Just a heads up for those interested in such things and who had not yet heard. CBS News will apparently be airing an investigative piece on Rep. Buyer’s Frontier Foundation tonight.
The short version is that the Frontier Foundation, ostensibly a charity to provide scholarships to Hoosier students, got a lot of love from corporate lobbyists with business before the U.S. Congress generally, and Rep. Buyer specifically. Initially, Rep. Buyer claimed not to have much to do with the Foundation. When details emerged that showed that claim to be ridiculous (the Foundation shared office space and employees with his campaign), he changed course and admitted to being deeply involved. Details also emerged that the Foundation mainly raised money through golf outings and wasn’t too keen on actually providing scholarships. Rep. Buyer claimed that he was just trying to amass enough cash to make the Foundation sustainable and was saddened that he was suffering slings and barbs for trying to do a little good in the world while enduring golf trips to nice places.
Update: Oddly, while I think the Frontier Foundation is sketchy, I also thought the CBS editing was unfair. They introduced the segment with a clip of Buyer getting up to leave which made it look like he was running out on the interview, which he wasn’t. They also showed that he voted for various things favoring the industries that contributed to the Foundation. I don’t think it’s that easy. I tend to think that Rep. Buyer would have voted along with Big Tobacco, et al. regardless of contributions to the Foundation.
Update #2TPM Muckraker has a pretty good run down of the interview.
I agree, he probably didn’t change any votes in exchange for any of the contributions.
But don’t you think CBS HAD so show his favorable voting record for these contributors? I mean, if he had voted AGAINST the interest of any of these contributors, one would be less suspicious of these gifts, right? You might still question the charitable contributions of the industries because of their business before Buyer, but his friendly stance lends another dimension of shadiness, in my opinion.
By the way, I’m mostly critical of Buyer and suspicious of the contributions because of his flip-flop on his involvemnt with the Foundation and because I’m skeptical that these organizations contribute to other similar foundations elsewhere. But, I do think Buyer should get a pass on the sustainability argument for not having issued any scholarships. That is often the best way to make a foundation sustainable.
If they have not issued any scholarships, they should at least be saying when they project being able to do so, and they should be making applications available to any high school students who will be eligible at that projected date. That would show good faith to do as they purport rather than just be a little slush fund for nepotism as it appears to be at the moment. Don’t they have a fiduciary responsibility under the incorporation laws for foundations to avoid the appearance of impropriety? Common sense would say they do.
Figuring out a way to try to stay in office is comparable to a strong addictive narcotic.
Apparently, Visclosky also has possible issues regarding who he hangs out with.
They probably could have reached that million dollar “sustainability” goal sooner if not for all of the golf trips. I mean, the man himself says that these corporations believe in the cause, and just want to help Indiana kids. If they don’t have to pay for golf, they can write even bigger checks and help even more kids.
Refresh my memory: buyer acted as if he was at arms length from the foundation and new little of the operation. And yet, until a few weeks ago, his campaign manager operated the foundation out of his campaign office and did not his daughter work there?
Some facts would be helpful.
As did his son.. and then the son became a member of PHarma… seems waaaaayyy too suspicious to me. Of course, I find him to be an arrogant bastard… so what does my opinion count?