ACORN

This past July – as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spread a financial tsunami of risky loans throughout our banking system –my opponent Patrick Murphy supported his party leadership's plan to mandate a permanent tax on these entities to create a slush fund for radical liberal groups like ACORN.
Rather than seeing the enormous risk posed by Fannie and Freddie for what it was, Murphy supported an out-of-touch tax on them to fund a permanent entitlement for radical liberal activist groups.
The press continues to report on state investigations linking ACORN and other shadowy 'community organizations' that would have benefited from Murphy's poor judgment in supporting this bill to shady partisan political activities, such as attempts to register duplicate and fraudulent voter applications.
Underhanded activities perpetrated by groups like ACORN and underwritten by Murphy undermine voters' confidence in elections. At a time when voters in Pennsylvania's 8th District are already cynical about the political games being played in Washington, it is decisions like this that further decrease their confidence in our Congress' ability to address the real challenges facing American families.
Although Murphy doesn't seem to realize it, the time for playing partisan games and passing laws to line the pockets of political allies is over. I look forward to helping change the focus in Washington to solving the real problems facing Pennsylvania, like bringing down energy costs for families and businesses and creating new jobs in the Delaware Valley.

More earmarks!

“…Congressman Fitzpatrick has shown he cares more about his campaign war chest than the integrity of his office," Patrick Murphy accused Mike Fitzpatrick during the 2006 campaign, promising to deliver change to district 8. "We need real ethics reform in Washington, to guarantee that the people's interests, and not special interests, always come first."

But it is the integrity of Congressman Murphy that is under scrutiny now. Murphy received $28,000 from the PAC and individual donors of EDO Corporation. EDO is the recipient of a $1.6 million dollar earmark obtained by Murphy. Which interest did Murphy place first?

Let's not forget New York Congressman Charlie Rangel. It's interesting that Murphy continues to support Rangel even as he undergoes an ethics review. Murphy has received $14,000 in campaign contributions from Rangel, and he voted to support a $2 million dollar earmark for Rangel's private library and office.

It seems to me that Murphy has forgotten his campaign promises very quickly. Where’s the ‘real ethics reform’ he promised? Between the earmarks and the donations it is hard to find. Murphy’s integrity has been squashed by his campaign war chest.