Rep. Mike Castle’s Conflict of Interest Pt. II

   The following is a press release from March 12, 2010.

 ” Title: Castle Supports Bringing More Bankruptcy Judges To Delaware
Date: 03/12/2010
Location: Washington, DC
Press Release
Castle Supports Bringing More Bankruptcy Judges To Delaware

Today, Delaware Congressman Mike Castle voted in favor of H.R. 4506, the Bankruptcy Judgeships Act, legislation aimed at authorizing additional federal bankruptcy judgeships. Delaware, which currently has one permanent and five temporary judgeships, would now have six permanent positions.

“With the financial crisis and economic downturn resulting in an increase in the amount of both corporate and personal bankruptcies, Delaware’s bankruptcy courts have experienced rising caseload,” said Rep. Castle. “With the temporary positions set to expire soon, this bill makes the five temporary slots permanent. In addition to reflecting the seriousness of the economic challenges that we face, the rising bankruptcy rates are reminders that this Congress and Administration must focus on economic growth with policies that expand innovation and protect, instead of spend, taxpayer dollars.”

In 2009, the United States saw 1.47 million bankruptcy filings, up 32 percent from the year before. Currently, there are 352 bankruptcy judges in the federal system, of which 36 are temporary positions. H.R. 4506 would make the five judgeships permanent in Delaware that were created through the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act and the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act.

The Bankruptcy Judgeships Act is based on recommendations of the U.S. Judicial Conference, a body of 30 federal judges, including the chief justice of the United States, which makes recommendations to Congress on the federal judiciary.”

   I especially like the this part, “In addition to reflecting the seriousness of the economic challenges that we face, the rising bankruptcy rates are reminders that this Congress and Administration must focus on economic growth with policies that expand innovation and protect, instead of spend, taxpayer dollars.”
 So what does he vote for ? Increasing the number of government employees on a permanent basis. And how does having more judges help to expand innovation?

  It is also a good thing that we will have more bankruptcy judges, since so many of the things that Mr. Castle votes for will lead to more bankruptcies. It is also notable once again that Mr. Castle’s number one contributor to his campaign is the law firm of Young &Conaway, this is a law firm that deals primarily in corporate restructuring and , that’s right bankruptcies. But I am sure that having more judges and bankruptcies in the state of Delaware will not in any way benefit Young & Conaway and has nothing to do with the way that Mr. Castle voted.

Advertisements

5 Responses to “Rep. Mike Castle’s Conflict of Interest Pt. II”

  1. Stephen R Maloney Says:

    Frank, you do excellent work. I notice that Mike Castle’s site has on the contribute page these words: “Mike Castle needs YOUR support.” Silly Mike, he’s not aware that we know he has “THEIR support,” every lobbyist with a bag-full of campaign goodies, plus “THEIR support” at his beloved Young & Conaway. Of course, none of those contributions are illegal — just unethical. I’m sure (well, sorta) that Mike keeps all the millions in the bank — and not in a freezer.

  2. frankknotts Says:

    Stephen, when the majority of your campaign funds are coming from law firms , I’m sure that in the strictest sence that the donations are legal. And I’m sure some could make the argument that these law firms back Mr.Castle because of his voting record, just as we are suspicious of his voting record after receiving these donations.
    It is his voting record that causes me the greatest amount of concern and the damage that it has done and would continue to do if he were to be re-elected and sent to the U.S. Senate.

  3. Stephen R Maloney Says:

    Frank, the one way I’d partially disagree is that law firms don’t get hired for big money to scrupulously follow the law. All too often, they’re hired to find loopholes and ways to skirt the law. The people who write the laws, like Mike Castle, aren’t constructing them in such a way as to provide their backers with LESS business, are they? The 3,000 page health bill will probably on its own result in the hiriing of tens of thousands of lawyers. Thee are more lawyers in PA (12 million pop.) than in the entire island of Japan (80 million people).

