Posting List due to Copyright Complaints

Thanks.

34 posted on 03/08/2012 5:51:12 PM PST by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

Thank you very much for explaining that to me. I just sent you a mail asking why it had been deleted. And thank you so much for that link, I will read and keep it. I am really still learning how Free Republic works, and I apologize for the mistake. You are one of the nice admins!!


35 posted on 03/08/2012 5:54:04 PM PST by true believer forever (If Newt is good enough for Sarah, he's good enough for me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon

this is going to sound really dumb, but so be it. the little prayer that has been bubbling in my heart during my days, that last 2 days, while I am so busy and can’t really pray in a focused way, has been this: Lord, please bring Newt a game changer. Please bring Newt a game change. and all the people said amen, and amen.

so if you would like to agree... amen once more.


36 posted on 03/08/2012 5:56:52 PM PST by true believer forever (If Newt is good enough for Sarah, he's good enough for me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
It’s very different with Newt. He sounds like he means what he says, really thinks about it and believes it.

Yeah, like all 3 times he said "I Do".

37 posted on 03/08/2012 5:57:10 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: no dems

I think Santorum probably would have won Ohio, but he did not carry many of the lake Erie counties nor will he in Pennsylvania. The reason is, while he was senator he proposed a bill that would have ended free NOA weather VHF broadcasting, wanting to charge users a fee. He felt it was unfair to private weather reporting agencies, many thought this had lobbying written all over it. Boaters rely heavily on these weather broadcasts, being the greatest safety tool on a vessel. Our marina alone held over 750 boats and I remember at the time this was being proposed, the boaters were furious. Our entire marina was up in arms. It was sheer stupidity.


38 posted on 03/08/2012 5:57:36 PM PST by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
What many leftists (and apparently some on our side) fail to understand is that charity is more than just money. Event sponsorship, fundraisers, etc. require an investment, and while the returns in dollars may be relatively small, it allows a community to coalesce around the cause at hand, builds additional public interest in the charity and raises a little money as an aside.

A local charity here sponsored by area contractors gives away a brand new house every year. Once the ticket sales are tallied, there's really a small monetary gain on what the contractors contribute, but it raises public consciousness, and gets a group of people working toward a common cause, and oh by the way...somebody wins a free house out of the deal. Nothing unseemly about it.

39 posted on 03/08/2012 5:57:46 PM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

You almost have it exactly reversed. Industry standards state funds to the focus of the charity should be 75-80% of donations, with the 20-25% for overhead. There really cannot be a major charity with the ratio you cite, it would be a scandal and out of business, maybe even under indictment.


40 posted on 03/08/2012 6:01:26 PM PST by true believer forever (If Newt is good enough for Sarah, he's good enough for me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: true believer forever

Well, I was thinking of the Red Cross, in particular, but there were others.

I just googled it, and according to this site, 90.1% of donations are spent on program expenses, while only 5.9% are spent on administration:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277

Of course, most of that is included in “Program Expenses,” presumably getting workers to where they are needed and the like.

How much of Santorum’s charity’s travel expenses, meal expenses, etc., are devoted to similar ends—getting people where they are needed. I don’t know, and the article doesn’t say.


41 posted on 03/08/2012 6:16:46 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: true believer forever

AMEN, and praise God.


42 posted on 03/08/2012 6:24:18 PM PST by CatherineofAragon (I can haz Romney's defeat?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

I haven’t found a reason to believe his repentance isn’t real.

The repentant sinner is more trustworthy than the man who thinks he’s not a sinner because he’s faithful to his wife.


43 posted on 03/08/2012 6:25:28 PM PST by reasonisfaith (Or, more accurately---reason serves faith. See W.L. Craig, R. Zacharias, Erwin Lutzer, and others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

this is the name of a washington post article, I don’t know if I can post the link or not. Also, if you just google santorum operation good neighbor, a few of the links have some very credible links with figures, and all the expenses were for salaries, friends, lobbyists he hired in various positions.

“Santorum charity for the poor spent most of its money on management, political friends” (Washington Post article)


44 posted on 03/08/2012 6:29:52 PM PST by true believer forever (If Newt is good enough for Sarah, he's good enough for me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

Liberal logic.


45 posted on 03/08/2012 6:31:14 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

It’s not mere logic—I am telling you the truth.


46 posted on 03/08/2012 6:33:16 PM PST by reasonisfaith (Or, more accurately---reason serves faith. See W.L. Craig, R. Zacharias, Erwin Lutzer, and others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

You’re God? You’re not telling any truth. A man is not a sinner or less trustworthy because he has honored his vows to his wife. In fact, it’s a disgustingly liberal thing to say and you should be ashamed making such an argument.


47 posted on 03/08/2012 6:42:51 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Don’t put blasphemy where it isn’t.

If I tell you the truth, I honor the Lord.

We are all sinners. Faithfulness to wife is honorable, but it doesn’t equal faithfulness to God.

Faithfulness to God starts with repentance, and Newt has repented.

As for “liberal,” here you distort an already grossly distorted term which originally had to do with liberty. Get your Bible and read it!

“Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” (2 Corinthians 3:17)


48 posted on 03/08/2012 6:50:13 PM PST by reasonisfaith (Or, more accurately---reason serves faith. See W.L. Craig, R. Zacharias, Erwin Lutzer, and others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith; jwalsh07

You speak the language of the soul - I don’t think jwalsh understands it. This letter is a bit of a read - 10 min or so - but worth every second. If you can read it, I am sure it will touch your heart, and maybe you will be moved to pass it around:

excerpt: “One of my early mentors always told me to never trust anyone who does not walk with a limp, since their own pride will blind them to inevitable potholes and cliff’s that even Jesus struggled with.

I can forgive the personal stuff easily. You see, I’m not proud of decisions I made in my first marriage. Like you, one day I looked in the mirror and realized I needed to be determined to NOT be “the guy” that didn’t keep commitments. I had never wanted to be anything else, but it takes some of us longer than others to get our will power to reign over our perceived emotional voids.

We may not be able to change the mistakes of our past, but we can absolutely control our actions going forward. And as I’ve asked God to change my life, I’ve seen him make me stronger in my conviction than the so called “righteous” ones who were never tested.”

http://www.politijim.com/2012/02/dear-speaker-gingrich.html


49 posted on 03/08/2012 6:55:54 PM PST by true believer forever (If Newt is good enough for Sarah, he's good enough for me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

Look pal, you make me ill hiding behind the Good Lord. A man who is faithful to his wife has nothing to repent for in that regard. It is liberal crap and having been called on it you resort to ‘we are all sinners”. Big news flash there. Of course it has nothing to do with your declarative statement but keep digging. Sooner or later you’ll get to the part about bearing false witness and go and sin no more.


50 posted on 03/08/2012 6:56:06 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson