Check out the clip below for more details:

SoCal Dem. Campaign Treasurer Arrested: MyFoxLA.com

It looks like the elected officials that Durkee was doing work for may have been the victims of embezzlement. The LA Times reports that Correa had only learned of any troubles in working with his campaign treasurer on Friday.

This isn’t the first time Rep. Loretta Sanchez has encountered a problem with people spending money inappropriately. Just a few years ago, a former aide to Rep. Sanchez was given probation for stealing office funds for pizza, groceries, and airline tickets.

For those of you who follow media, you may know Jose Antonio Vargas as a journalist who had been at The Washington Post, The Huffington Post, and has had the privilege of interviewing high profile celebrities and leaders. Like many others, I enjoyed reading his profiles and his pieces about technology and society. Vargas was even part of The Washington Post team that earned a Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on the Virginia Tech shootings.

Like many young people who are undocumented, Vargas found out about his status while in high school although he had been in the US since the age of 12 having arrived from the Philippines. Since discovering that he was an undocumented immigrant, he has relied on a network or “an underground railroad” that has helped provide cover for him so that he could finish school and obtain work. With a fake passport and a photocopied Social Security card, Vargas was able to navigate the employment system. He even knowingly checked off the citizenship box on I-9 employment eligibility forms despite feeling a strong sense of guilt for doing so.

Vargas explains:

“For more than a decade of getting part-time and full-time jobs, employers have rarely asked to check my original Social Security card. When they did, I showed the photocopied version, which they accepted. Over time, I also began checking the citizenship box on my federal I-9 employment eligibility forms. (Claiming full citizenship was actually easier than declaring permanent resident “green card” status, which would have required me to provide an alien registration number.)

This deceit never got easier. The more I did it, the more I felt like an impostor, the more guilt I carried — and the more I worried that I would get caught. But I kept doing it. I needed to live and survive on my own, and I decided this was the way.”

This admission of deceit at this level is going to make many uncomfortable — even those who may be more sympathetic to undocumented workers and open minded about reforming the immigration system. I will admit that I felt a little uneasy when I first read Vargas’ story this morning, especially in light of all of the recent news about professional journalists being laid off from their jobs. For all these years, this guy was “gaming the system” in a profession where ethics and guarding sensitive information and sources are paramount. Yet at the same time, Vargas’ story is one of a young person trying to prove his “worthiness as an American” with hard work and perseverance. And he does explain how guilty he felt for continuing the lies and has apologized to employers for doing so.

As I see it, there are many shades of grey in this situation, and Vargas’ admission is definitely going to spark debate. I doubt that the Obama administration’s Department of Homeland Security will want to make an example of Vargas by throwing him into deportation proceedings given his public prominence, but where does that leave the other undocumented people who aren’t Pulitzer Prize winners and who don’t have friends in high places who are willing to vouch for their work and character? Much like the larger American community, you have the dynamics of privilege playing out with those who are undocumented.

I encourage you to check out the video below of Jose Antonio Vargas sharing his story as he attempts to “Define American“, and do share your thoughts:

“There is no allegation of impropriety stemming from the inaccurate disclosure forms, but a review of several years of Sanchez’s financial records shows a history of sloppy record-keeping for a member of Congress whose new job on the ethics committee is to review the ethics and financial disclosures of other lawmakers.

Sanchez also has other holes in her financial disclosure forms. She failed to disclose for more than two years a royalty agreement related to a book she co-wrote with her sister, Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), who has never declared the same royalty agreement on any of her disclosure reports. An aide to Linda Sanchez said the California Democrat never received any money from the book.

In addition, Sanchez appeared to violate the terms of her mortgage on a Capitol Hill condo by renting out the unit in 2009. A document Sanchez signed as part of her 2005 mortgage agreement on the condo — purchased from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) — barred her from leasing it to another party. The mortgage documents, along with real estate records and financial disclosure forms filed with the House, were reviewed by POLITICO for this report.