    Is it really appropriate for a federal legislator to receive huge contributions from the very industries he’s supposed to “oversee?” I’m sure Mike Castle has NEVER been asked that question by, say, certain newspapers. We all know why the media avoid asking such questions. They long ago sold out to the same special interests.

    I’d ask: why does Frank have to spend so much of his time investigating Castle? Shouldn’t the MSM, if it still has any function, be informing people about the realities behind the blizzard of commercials we’ll be subjected to this summer? I’m not asking if it’s legal for beneficiaries of federal favors to dole out big money — I’m asking if it’s right, as in right-and-wrong. It’s a heckuva way to run a railroad.

    Frank, people are now writing 400-page books on why our economy collapsed. I think your recent one-pagers tell us more about the subject than those long books will.

  4. frankknotts Says:

    Stephen I agree that there is a huge difference between right and wrong and that which is legal. My point was that any campaign donations to Mr. Castle were made in a way to be sure that they were legal acordind to the rules that happen to be in place.
    As for your question,”why does Frank have to spend so much of his time investigating Castle? Shouldn’t the MSM, if it still has any function, be informing people about the realities behind the blizzard of commercials we’ll be subjected to this summer? “, well Stephen, I believe that as voters we should all do our homework. If half the voters would investigate only half as much as I do , the candidates that they will vote for , I feel that not only would we have better elected officials, but we would have more intelligent voters. And a stronger society.
    Far too many citizens believe that showing up on election day and pulling a lever means that they have paticipated in democracy. But in reality all they have done is to follow the instructions of some party line sound bite.
    We must be informed voters if we wish to fully participate in the process of democracy.

  5. Dead Cats: Mike Castle, 08/13/10, (3)22 James Brody | Dead Cats & Clippings - “The liberation of the human mind has been best furthered by…fellows who throw dead cats in sanctuaries.” H. L. Mencken Says:

    […] https://politicallyfrank.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/rep-mike-castles-conflict-of-interest-pt-ii/ Federal intervention could put at risk a third of state’s budget — ‘Overnight we would go broke.’ – http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20080302/NEWS/803020319/Delaware-s-corporate-dominance-threatened GREAT BLOG POSTS: One Delaware blogger, Frank Knotts (https://politicallyfrank.wordpress.com/), has done some excellent work on the strong appearance of impropriety in Castle’s fundraising, and we will outline more details in our news release.  The basic information is in Castle’s FEC report and replicated in http://opensecrets.org.  Rep. Mike Castle’s Conflict of Interest Pt. II – April 4, 2010 by frankknotts Rep. Castle: Member of the House Financial Services Committee – March 30, 2010 by frankknotts Rep. Mike Castle’s Conflict of Interest – March 28, 2010 by frankknotts   Opensecrets /politicians/contrib/2008&cid=N00009775=  As you will see, the number one contributor, amounting to 10% of his campaign contributions is the law firm of Young, Conaway. This is a law firm that deals primarily with bankruptcy and corporate restructuring. They contributed $146,915. You will also see that Mr. Castle’s next two largest contributors were Bank of America at number two with $27,950 and coming in at #3 was Morgan Stanley with a paltry $14,850. Oh and by the way , for those who don’t know it, Mr. Castle sits on the House Financial Services Committee, you know the one that oversees and regulates banks and the financial sector. In the eyes of Mr. Castle’s supporters, this is exactly the kind of experience that we need to send back to Washington in the Senate, to continue the good work that he has been doing in the House for oh so many years. While those who feel as I do , believe that this is exactly why he must be defeated. And one last note to those of you out there still clinging to the idea that Mr. Castle is any kind of conservative, in 2009 while serving on the House Financial Services Committee . In a Vote of 39-29 on legislation to create yet another government bureaucracy that would be known as , The Consumer Financial Protection Agency, Mike Castle was the only, as in no other, as in single Republican vote, to vote with, that’s right you guessed it , he voted with the Democrats against all of his so-called fellow Republicans in favor of growing government once again.” […]

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: