New Mexico: The New Gay Marriage Battleground As Judge Orders Issuance of Marriage Licenses

Unlike many states in America, the state of New Mexico never enacted explicit gay marriage bans through either statutes or an anti-gay amendment to the New Mexico Constitution.   As a result in the wake of the U. S. Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor - which among other things correctly identified anti-gay animus as the real motivation behind DOMA - several counties in New Mexico have started issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples.  And as reported previously on this blog, the New Mexico attorney general has announced that he will not oppose the issuance of such licenses.  To further confuse the mix of legal directives, now a judge has ordered county clerks to proceed with the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples.  Here are highlights from BuzzFeed:

A New Mexico judge has ordered the county clerks of Bernalillo and Sante Fe counties to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples who apply and are otherwise qualified.

Because the clerk in Santa Fe County already began issuing licenses last week, as did the clerk of Dona Ana County, the addition of Bernalillo County into the mix makes a third county in the state where licenses will be issued to same-sex couples.

Issuing a peremptory writ of mandamus, Judge Alan Malott found Monday that the couples suing for a right to marry in one of the only states in the nation without either marriage equality or an explicit ban on such marriages have a “significant likelihood of success” on the merits of their lawsuit.   In reading his ruling in open court Monday, Malott said he ordered that:

New Mexico law, Malott found, “does not preclude nor prohibit issuance of a marriage license to otherwise qualified couples on the basis of sexual orientation or the gender of its members.”.

To the extent it is found to do so, “those prohibitions are unconstitutional and unenforceable under” New Mexico’s constitution, he ruled.

Bernalillo County Clerk Maggie Oliver and Santa Fe County Clerk Geraldine Salazar “shall comply with and perform” their duty to issue such licences.
Oliver and Salazar are “enjoined and restrained from refusing to issue” such licenses.

Malott is a district court judge in the Second Judicial District of New Mexico and was appointed to the bench by former Gov. Bill Richardson.

New Mexico Attorney General Gary King, meanwhile, has told that state’s Supreme Court in a third court challenge that any attempt to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying is unconstitutional.

It was not immediately clear who, if anyone, would appeal either last week’s or Monday’s court rulings. The question is relevant because neither ruling creates a final, definitive ruling about state law — a ruling that only could come from the state’s Supreme Court.

Monday Morning Male Beauty

Why We Should Be Taxing Churches

A piece in Slate makes a good case for why we should be taxing churches - all of them.  To the list of taxed organizations should be added in my opinion all of the quasi-religious organizations such as NOM, FRC, AFA, etc. , which are nothing more than propaganda organizations for extreme religious beliefs and which actively work against the rights and well being of other citizens.  Some might say that churches provide charitable relief to the poor and so forth.  If they can document these efforts, give them an exemption for funds actually spent on these endeavors but not on lavish church buildings and activities that do nothing to further the general welfare.  Here are highlights from the piece:

Amelia Thomson-Deveaux has a great piece about religious groups that are trying to remove restrictions on church-based electioneering. She suggests that rather than gutting the rules, there's a simple fix, "Religious leaders who want the liberty to endorse candidates can give up their churches’ tax deduction."

I would go one further. Let's tax churches! All of them, in a non-discriminatory way that doesn't consider faith or creed or level of political engagement. There's simply no good reason to be giving large tax subsidies to the Church of Scientology or the Diocese of San Diego or Temple Rodef Shalom in Virginia or the John Wesley African Methodist Episcopal Zion church around the corner from me. Whichever faith you think is the one true faith, it's undeniable that the majority of this church-spending is going to support false doctrines. Under the circumstances, tax subsidies for religion are highly inefficient.

What's more, even insofar as tax subsidies do target the true faith they're still a pretty bad idea. The basic problem with subsidized religion is that there's no reason to believe that religion-related expenditures enhance productivity.
Upgrading a church's physical plant doesn't enhance the soul-saving capacity of its clergy. You just get a nicer building or a grander Christmas pageant. There's nothing wrong with that. When I was young I always enjoyed the Grace Church Christmas pageant. But this is just a kind of private entertainment (comparable to spending money on snacks for your book club—and indeed what are Bible study groups but the original book clubs?) that doesn't need an implicit subsidiy.

