Ensign’s Parents Paid Off His Mistress

July 10th, 2009 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags: ,

ensignThe story surrounding Senator John Ensign’s affair becomes even more vulgar than it already was. Yesterday, Politico reported that Ensign’s parents paid his mistress $96,000 to stay silent:

On Thursday, Ensign’s attorney said that the senator’s parents gave DougHampton,Cynthia Hamptonand their two children gifts worth $96,000 in the form of a check. The attorney, Paul Coggins, said that each gift was limited to $12,000 and “complied with tax rules governing gifts.”

The disclosure of the April 2008 payment seemed intended to head off growing questions about whether Ensign violated federal law by failing to report what Doug Hampton called a severance package worth more than $25,000 to his wife Cynthia, who left Ensign’s campaign staff on April 30, 2008…

The revelations of the payoff came as the scandal- quiet for several weeks – blossomed anew as Doug Hampton, the husband of Ensign’s mistress Cynthia, told a Nevada television show this week that Ensign left his family in shambles by relentlessly pursuing his wife, even after writing a February 2008 letter purporting to break off the affair. The nine-month affair ended in August 2008 – some three months after the time both Hamptons left Ensign’s staff.

From the looks of it, Ensign truly behaved outrageously.

Having said that, I find it slightly amusing that Doug Hampton portrays his wife as some kind of innocent victim. She is not, of course. An affair requires the cooperation of two people. Cynthia Hampton could have told Ensign she was happily married, not willing to sleep with him and, if he did not accept her answer, she could have quit.

Still, although the controversy tells us a lot about Ensign, it would be foolish to write him off completely politically; his having had an affair does not mean he is a terrible politician. In fact, he could still be a very good one. When it comes to politicians, what matters is the policies they favor, not the affairs they may or may not have had.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. carly
    July 10th, 2009 at 12:37
    Reply | Quote | #1

    Isn’t this called hush money? Ensign should resign. There is a related post at http://iamsoannoyed.com/?page_id=588

  2. CStanley
    July 10th, 2009 at 14:58
    Reply | Quote | #2

    I couldn’t help but think that the most pathetic part of this whole thing is that a 51 year old guy ran to his mom and dad to help bail him out of a mess.

  3. Doomed
    July 10th, 2009 at 15:33
    Reply | Quote | #3

    My heart is heavy. Let us replace another GOP sex addict with a democrat that at least doesnt preach abstinence and then indulges in his own lurid sex binges.

    I suggest that the gop be replace with a new party called…….DILLIGAF…….or for short bikers call that:

    Does It Look Like I Give A Fu**????

    That seems to be the GOP right now. They are so morally reprehensive right now that their trip in the wilderness might last a long time.

    Term Limits anyone??….puhlease America….its time to start talking about state sponsored amendments that limit the senators and representatives to 12 years each if the national Government won’t do it.

  4. Interested
    July 11th, 2009 at 06:20
    Reply | Quote | #4

    carly :
    Isn’t this called hush money? Ensign should resign. There is a related post at http://iamsoannoyed.com/?page_id=588

    Did you feel the same about Mahoney? what about Clinton’s multiple affairs?

    CStanley :
    I couldn’t help but think that the most pathetic part of this whole thing is that a 51 year old guy ran to his mom and dad to help bail him out of a mess.

    True that.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.