The Heinz Campaign
John Kerry called on his political opponents to fully disclose their tax returns. Now his wife, Teresa Heinz-Kerry, is saying, ï¿½This is my life, my business, not John’s, I think it is very important to keep the privacy zone. There is a tradition of thisï¿½ in response to calls for her full disclosure of tax returns.
You might say her information should be kept separate from his, but thereï¿½s a problem with that. In December, 2003, Kerry announced that he had given his campaign $850,000 from a $6.4 Million mortgage of a Boston home he jointly owns with his wife.
This loan carries an annual interest payment of $200,000, records show, more than Kerry’s $158,000 Senate salary. Not to mention, according to Kerry’s own 1994 senate personal financial disclosure (signed May, 15, 1995), Kerry’s own personal net worth was somewhere between a negative $130,000 to positive $34,995. Did Senator Kerryï¿½s Senate salary pay for a house that has no mortgage, but is valuable enough to elicit a $6 million + loan? But maybe the house was hers before they got married, and Teresa made John sign a prenuptial, so if they divorced, the house would presumably go to her. To say nothing of the notion that if the bank saw trouble in the repayment of the loan, where would they look?
So this property must be receiving money from someone other than John Kerry, and since it was the source of the mortgage that made the large ï¿½donationï¿½ to Kerryï¿½s Presidential campaign, it must be part of his ï¿½full disclosure.ï¿½
Under the campaign finance rules, Kerry can spend his own money from the fortune he shares with his wife, heiress Teresa Heinz Kerry, who inherited around $500 million from her first husband, the late Sen. John Heinz, the heir to the Heinz ketchup fortune. But if he is, then her tax returns ought to be fair game under “full disclosure”. If the Heinz fortune is being used to pay for Kerryï¿½s campaign, the American people have a right to knowï¿½ If her tax returns are not covered under full disclosure, then we have to assume John Kerry is not using comingled assets for his campaign, and as such, any money donated to his campaign from the mortgage of the Beacon Hill estate must’ve come from Teresa’s separate funds, thus violating her $2,000 campaign donation limit.
1. If John Kerry is using resources from the fortune he shares with his wife, Teresa Heinz-Kerry, then her tax returns ought to be covered under the “full disclosure” he’s requested of others…
2. If John Kerry is NOT using resources from the fortune he shares, then donations like the one made from the mortgage of the Beacon Hill estate must be considered independent donations of Teresa Heinz-Kerry, in violation of the $2,000 individual donation limit.
So which is it?
In his 1990 Senate race, Kerry said:
ï¿½I think people want to know whether someone they possibly might send to Washington to represent them in the Senate is someone who pays their fair share of taxes, why is James Rappaport hiding his tax returns? Why is it some people can live up to that standard and he can’t? It seems to me that he ought to be able to release those returns and clear the air… Why doesn’t he just release them? What is he hiding?ï¿½
So Mr. and Mrs. Kerry, what are YOU hiding?