Meanwhile, nobody thinks churches and other religious institutions should silence themselves on the important issues of the day. On the contrary, discussing moral action is at the heart of many religious enterprises. And much moral action plays itself out in the arena of politics. So trying to say that churches should get subsidy when they don't endorse candidates is de facto a kind of subsidy to religious doctrines whose views happen to lack strong partisan implications. So if your faith says "abortion should be illegal and spending on the poor should be increased and it's too bad neither candidate supports that" you're golden, but if your faith says "abortion should be legal and spending on the poor should be increased so good for Barack Obama" suddenly you're in trouble. That's perverse. Just make everyone pay taxes.

Yes, taxing churches would put some parishes and congregations out of business.   But why should I be indirectly subsidizing a religion that hates me or teaches in my opinion false views and lies?  Put churches out in the market place and let them compete like every other business - religion is, in truth big business, just look at Pat Robertson and the many sleazy televangelists who fleece people via cable TV on a weekly basis. If their "product" sells, they will survive.  If not, then they can end up on the trash heap of history.

The Other Race Virginians Need to Watch This Year

The following is a cross posting of an op-ed I wrote at LGBTQ Nation that looks at GOP attorney general Mark Obenshain's dishonest effort to paint himself as a moderate.  The man is just as extreme as Ken Cuccinelli and the utterly insane "Bishop" E. W. Jackson.  Here's the piece in its entirety:

Given its off year elections, Virginia is attracting a good deal of attention among political observers.  LGBT Virginians, women and minorities likewise ought to be paying close attention. Why?  Because the Republican statewide ticket — which was nominated at a convention dominated by far right religious extremists and Tea Party fanatics (who usually also identify as “conservative Christians”) — is the most extreme in Virginia’s history.

There has been a great deal of media coverage of the GOP gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli who has a bizarre fixation on reinstating Virginia’s “crimes against nature statute,” is a climate change denier, and who has shown himself to be ethically challenged at best as he has taken gifts and campaign contributions for those who have sought a quid pro quo from the Attorney General’s office, which Cuccinelli currently occupies.

Likewise, there has been plentiful media coverage on Lt. Governor candidate E.W. “Bishop” Jackson who has made off the fall anti-gay statements, insulted civil rights leaders and generally shown himself to inhabit some strange alternate universe from sentient persons.
In fact, Jackson makes AFA’s Bryan Fischer and FRC’s Tony Perkins appear to be fairly rational in comparison.

Lacking in similar coverage has been the GOP nominee for Attorney General, Mark Obenshain, who, if one knows his background and voting record in the Virginia General Assembly is every bit as extreme and – I would argue insane – as Cuccinelli and “Bishop” Jackson.

Despite his extremism as evidenced by his past record, Obenshain has been trying to reinvent himself as a “moderate” and even claimed that he doesn’t support discrimination against anyone (more on this later).
As a recent article in the Virginian Pilot noted, the attorney general race deserves much closer attention than it is currently receiving for several reasons.
First, the next attorney general will help frame the national perception of Virginia, and his name is likely to appear at the top of the 2017 ballot because historically Virginia’s attorney general has run, or resigned to run, for governor in every election, including this one, dating to 1993.
Second, under Virginia law, the Attorney General interprets Virginia’s statutory law and determines which laws meet constitutional muster under both the Virginia Constitution and the United States Constitution.

For example, Obenshain has pledged to continue fighting President Barack Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act (a.k.a. “Obamacare”), either by filing briefs in a pending legal challenge or by filing a new lawsuit.

Also, his Democrat opponent, Mark Herring, has said he wouldn’t defend Virginia’s anti-sodomy statute because it’s clearly unconstitutional while Obenshain will likely seek to defend it despite trying to pretend to be noncommittal.

Like Cuccinelli, Obenshain refuses to recognize the full scope of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas and is so thoroughly under the thumb of the Christofascists at The Family Foundation (an affiliate of Focus on the Family and registered hate group, Family Research Council) that he will no doubt refuse to accept the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuits’s decision striking down Virginia’s sodomy statute for a second time.

Why do I come to this conclusions? Obenshain’s record in the Virginia General Assembly confirms that he is every bit as extreme as Ken Cuccinelli and “Bishop” Jackson.