However, on her annual disclosure report filed in 2010 — which covers the previous year — Sanchez acknowledged receiving between $5,000 and $15,000 in rental income from the Washington condo. By renting out the unit, Sanchez was required to declare the mortgage on the property on her annual reports, which she did properly.

But Sanchez failed to report a $34,500 home equity line of credit she took out on the condo. When Sanchez reported she owned the property, she misreported the address.

Sanchez sold the Capitol Hill condo to Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) last year for $290,000, according to public records.”

The article also made mention of the staff sharing arrangement that Linda Sanchez engaged in with her sister, Loretta, which again is something that she probably should have avoided altogether. The staff sharing arrangement occurred after the Caroline Valdez embezzlement case.

Los Angeles City council members earn more than members of congress with a salary of $178,000 per year (members of congress earn $174,000). So it is kind of odd that Huizar would drag out payments to Martinez. The article also reveals that Huizar must have felt comfortable enough with Martinez’s business practices to utilize his services for refinancing his home and repairing his rental property in the district:

“Martinez said two FBI agents met with him in July and asked how he knew Huizar. Martinez said he told them that he had refinanced Huizar’s home in Boyle Heights in 2006 and, about the same time, helped supervise repairs at Huizar’s rental house on La Calandria Way.

“They asked if he ever paid for that work,” Martinez said. “I said no. They asked if I ever sent invoices, and I said yes, I did.”

Martinez said he never took Huizar to court over the unpaid bills and had not spoken to him about them since last March, when the two met at the Coffee Table in Eagle Rock. During that meeting, Huizar indicated that he could not pay right away and would have to make a series of payments on the bills regarding his rental house, Martinez said.

Nothing arrived until last month, said Martinez, who provided The Times with a copy of the check and a letter from Huizar that accompanied it.

Skelton said the councilman’s family sent the check to end a billing dispute and “put it behind them.” Skelton said Martinez has a history of “making stuff up” and noted — as Huizar has in recent campaign appearances — that Martinez has a criminal record.”

What are your thoughts? My sense is that Huizar is in a state of denial of whatever it is the FBI is examining into his affairs. Just recently, Huizar sat for a fluff piece in a local restaurant, and last week, he was late to a city council meeting, which ended up being canceled. It just seems that his message and campaign is in disarray. If this investigation or inquiry is really over the $10,330 in home repairs, it seems that Huizar should have had the resources to settle this bill or that he would have wanted to rid himself of any financial obligation to his current opponent for his seat.

Back in June, Linda Sanchez made a statement about the Arizona law and then backtracked a bit in terms of linking the origins of SB 1070 to white supremacists.

I am hopeful that Linda Sanchez takes her new role seriously and doesn’t back down when it comes to ethics issues and the House rules. She is in a position to distinguish herself and play a more serious role than her elder sister.

La Opinion even featured a story about the feet dragging in releasing an accounting of this fund. Community groups and local publications in Los Angeles’s Eastside have been persistent in trying to get this information about the CLARTS fund accounting for months because it has been suggested that current Councilman Huizar is using the fund for his own self promotion.

Last week, I was able to speak with former Council member Nick Pacheco about the CLARTS fund, which he established and he offered this, “I don’t understand what the difficulty is in outlining how the money came in and how it was spent. He [Huizar] is in the best position to compile the information. Huizar is trying to put the work onto the community for what should be a public service.”

When asked about what he thought Councilman Huizar did with the CLARTS fund to stonewall in releasing an accounting, Pacheco said, “There are rumors that he [Huizar] gave the money to the general fund, but we really don’t know.”

This week the Los Angeles Weekly featured a pretty comprehensive blog post about this latest brouhaha in the Council District 14 Race that’s worth a read as well. It’s off to the races in Council District 14, and the incumbent Council member Huizar is giving us his best “Hi Ho Silver” it seems.

