(The joys of pay-to-play–nice catch – promoted by Colorado Pols)
In the course of some routine research, Checks and Balances came across an interesting piece of information. James Schroeder, President and CEO of Mesa Energy Partners, LLC and President of the Western Energy Alliance is scheduled to be a witness at Rep. Lamborn’s hearing Tuesday.
Schroeder contributed $2,000 to the Western Energy Alliance’s PAC in 2010.
WEA PAC then turned around and contributed $2,000 to Lamborn’s re-election campaign.
The question has to be asked, is this transparent government that avoids even the appearance of impropriety?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Lauren Boebert’s Romp Through GWU Goes Predictably Awry
BY: joe_burly
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: Meiner49er
IN: Lauren Boebert’s Romp Through GWU Goes Predictably Awry
BY: Chickenheed
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: NOV GOP meltdown
IN: Lauren Boebert’s Romp Through GWU Goes Predictably Awry
BY: Chickenheed
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: unnamed
IN: Lauren Boebert’s Romp Through GWU Goes Predictably Awry
BY: davebarnes
IN: Lauren Boebert’s Romp Through GWU Goes Predictably Awry
BY: Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS
IN: Lauren Boebert’s Romp Through GWU Goes Predictably Awry
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Schroeder paid to be a witness a year ahead of time? Lamborn only costs $2,000?!?
Isn’t it more likely that Schroeder has an interest and supports Lamborn because he supports that interest?
Is it not completely reasonable for an “expert” to come from the WEA?
Look, I get it. Campaign finance sucks, but the only way around this particular issue is to make all donations illegal. Which, granted, would be interesting to watch, but isn’t going to happen.
I usually only read the diaries dealing with energy and what-not because I don’t understand them (thank you all for your expertise), but even I know Schroeder’s kind of a jerk. That doesn’t stop him being a reasonable witness (objectivity is not technically a requirement), cash or not.
I’m all for attacking Doug Lamborn, but being a witness probably isn’t really something you pay to do. And given his position, he’s probably more than qualified for it. Plus, wouldn’t he just contribute directly?
Now, if you can find a series of contributions where say…he maxed to Lamborn, then gave to other groups, then those groups immediately gave to Lamborn…or something like that…then you might be on to something.
He/she’s not alleging anything beyond “appearance.”
I like it when the food chain is put on display personally…
It’s just meh. Pols did call it “pay-to-play” though. That’s probably not exactly fair.
Lamborn is a bit of a whore and he’s all for slanted, but this isn’t a great example.
But yeah, I often become immersed in the finance reports; local, state, and federal.
(Shit, I am a dork. I nearly added “It’s fun!”)
It’s just completely ordinary, so much so that big red text is not really necessary.
Not a thing wrong with calling it what it is, though. You bet a few grand routed to the right PAC gets you on a better list than the average citizen. Always has.