Here’s an overview of Obenshain’s record:

1.   Obenshain has previously introduced a bill that would have required any woman in Virginia who has a miscarriage without a doctor present, to file a report it within 24 hours to the police or otherwise risk going to jail for a full year.  Obenshain’s bill read in part as follows:

When a fetal death occurs without medical attendance upon the mother at or after the delivery or abortion, the mother or someone acting on her behalf shall, within 24 hours, report the fetal death, location of the remains, and identity of the mother to the local or state police or sheriff’s department of the city or county where the fetal death occurred. No one shall remove, destroy, or otherwise dispose of any remains without the express authorization of law-enforcement officials or the medical examiner. Any person violating the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

For those unfamiliar with Virginia law, a Class 1 misdemeanor cares a 1 year jail sentence and a fine of $2,500.00.

2.  Obenshain has supported a “personhood” bill that would outlaw all abortions and grant full constitutional rights to a fetus from the moment of conception.

3. In 2013 Obenshain sponsored a bill requiring limited types of photo identification as part of the Virginia GOP’s active effort to disenfranchise minority voters. Acceptable forms of ID include a government-issued photo ID that includes their address, a photo ID from a Virginia college or university, or a workplace ID featuring a photo.  Regular Voter ID cards would not be sufficient.

4.  Obenshain has consistently voted against Democratic measures that would assure employment non-discrimination protections for homosexual state employees under Virginia’s anti-discrimination law.

5.  In January, 2013, Obenshain walked off the Senate floor rather than support former Richmond prosecutor Tracy Thorne-Begland, who is openly gay, for a Richmond General District Court judgeship.  In 2012, other GOP extremists in the House of Delagate blocked Thorne-Begland’s appointment but were out maneuvered by the Richmond Circuit Court judges who appointed him on an interim bases after Thorne-Begland received unanimous backing from the five largest mega-law firms based in Virginia.

In short, despite his recent pretenses, Obenshain is anti-gay, anti-minority and anti-women’s rights. 

If Virginians want a quasi-theocracy in Virginia, they can vote for Obenshain and his fellow extremists on the GOP ticket.  If, instead, they believe in the principles of Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers from Virginia, their choice is clear: vote for Mark Herring for Attorney Genaral, Terry McAuliffe for Governor, and Ralph Northam for Lt. Governor.
 

The Republican Armageddon Caucus

Obstruction and outright sabotage are now the main hallmarks of the Republican Party at the national level.  Particularly among some of the worse far right ideologues who naturally are the darlings of the drooling, spittle flecked GOP base.  This group offers nothing in terms of proposed solutions to many pressing problems and needs and instead seek only to destroy government and needed programs  And equally disturbing is the reality that thanks to shameless district gerrymandering, it will be difficult to get rid of these horrid individuals.  A column in the Washington Post looks at this cabal of  lunacy and what it may hold for the nation.  Here are excerpts:

[A]fter three years of congressional dysfunction brought on by the rise of a radicalized brand of conservatism, it’s time to call the core questions:

Will our ability to govern ourselves be held perpetually hostage to an ideology that casts government as little more than dead weight in American life? And will a small minority in Congress be allowed to grind decision-making to a halt?

Congress is supposed to be the venue in which we Americans work our way past divisions that are inevitable in a large and diverse democracy. Yet for some time, Republican congressional leaders have given the most right-wing members of the House and Senate a veto power that impedes compromise, and thus governing itself.

On the few occasions when the far-right veto was lifted, Congress got things done . . . . All these actions had something in common: They were premised on the belief that government can take practical steps to make American life better.

This idea is dismissed by those ready to shut down the government or to use the debt ceiling as a way of forcing the repeal or delay of the Affordable Care Act and passing more draconian spending reductions. It needs to be made very clear that these radical Republicans are operating well outside their party’s own constructive traditions.

Before their 2010 election victory, Republicans had never been willing to use the threat of default to achieve their goals.
The very fact that everyone now accepts the term “Obamacare” to refer to a measure designed to get health insurance to many more Americans is a sign of how stupidly partisan we have become.

