[ms61853]

I was stunned to see some document showing Joe the Plumbers' tax problems on my 10pm (CT)newscast on the local NBC affiliate in Chicago on Thursday night. They have very little time for any national news and they actually spent time on Joe the Plumbers' tax problems. Amazing!

But when an actual candidate — Barack Obama — released his tax returns, which on their face seemed to show an ethics violation of Illinois law, the press couldn't care less.

Just to remind you, Illinois prohibits state legislators from taking speaking fees, and Barack reported "speaking fees.":

Apparently, as an Illinois state legislator through 2004, Barack was prohibited from taking honoraria for speaking under the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act.

But what about Barack Obama’s 2000 and 2002 tax returns?

2000: On his 2000 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported that he received $16,500 as a “Foundation director/Educational speaker.”

2001: On his 2001 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported $98,158 from a Chicago law firm, Miner, Barnhill, for “Legal services/attorney” (and nothing for speaking).

2002: On his 2002 Schedule C, Barack reported $34,491 for “LEGAL SERVCES / SPEAKING FEES.”

These “speaking fees” are in addition to the amounts that Barack was paid as an employee, a lecturer at the University of Chicago, reported on the first page of his 1040s.

The Illinois Governmental Ethics Act (apparently last changed in 1995) provides:

(5 ILCS 420/2-110)

Sec. 2-110. Honoraria.

(a) No member of the General Assembly shall accept any honorarium.

(b) As used in this Section:

"Honorarium" means a payment of money to a member of the General Assembly for an appearance or speech . . . .

I really don't blame Obama for not addressing this; he released his tax returns after all. The problem is the press, which seems to be having more trouble than usual doing its job this season.

[Justin7]

You strategically omitted the original author:
—John Stephenson is editor of Stop The ACLU.

Look at the code. He was paid income for a job, titled "Director/Educational Speaker". If you have something showing he was paid for individual speeches and not full-time employment, bring it up. But there's nothing in the tax returns that looks illegal, unless you are grossly misreading the law.

[FRITO]

[ms61853]

You strategically omitted the original author:
—John Stephenson is editor of Stop The ACLU.

Look at the code. He was paid income for a job, titled "Director/Educational Speaker". If you have something showing he was paid for individual speeches and not full-time employment, bring it up. But there's nothing in the tax returns that looks illegal, unless you are grossly misreading the law.

2002: On his 2002 Schedule C, Barack reported $34,491 for “LEGAL SERVCES / SPEAKING FEES.”

These “speaking fees” are in addition to the amounts that Barack was paid as an employee, a lecturer at the University of Chicago, reported on the first page of his 1040s.

[FRITO]

The reason they won't pick him apart is,
they'll wind up having to go through EVERY politicians taxes.
(we're talking politicians here, they ALL use loopholes)

[Justin7]

You don't get it.

If you are payed an "appearance fee" or "speaker fee" for an individual appearance, the law targets that. His income was employment - not for individual appearances, but a collection of work that included legal and speaking. There's a reason this hasn't been picked up by the media - it is without merit.

[hoopster42]

President Obama

has a nice ring to it

[ms61853]

You don't get it.

If you are payed an "appearance fee" or "speaker fee" for an individual appearance, the law targets that. His income was employment - not for individual appearances, but a collection of work that included legal and speaking. There's a reason this hasn't been picked up by the media - it is without merit.

The "speaking fees" were reported as an ADDITION to that which he was paid for as an employee.

[Justin7]

Who was his primary employer, and

who paid additional for legal/speaking fees?

[ms61853]

Who was his primary employer, and

who paid additional for legal/speaking fees?

That's just it. In 2000 and 2002, no employment with any company is listed in association with the speaking fees.

[Justin7]

That doesn't tell you enough. Who paid the legal fees? If you want to press on this point, attach his W2 and we can discuss in detail.

[ms61853]

That doesn't tell you enough. Who paid the legal fees? If you want to press on this point, attach his W2 and we can discuss in detail.

I'm not a member of the Press. Sure, it's possible there's nothing to this even when on the face it appears to be a violation, but it has not even been investigated.

Yet, some nobody who asks Obama a question has his entire life given an anal examination.

[Justin7]

If you post something as a fact (as you have here) and omit an author, you're stating it as a fact yourself. As well as plagiarizing. And possibly infringing a copyright.

That said, I don't put much weight in anything said about either candidate, and I don't put ANY weight in unsubstantiated accusations. In most cases, they cannot be backed.

[ms61853]

If you post something as a fact (as you have here) and omit an author, you're stating it as a fact yourself. As well as plagiarizing. And possibly infringing a copyright.

That said, I don't put much weight in anything said about either candidate, and I don't put ANY weight in unsubstantiated accusations. In most cases, they cannot be backed.

Look, I always post a link to the article in question only to have the Obamabots accuse me of doing so to "legitimize" it.

In any event, I simply overlooked posting the link this time.

The FACT is Obama has listed speaking fees as income and has done so without listing it as part of employment with any entity.

[daggerkobe]

The KOOK always plagiarizes neocon BLOGS.

In fact, 99.999999% of his posts are copy/paste retarded crap from neocon BLOGS. He hasn't had an independent thought in his head, ever.

The nutjob also makes up LIES to support his outlandish positions.... like when he claimed Joe the plumber was doing work legally when every official in Ohio said it was illegal since he was unlicensed. The KOOK actually said they don't know what they are talking about. The nutjob is beyond help.

[Justin7]

The FACT is Obama has listed speaking fees as income and has done so without listing it as part of employment with any entity.

Don't tell me it's a fact. Show me the Tax return.

[ms61853]

Don't tell me it's a fact. Show me the Tax return.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...tax_return.pdf

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...tax_return.pdf

Note that this income is listed on Schedule C, which is used for business income. Surely, you do don't list something as business income if it is derived from being employed by someone else.

[Justin7]

The 2000 return shows "business income". There's no explanation or suggestion that this is for speaking fees. You cannot tell what the source of that income is. Is it speaking? I don't know, and neither do you.

The 2002 return shows "business income" of about $34,000. The principal business is "Legal services/speaking fees". Did he violate the law? Again, you cannot tell. *if* this represents income from 1-2 appearances and nothing else was done, yes. If this was part of a larger job, that included legal analysis of issues, he's probably fine. But once again, I cannot conclude that Barrack Obama owes more taxes from this one document.

[treece]

President Obama

has a nice ring to it

President McCain sounds better. At least McCain isn't a proven racist like Nobama.

[purecarnagge]

McCain is a joke and is losing badly. McCain doesn't get it, never did, and has run one of the worst campaigns that the Republican machine that was premier at running campaigns has ever turned out.

McCain should go to I pissed the presidency away boot camp or something.