Politicians on both the left and the right have been guilty of this kind of spending. We have seen this in California with former assembly speaker Fabian Nuñez spending campaign cash on French wine and Louis Vuitton. This kind of expending should not be excused, and I think that Latino politicians have to be extra careful in not appearing to be “on the take.” And Rubio should be especially careful, as he has been running on the “fiscal conservative” platform and lists “spending” as the first issue on his website (under the “issues” tab). There is also this idea that Miami, where Rubio is from, is a place known for fraud, just google “fraud and Miami” to get an idea. So Rubio and his people should have definitely been on top of any spending that might look questionable in the eyes of the public.

The Democrats in Florida have already jumped on this Rubio “spending spree” with this short ad:

In concluding, I should note that Marco Rubio has agreed to pay back some of the charges to the state GOP, namely some airfare charges that he says were a “mistake.” But what are your thoughts? Should the public forgive and forget or should we be angered that our politicians think that they can get away with these expenditures, especially at the expense of one’s political party or campaign? If you donate to a party or political campaign, how do you expect those dollars to be used?

This staffing investigation has been going on since spring of this year, but I would like to see the alleged lobbying relationship between Loretta Sanchez and Jack Einwechter examined. Sources have told me that this relationship is on the rocks.

But to get back to the staffing issue, I am bothered that the Sanchez sisters would think that they could just swap staff. These sisters don’t fall in line on every issue, and it could create management problems to simply transfer some of Loretta’s staff to Linda’s office payroll. One thing that I have kept in mind as a working person is that you have to keep your boss pleased. In this scenario, who is the boss? Linda or Loretta?

This certainly is a tragic incident for a young Latina like Ms. Valdez. All of this grief and press for what amounts to rather petty theft. And Ms. Valdez now has a felony on her record, but what I find just as disturbing is this piece of information from today’s AP story:

“The native of Nogales, Ariz., quit her studies at Arizona State University in 2004 to pursue a political career in Washington at age 23. Her attorneys said she was living on her own for the first time and was struggling to pay her bills on a roughly $30,000 congressional salary with the high cost of living in Washington, student loan payments due and her irresponsible spending habits.”

Given the dire state of Latinos and education and the problems we have with getting into college and completing undergraduate degrees, I’m disappointed that Rep. Loretta Sanchez would even hire someone like Caroline Valdez, who left the possibility of earning that degree at ASU, for a political career at age 23. Geez, even Loretta herself gives the spiel to young Latinas about how she has earned a bachelor’s degree and an MBA. Our nation’s capitol is a power hungry environment, where degrees, credentials, and knowledge are slung around in nearly every formal introduction of anyone of quasi importance. I witnessed this last week, where I sat through numerous introductions listening to where people earned their bachelor’s degrees, graduate degrees, and where they completed post-graduate work (if at all). Under what kind of delusions was Caroline Valdez under that a young Latina from Nogales could have a successful political career without formal credentials?

Finally, as usual, Congresswoman Sanchez’s office offered no comment on this situation with Ms. Valdez. But I imagine that the refusal to comment has become standard operating procedure for anything that stinks coming out of this Representative’s office. All of this should make for interesting fodder in next year’s election, where Loretta Sanchez will face off with Van Tran.

“‘Twenty thousand is nothing to keep your seat,’ said Representative Loretta Sanchez, a Democrat. ‘If my colleagues are smart, they’ll pay $20,000, and Michael will draw the district they can win. Those who have refused to pay, God help them.’ By drawing these convoluted, noncompetitive districts, politicians are spared worrying about diverse constituencies; nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in the racially directed redistricting in the South.”

This quote is obviously referencing redistricting, which occurs after every census. However, in admitting that paying twenty thousand dollars to a consultant to have a safe seat drawn, Rep. Loretta Sanchez endorses gerrymandering and signals that she doesn’t need any help from fundraisers because she can buy her district mapped in such a way so she can win. Why would anyone want to contribute to Sanchez’s campaign after she made this statement?

While following the money regarding Congresswoman Sanchez, I found this item from last week under “Dirty Money Watch” in the Washington Examiner. It is worth noting that her other congressional colleagues gave their “dirty money” to charity, while Loretta Sanchez did not respond to the paper’s request for comment. Rep. Sanchez has a pattern of not responding to hard questions.