The health-care exchanges to facilitate the purchase of private insurance were based on a Heritage Foundation proposal, first brought to fruition in Massachusetts by a Republican governor named Mitt Romney. Subsidizing private premiums was always a Republican alternative to extending Medicare to cover everyone, the remedy preferred by many liberals.

But that was then. The right wing’s recent rejection of a significant government role in ending the scandal of “a health-care system that does not even come close to being comprehensive and fails to reach far too many” — the words were spoken 24 years ago by the late Sen. John Chafee, a Rhode Island Republican — tells us why Congress no longer works.

The GOP has gone from endorsing market-based government solutions to problems the private sector can’t solve — i.e, Obamacare — to believing that no solution involving expanded government can possibly be good for the country.

Behind all of the GOP posturing is something else: Greed.  The base of the GOP which constantly blathers about its religiosity and Christian ideals in truth doesn't give a damn about other citizens.  They don't want to pay anything toward the common good and basically hate everyone other than themselves.  They are a scourge on America and the world.

More GOP Hysteria Over Boyd Marcus Defection from GOP

The Republican Party of Virginia has nominated the most extreme - and my opinion mentally ill - slate of statewide candidates in Virginia's history thanks to Ken Cuccinelli's maneuver to have the nominating process done through a state wide convention dominated by Christofascists and Tea Party lunatics.  Anyone sane should have seen that many long time Republicans simply would not be able to hold their noses and vote for individuals better suited for incarceration in a mental institution that state wide elected office.  Among those fleeing this GOP created nightmare is Boyd Marcus (pictured at left), a long time GOP operative who simply could not stomach the thought of Ken Cuccinelli in the Governors mansion.   The fall out of this notable defection continues as noted in a column in the Richmond Times Dispatch.  Here are column excerpts:

To Virginia Republicans, he is the “Prince of Darkness.” To veteran reporters, he is the “smiling assassin.” His watchwords, from Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar,” were framed on his office wall: “Cry ‘Havoc!’ and let slip the dogs of war.”

Boyd Marcus runs Republican campaigns. He can run opponents into the ground with tough talking points and slasher direct-mail. He ran state government as Gov. Jim Gilmore’s chief of staff. He ran off allies as partisan enforcer of the budget-busting no-car-tax plan.
 

Marcus is on the run from a Republican Party he no longer recognizes.  He is doing the unthinkable: crossing over to the Democrats. He’s taking a job, paying up to five-figures a month, as a strategist for gubernatorial nominee Terry McAuliffe. It follows a months-long courtship, direct and indirect, that accelerated after the fight over new road taxes.

Marcus, a reflexive Republican, said in a written statement he is supporting McAuliffe, a reflexive Democrat, because the candidate is a pragmatic bipartisan. Marcus also cited McAuliffe’s business credentials . . . .

The Marcus defection is no laughing matter.  For Republicans, it feeds a troubling narrative about Ken Cuccinelli that he, alone, composed: The Republican candidate for governor — heartthrob of tea partiers and Rand Paul-ites who have no use for suburban, business-oriented R’s such as Marcus — does not work or play well with others. This is a dominant feature in the broad-strokes portrait Democrats are painting of Cuccinelli in their nonstop television and online advertising.

Cuccinelli depicts the Marcus break as a grab for cash by a guy who could use some. Further, Cuccinelli says Marcus is motivated by spite, having seen Bolling, who was waiting in line to run, lose the nomination to someone who jumped in front.

“If there’s one thing people don’t like, it’s a Benedict Arnold,” said Chris LaCivita, Cuccinelli’s lead adviser. “You’re either a sore loser or a sellout. Boyd Marcus happens to be both.”

Cuccinelli can spin all he wants.  The bottom line is that he's a detestable individual who is unfit to be governor.  Marcus sees this and it drives Cuccinelli crazy (or at least crazier).

Sunday Morning Male Beauty

New York State Sues Donald Trump and "Trump University" for Fraud

In my opinion, Donald Trump is among the most detestable, ego-maniacal, blow hard s one will ever find.  He is in a tempestuous love affair with himself and knows no limits in pomposity.  And, now New York State has accused him of marketing a fraudulent scheme called "Trump University" that defrauded the gullible out of money.  I sincerely hope that the State of New York wins the case.  Trump, not surprisingly, claims that the lawsuit is politically motivated.  Anything to distract and blow a smoke screen.  Here are highlights from a piece in the Washington Post:

New York’s attorney general sued Donald Trump for $40 million Saturday, saying the real estate mogul helped run a phony “Trump University” that promised to make students rich but instead steered them into expensive and mostly useless seminars, and even failed to deliver promised apprenticeships.

