#rsrh Nancy Pelosi’s (Nancy WHO?) problems with disclosure.

So.  Roll Call notes this:

In May 2010, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi took to a podium in the Capitol to introduce a half-dozen economic experts she had convened for a meeting on how to jump-start the economy. The group had met for several hours with top Democratic leaders, and Pelosi invited them to speak publicly on their perspectives on economic growth.

What Pelosi did not mention is that one of the men in the group was her son’s boss and a partner with her husband in more than a half-dozen investments, including one that generated more than $100,000 in income for the Speaker’s family last year.

The problem here is not that what Pelosi did here was illegal.  The Roll Call article is right: it’s actually not.

The problem here is not that what Pelosi did here was legal.  There’s actually nothing wrong with inviting somebody that you know and think knowledgeable about economic growth to speak on economic growth.  Even if that person is your business partner.  Heck, that’s an argument for, in the abstract: you’re in business with that person, right?  That kind of assumes that you think that this person has his head on a swivel when it comes to business.

No, the problem here is that in 2006 Nancy Pelosi promised that “This leadership team will create the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.”  I believe that not mentioning that the guy that you have speaking for you is your business partner violates that middle promise very, very egregiously.  Seriously: business connections like these at least need to be disclosed.

Hey.  Live by the hypocritical soundbite, die by it.

Moe Lane


  • Rob Crawford says:

    *shrug* Corrupt and dishonest is the baseline assumption for liberal Democrats.

  • Kimberly Marvel says:

    They have no “shame gene” so they see nothing wrong with this. Why would anyone expect a Dem to do differently?

  • Demosthenes says:

    Absolutely right, both about what the problem is NOT and about what the problem IS. But I would have gone further. If those things aren’t disclosed, the presumption of honesty and ethics also has to cut against you as well, I think…

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by