Except that the tax return (Kasich only provide access to reporters, for 15 minutes, denied any copying and only permitted notetaking) showed that Kasich actually did receive a bonus that essentially tripled his annual salary the same year Lehman Bros. went into bankruptcy.
So, then Keeling pivots to:
With over $500k in compensation (most of it in “bonuses”) from a “bankrupt” company, who needed a golden parachute?
A “golden parachute” is normally a contractual agreement to prevent an executive from making the company subject to a hostile takeover by manipulating the company’s stock price by selling its shares, etc.
There was never any allegation that Kasich received a “golden parachute” as that is a term that commonly used in a situation in which an executive was terminated by the company, not when the company ceased to exists.
So Keeling is now reduced to touting that this single tax record disproves something nobody has alleged.? Nobody said Kasich benefited from a contractual golden parachute agreement, but that he benfitted financially while the company collapsed.? Again, the fact that he earned roughly three times his salary thanks to bonuses while the company was collapses is CONFIRMED by this disclosure.
In fact, the DDN report Keeling cited actually shows what a farce Kasich’s transparency was:
Kasich?s campaign permitted reporters to see but not photocopy a summary of Kasich?s 2008 income tax return and portions of the actual return.
How’s that for transparency?? A summary and “portions” of the actual return, for only one year.
During the 2006 contest, both Blackwell and Strickland was far more transparent, releasing entire copies of their returns for multiple years (six years worth, in fact).
What is Kasich hiding?