Trump shot back that the Democrat’s lawsuit is false and politically motivated.

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says many of the 5,000 students who paid up to $35,000 thought they would at least meet Trump but instead all they got was their picture taken in front of a life-size picture of “The Apprentice” TV star.

“Trump University engaged in deception at every stage of consumers’ advancement through costly programs and caused real financial harm,” Schneiderman said. “Trump University, with Donald Trump’s knowledge and participation, relied on Trump’s name recognition and celebrity status to take advantage of consumers who believed in the Trump brand.”

The lawsuit says many of the wannabe moguls were unable to land even one real estate deal and were left far worse off than before the lessons, facing thousands of dollars in debt for the seminar program once billed as a top quality university with Trump’s “hand-picked” instructors.

Schneiderman is suing the program, Trump as the university chairman, and the former president of the university in a case to be handled in state Supreme Court in Manhattan. He accuses them of engaging in persistent fraud, illegal and deceptive conduct and violating federal consumer protection law. The $40 million he seeks is mostly to pay restitution to consumers.  He dismissed Trump’s claim of a political motive.

Schneiderman’s lawsuit covers complaints dating to 2005 through 2011. Students paid between $1,495 and $35,000 to learn from the Manhattan mogul who wrote the best seller, “Art of the Deal” a decade ago followed by “How to Get Rich” and “Think Like a Billionaire.”
 
At the seminars, consumers were told about “Trump Elite” mentorships that cost $10,000 to $35,000. Students were promised individual instruction until they made their first deal. Schneiderman said participants were urged to extend the limit on their credit cards for real estate deals, but then used the credit to pay for the Trump Elite programs. The attorney general said the program also failed to promptly cancel memberships as promised.

While Trump's program is higher profile than many of these real estate "universities" and "boot camps," there are a plethora of these programs that charge thousands of dollars but deliver little or nothing of substance and disseminate "expert prepared" forms that are mediocre at best.    The only one who gets rich from these programs are those putting on the supposedly educational programs.

 

Barack Obama's Real Offense in the Eyes of the GOP - He's Black

When not insisting that Barack Obama is a Muslim who was not born in the United States, the Tea Party crowd is busy fantasizing about impeaching Obama.  Never mind that they have no legal grounds for doing so.  It's simply because they cannot stand the man.  His real offense?  He's black.  He embodies all the fears and resentments of angry whites who see their privileged position in society eroding and the white majority position in the population declining.  Soon, they will be merely like everyone else or, and this is what terrifies them, less than everyone else.  There's a good reason the Tea Party is so strong in the South: since the beginning of the nation, one might be nothing, but if you were white in the South, you were assured a superior position in Southern society in most circles (not all, of course, my New Orleans belle grandmother so "poor white trash" as the lowest of the low since, unlike blacks, they did not face racial barriers to self improvement).  These people are steadily losing that once assured position to black, Hispanics, Asians, etc., and it has become an obsession embodied by Obama.  In the New York Times Maureen Dowd looks at the GOP obsession to impeach Obama and rightly concludes that it's really all about race.  Here are excerpts:

ON the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, Kerry Bentivolio, a Michigan [Republican] congressman, has a dream, too: to impeach the nation’s first black president. 

Bentivolio graciously conceded that he’d have to come up with some grounds first. “I went back to my office and I have had lawyers come in,” he said. “And these are lawyers, well — Ph.D.’s in history — I said, ‘Tell me how I can impeach the president of the United States. What evidence do you have?’ You’ve got to have the evidence.” 

The Tea Party congressman, a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, hopes to find e-mails linking the White House to the I.R.S. examination of groups with a “Tea Party” label seeking tax-exempt status. 

“I stood 12 feet away from the guy and listened to him and I couldn’t stand being there,” he said of President Obama,. . . .

