The New York Times has a long story critical of John McCain's links to a rich Arizona developer, Donald Diamond (registration required):
Mr. McCain has campaigned as a critic of the corrupting influence of money and politics, saying he had learned a lesson from a late 1980s scandal over his part in an intervention with banking regulators examining a savings and loan controlled by a patron, Charles Keating. Since then, Mr. McCain vowed to embrace ethics standards that set him apart from many colleagues.
“I have carefully avoided situations that might even tangentially be construed as a less than proper use of my office,” he wrote in his memoir, “Worth the Fighting For” (Random House, 2002).
Mr. McCain once publicly criticized Mr. Diamond as lobbying too hard for his own financial interests. In 1995, Mr. McCain called it “unheard of” that Mr. Diamond had hired a Washington lobbyist to try to block construction of a federal building in Tucson that threatened to take away some of his rental income. “I didn’t talk to him for one year,” Mr. Diamond said of Mr. McCain. “I was annoyed.”
Legislating Land Deals
Mr. McCain has been willing, though, to help sponsor bills authorizing federal land exchanges that Mr. Diamond sought. Former Representative Jim Kolbe, another Arizona Republican close to Mr. Diamond, said Mr. Diamond often proposed such deals and impressed lawmakers with his frankness about the potential sensitivities, Mr. Kolbe said.
“He would tell you, ‘I don’t think you should get on this one, this one is too close to where you live, let another member of the delegation work on this one,’ ” Mr. Kolbe said. “He never tried to flim-flam you.”
Such exchanges can serve a public interest by expanding parks or wilderness areas. But many environmentalists and other analysts have also concluded that such trades almost invariably give private developers a profitable bargain at public expense. Although federal rules stipulate that public land can be traded for private land only of “equal value,” appraisals of unusual property or in fast-growing areas are highly variable and developers often apply political pressure to get favorable terms.
Why, that automatically eliminates the issue from debate. Nothing more need be said about this issue whatseover.
Ewwwww.....
Excuse me for asking a dumb question. Why else would a developer want to do the deal?
Just askin'.
Reminds me of a story one of our professors told us about a deposition. The line went something like this:
Q: Have you ever bought something for the amount its worth?
A: Of course not. Dad drown the stupid ones.
Unfortunately, the court reporter was changing the tape at the time and it didn't get picked up on the transcript, or so the story goes.
Could you please provide the other links of this long critical relationship between the NYT and this land developer?
The headline ought to read: "Arizona Senator helps Local Businessman."
Talk about much ado about nothing. Proof you can take any set of specially selected points and draw a line through it if that's your goal.
Oh wait...McCain is a Republican...blast away NYT.
Some excerpts that Jim left out:
When Mr. Diamond wanted to buy land at the base, Fort Ord, Mr. McCain assigned an aide who set up a meeting at the Pentagon and later stepped in again to help speed up the sale, according to people involved and a deposition Mr. Diamond gave for a related lawsuit...
A longtime political patron, Mr. Diamond is one of the elite fund-raisers Mr. McCain’s current presidential campaign calls Innovators, having raised more than $250,000 so far...
In California, the McCain aide’s assistance with the Army helped Mr. Diamond complete a purchase in 1999 that he soon turned over for a $20 million profit. ...
In 1991 and 1994, Mr. McCain sponsored two laws sought by Mr. Diamond that resulted in providing him millions of dollars and thousands of acres in exchange for adding some of his properties to national parks. The Arizona senator co-sponsored a third similar bill now before the Senate...
In the first deal, Mr. McCain was the sole Senate sponsor of a 1991 law authorizing the Department of the Interior to acquire about 2,000 acres of the ranch, which local environmentalists valued at about $5 million but Mr. Diamond and parks appraisers put at around $30 million.
Over the next five years, the government paid him more than $23 million for the land and traded him two parcels of about 50 acres in upscale Scottsdale, Ariz. And the expanded Saguaro also added to the value of the remaining Rocking K land, where Mr. Diamond is still planning to build 3,000 houses along with resorts and golf courses.
The State of Arizona probably benefits greatly from the new developments - start with the property tax differential between undeveloped land and a completed subdivision.
As long as the legislator is not pushing this swap for a personal/family pecuniary benefit or for a bribe, I don't have any more of a problem with it than I do with other special interest legislation. What's next? Complaining that Senators from Texas and Louisiana are pushing for tax code changes that benefit the oil industry?
Nick
What "many environmentalists and other analysts" think is not a substitute for actual reporting. Did McCain benefit in any way other than this guy has helped raise $250,000 for his presidential campaign.
Did Diamond hoodwink anyone out of anything. Was this a good deal for both sides of the transaction or not?
I'm not saying the NYT has to catch McCain with $90k in greenbacks in his freezer, but this is a bs story.
Did McCain benefit in any way other than this guy has helped raise $250,000 for his presidential campaign[?] ... this is a bs story.
If those donations were a quid for the quo of Diamond getting to buy the land on the cheap, then this would definitely not be a bs story. Sure, it would not be on the level of cash in the freezer or accepting a bribe in the form of an antique commode, but yes that would be a significant story. Now I doubt there was a quid pro quo, certainly not an explicit one, so I'm not sure this should be a big story. It's hard not to smile though when the campaign for Senator Straight Talk describes this as routine constituent service.
I recall reading about Reid's real estate problems in an AZ newspaper last year. His appeared the same or worse thn those of that the AZ Republican congressman has been indicted for.
That's my point. Where's the quid pro quo here. These land swaps benefitted more than Mr. Diamond, unless I'm missing something. Were they a good deal or not at the time? The NYT doesn't have anything here.
$250,000 to the campaign of a guy whose wife is worth $100 million. You've got to be kidding me that McCain or anyone in Congress in their right mind would dole out anything for such a relatively paltry sum.
No doubt Straight Talk is a slogan, but anyone in Congress who helps someone get something done that the Senator or Rep thinks is a good thing for their constituents or the ubiquitous "American people" is not beholden to special interests.
I always thought McCain's shortcoming is that he jumps to conclusions, a la the NYT, that many people who vote for a piece of legislation and also receive contributions from those who the legislation benefits are "beholden to special interests." If you agree with something because you think it's a good idea then you're not beholden to special interests. It's only when you think it's a bad idea (or even maybe are indifferent) that the accusation has any legs.
Does anyone think W. and Cheney support oil companies because they donated to their campaigns while privately thinking, gee this is bad for the environment, the economy, and national security.
I find the noisy character attacks against all three candidates more prejudicial than probative, but it's politics, so what else is new? As for why this qualifies with the rest, you inadvertently hit on it in your dictum:
You're right that without better evidence of a quid prop quo, The Times makes a weak case for corruption. But to the extent there's a legitimate charge, it isn't corruption. It's hypocrisy.