In attempting to make the pre-primary reports mildly interesting I included a couple of the donations to Roskam’s campaign including one John S. Fund, which is not the John Fund of the Wall Street Journal. In fact, it is not a person, it is a PAC. Fund of the Journal indicates he hasn’t donated to a political campaign in over 20 years. My mistake. Hell, it might not be the former Congressman Michael Flanagan either (actually I’m pretty sure on that one).

Sorry to John Fund of the WSJ for any confusion. Frankly, I was getting bored with the reports by then. Hence, jokes about the amounts of expenditures as well. While a silly mistake, still not as bad as saying Gephardt was the VP nominee.

3 thoughts on “Correction: Not THE John Fund”
  1. For someone that was supposed to be a Lutheran minister in another life & is considered a “real nice guy”, he definitely knows how to “hide” the money in plain sight really well.

    http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_detail/C00390831/

    A very interesting read. From the highlights, he enjoys money from the top favorites such as Exelon, UPS, AT&T, & pick a major drug company.

    He’s given to DeLay’s re-election ($1,000) & Roskam’s anointing ($2,000). Hastert wants him to remain in office for a reason. Shimkus — he’s a “nice” guy alright.

  2. For someone that was supposed to be a Lutheran minister in another life & is considered a “real nice guy”, he definitely knows how to “hide” the money in plain sight really well.

    http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_detail/C00390831/

    A very interesting read. From the highlights, he enjoys money from the top favorites such as Exelon, UPS, AT&T, & pick a major drug company.

    He’s given to DeLay’s re-election ($1,000) & Roskam’s anointing ($2,000). Hastert wants him to remain in office for a reason. Shimkus — he’s a “nice” guy alright.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *