Ed Martin has another email out about Russ Carnahan, following FEC disclosure documents to the fact that Russ was being paid $88,000 a year by BJC while he was a state Representative.
Russ was a BJC lobbyist from 1997-2000, but abandoned that in 2000 when he was elected as a state Rep.
If he was no longer a lobbyist, what exactly was Carnahan doing that earned him $88,000 a year?
This is the third piece of information that has come out about Carnahan and his shady dealings.
He makes $150,000 on a no-money down commercial real estate deal.
He docks a boat in Alton and then sells it when his likely opponent catches on.
And now we find out he was being paid a hefty salary by BJC even though he was no longer lobbying for them.
Was there no newspaper in St Louis from 2000-2004? Was there no primary campaign in that time? Why exactly does this stuff only come out six years later when Russ faces a credible challenger?
Here's Martin on the charge.
"Getting paid $88,000/yr. by a former lobbying client while serving in the legislature is the kind of insider trading that Americans have come to despise in their elected officials" said Ed Martin. "We want men and women to represent us not career politicians who milk the system. I call upon Congressman Carnahan to publicly address this glaring conflict of interest, and I will request the appropriate authorities examine this unseemly relationship."
BJC Healthcare is an interesting name, because the recent direct mail attack (funded to the tune of $262,000) by MHA has caught a lot of conservatives off guard.
Add that to Steve Lipstein's recent column in the Business Journal claiming that forcing citizens to pay for health insurance is just and proper, and you start to get the sense that BJC, while being a fine hospital, isn't afraid to get involved in politics as long as the money keeps flowing their way.
Lipstein argues that hospitals can't turn away patients today, and because they have to eat the costs, the freedom to buy or not buy insurance isn't an issue.
So let me get this straight. A federal law makes a problem for the hospital, and thus we should go ahead and approve of the seizing of natural rights because it Steve's hospital loses money?
And that's what this is about. Hospitals oppose Prop C because they can force the cost of the uninsured onto the backs of the taxpayer rather than being forced to eat a substantial portion of the costs.
While that's a shame, clothing it in some half-baked idea of saving money is a political stunt, not an active argument. Forty million people would be added to insurance rolls if Obamacare gets its way, and that means costs to hospitals will be shared over the general public. There is no difference between claiming that we pay higher premiums now and under Obamacare, because Obamacare subsidizes the very people who currently are not insured, up to 400% of the poverty level. Where do those subsidies come from? The General fund, which currently is slated to be a trillion dollars in the red for the next decade.
I've veered off of Russ Carnahan, who started this post because he was paid By BJC while he was a state legislator. We know Lipstein was a big Obama backer. I guess paying off Democratic legislators is concerned good medicine. I just thought it was the same old weaselly corruption we've been fighting against.
Comments