Bentivolio is the perfect avatar of the impeachment fever gripping a G.O.P. that’s unmoored from reality, given that he once admitted in a court deposition, “I have a problem figuring out which one I really am, Santa Claus or Kerry Bentivolio.” That’s why he sometimes used the pronoun “we.” 

He’s been playing Santa Claus — as part of a business he started 19 years ago called Old Fashion Santa — with his own six reindeer.

The Free Press reported that Bentivolio, no Edmund Gwenn in “Miracle on 34th Street,” left a teaching job in 2011 “after complaints he bullied students, even telling one class on its first day that his goal was to make all the students cry once during the year.” How much more gratifying to bully the president. 

Not content with fighting off a popular immigration overhaul or threatening to shut down the government and set off the first federal default, hard-core Congressional Republicans want to nullify the election. Unlike when the Republicans did their nutty impeachment of Bill Clinton — (Newt Gingrich is back, starring in the “Crossfire” reboot) — they don’t even control the Senate. And as David Axelrod told me, there isn’t a “scintilla of justification.”

Earlier this month, the president’s motorcade pulled into the Orlando Hilton and was greeted by about 50 protesters holding signs saying “Kenyan Go Home,” “Impeach Obama” and “Obama Lies.” 

This month has been rife with efforts among the G.O.P. “wise men,” using every channel possible — polls, op-eds, cable, Twitter — to try to talk sense to the goons of August. When Condi Rice is a “wise man,” you know you’re in trouble. 

The Democrats never impeached W. and they had real grounds: starting a war on false premises and sanctioning torture. “The Republican Party is in a constant struggle between its ego and its id,” Axelrod says, “and the id has mostly won out lately.” 

It isn’t the president who should leave. It’s the misguided lawmakers trying to drive him out.  For some of the rodeo clowns clamoring for impeachment around the country, Barack Obama’s real crime is presiding while black. 

Will Bob McDonnell Be Indicted?

As the Richmond Times Dispatch reports, speculation continues on whether or not Bob McDonnell and/or Maureen "Marie Antoinette" McDonnell in connection with the more than $266,000 in gifts, cash payments and political contributions received from Jonnie R. Williams and Star Scientific.  As noted to date, part of Taliban Bob's defense is that he did not know who much loot his greed driven wife received from Williams.   Meanwhile, there seems to be no explanation from Ms. McDonnell on why she acted like Emelda Marcos in her pursuit of designer clothes on lavish shopping trips to New York City.  Personally, I find it beyond belief that something of wasn't done for Williams/Star Scientific in return for such lavish spending.   As for McDonnell's feigned lack of knowledge, it's what I have called the Sergeant Schultz defense.  I don't buy it.  Here are highlights from the Times Dispatch:

Attorneys and law professors are uncertain whether Gov. Bob McDonnell’s legal troubles could lead to a federal indictment.

But if McDonnell is indicted and declines to step down, Republican legislative leaders privately are steeling themselves to ask the governor to resign to spare the state from distraction as the government gears up to produce a two-year budget by December.

Andrew G. McBride, who spent seven years as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, and three in the main Department of Justice, said the case doesn’t fit exactly a classic public corruption model — an official act in exchange for some form of compensation.

“At the same time, it has some egregious facts that might well lead the U.S. Attorney’s Office to indict.

“Or, I could very much see a situation, and this is authorized by the U.S. attorney’s manual, where they trade non-indictment of both the governor and the first lady in exchange for the immediate resignation of the governor.”

The coming weeks could be decisive. A decision or announcement could be made within two weeks to avoid getting too close to the November election.

Williams, the Star CEO, is facing his own potential legal troubles. Leading the defense team for Williams are Richard Cullen, chairman of McGuireWoods and a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia; and Toby Vick, a former federal prosecutor.

Lawyers say he could have trouble with the income tax laws for cash gifts made to the McDonnells.

Federal investigators are probing whether McDonnell or his administration provided any benefit to Williams and his company in exchange for the more than $166,000 in gifts, loans and cash payments Williams provided to the first family — in addition to nearly $110,000 in campaign and political action committee donations. The governor has maintained that Star Scientific has not received any special treatment from his administration.

There's more to the piece for those interested.  Again, no one gives that much money without expecting something.