NRSC: “Why Is Charlie Melancon Standing By Embattled Charlie Rangel After Ethics Committee Charged Him With 13 Serious Violations?”

July 30, 2010

WASHINGTON – After the bipartisan House Ethics Committee officially charged U.S. Representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY) with 13 serious ethics violations, his Washington Democrat colleague, U.S. Representative Charlie Melancon (D-LA), still refuses to return at least $13,000 in donations that he received from Rangel’s campaign committee and leadership PAC.

The Associated Press reported today that, “House investigators on Thursday alleged 13 violations of congressional ethics and federal law by veteran New York Rep. Charles Rangel. The charges include failure to report rental income from vacation property in the Dominican Republic and failing to report more than $600,000 income on his congressional financial disclosure statements.”

Notably, many of Melancon’s fellow Democrats have already returned Rangel’s tainted cash.

“Why is Charlie Melancon desperately clinging to Charlie Rangel’s dirty money? Considering Melancon’s fellow Democrats have already dumped more than half-a-million dollars of Rangel’s tainted cash, it’s inexplicable that Melancon is still standing by his embattled colleague instead of denouncing his actions and returning his donations,” said National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) spokesman Chris Bond.

Background Information:

Charlie Melancon Has Accepted At Least $13,000 From Rangel’s Campaign Committee And Leadership PAC:

* Melancon Accepted $1,000 in October 2004, $2,000 in March 2005 and $2,000 in January 2006 from Rangel For Congress. (Federal Election Commission Website, www.fec.gov, Accessed 2/25/10)

* In The 2004 Cycle, Melancon Accepted $6,000 From Rangel’s Leadership PAC. (Center For Responsive Politics Website, Accessed 2/25/10)

* In The 2006 Cycle, Charles Melancon Accepted $1,000 From Rangel’s Leadership PAC. (Center For Responsive Politics Website, Accessed 2/25/10)

Use a Highlighter on this page
Bookmark and Share

Leave a Reply