Easy to get a zero today.

fitz!

fitz

not so easy for the non-Balrogs among us….

I wonder. Is greed learned, genetic, or both?

Oklahoma kiddo @
5

I wonder. Is greed learned, genetic, or both?

Jeez. I’ll quit hogging the zero post now… Bp

Let’s not overlook The New Boss, whose modus operandi for the homefolks in Maryland’s Fifth seems quite like everyone’s.

Why is it that my Congresswoman became Speaker just as the pork may stop? Seems hardly fair — EssEff needs some bridges and highways to no-where too!

Vigilance and zero tolerance… they were allowed to be corrupt for six years… we only have to be corrupt once…

TeddySanFran @ 7

Seems hardly fair — EssEff needs some bridges and highways to no-where too!

Isn’t that the Dumbarton Bridge???

The only way to fix these structural problems is to pass legislation. Wishing upon a star for ethical politicians doesn’t work. That’s why the writers of the Constitution designed a system of checks and balances. They knew not to trust people with power.

If we run up against free speech problems or other problems when drafting legislation, we can at least go for rules that encourage transparency.

I’d like to see an effort made by everyone who relies on Medicare to contact their representatives (House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation) and tell them they’d better not cave in NOW to BigPharma or they will find the next 2 years a bobsled ride to hell.

That goes for the rest of us off Medicare as well, but Medicare recipients have a vested interest. I’m certain some folks’ lives actually hang on whether we repair the doughnut hole and give Medicare the ability to negotiate pricing.

Rob Zuber @ 10

The only way to fix these structural problems is to pass legislation. Wishing upon a star for ethical politicians doesn’t work. That’s why the writers of the Constitution designed a system of checks and balances. They knew not to trust people with power.

If we run up against free speech problems or other problems when drafting legislation, we can at least go for rules that encourage transparency.

Legislation challenges all involved in the process: stand up for a clean political process by outlawing lobbying involving money. Do you stand for clean government representing the People, or do you stand for corruption?

Sirota put some better names/labels on the same idea I was trying to get across before the election. My hat’s off to him.

Pachacutec @
13

Sirota put some better names/labels on the same idea I was trying to get across before the election. My hat’s off to him.

I actually like your distinction a bit better, the notion of three parties, because the fundie freak party (or whatever it is you called it) is distinct from the people party or the money party. The DC establishment party (I think that was your name) will seek to co-opt whichever of the other two holds sway with the electorate.

Pachacutec @
13

Sirota put some better names/labels on the same idea I was trying to get across before the election. My hat’s off to him.

Well, yours was predictive rather than observative. I’m not sure you’re not the first one over the finish line. Although Sirota’s labels are simpler, and more easily shouted into the megaphone, my hat’s still off to you.

Melanie Sloan of CREW has been hard on Dems as well as Repubs for ethics issues.

Witness her smackdown of John Murtha recently.

Power can be a tough drug to resist.

Perhaps we could have a real list of who the companies, especially the big ones, are, and who they are courting with how much money. This list could be posted in a way that keeps it out in plain sight so that anyone who is interested would see it without having to redo the research each time. I really don’t know how to get that information, but I would be willing to try or to help out if you wanted it on your site.

Of course this:

…Democratic lobbyists are planning to take congressional staff jobs

really means that certain congresspersons are planning on hiring lobbyists as staffers, which is what pisses me off so much.

BearCountry @ 17

Perhaps we could have a real list of who the companies, especially the big ones, are, and who they are courting with how much money. This list could be posted in a way that keeps it out in plain sight so that anyone who is interested would see it without having to redo the research each time. I really don’t know how to get that information, but I would be willing to try or to help out if you wanted it on your site.

Sounds like a wiki, but with limited contribution auth. OK, who’s got time for a project?

In the words of some of our office girls…

Oh – HAELL NO!!!

No more Republicrats like Hoyer, Rendell, Emmanuel, Schumer and the Clintons. Instead, real Dems. Or hell, real socialists, like Bernie Sanders. Just no more “Democrats” who’ll sell my children’s patrimony just like DeLay, Noe, Ney and the George Bush Crime Family.

Markinsanfran @ 18

Of course this:

…Democratic lobbyists are planning to take congressional staff jobs

really means that certain congresspersons are planning on hiring lobbyists as staffers, which is what pisses me off so much.

And that these lobbyists spent the Democrats’ twelve years in the wilderness accumulating cash, only returning to the people’s work when we’d attained a majority….

========
Who’s Next?
========

BearCountry @ 17

Perhaps we could have a real list of who the companies, especially the big ones, are, and who they are courting with how much money. This list could be posted in a way that keeps it out in plain sight so that anyone who is interested would see it without having to redo the research each time. I really don’t know how to get that information, but I would be willing to try or to help out if you wanted it on your site.

Top 50 pharmaceutical companies (2004)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L….._companies

omg the people digging a huge trench alongside our building in some misguided attempt at fixing either the plumbing or the sewer pipes have returned with their jackhammer….

My biggest fear is that the Steny Hoyers win the battle for the Dem. Party soul and they become what we just replaced. For those whom I could not convert before this election (and even some who did vote D), their response was always the same: “both parties do it.” I cannot give support to the D’s who embrace K Street, period.

As an aside, Jane, thank you so much for that post about your father’s sermon! I too left the church (and the inherent religion), but if someone on the pulpit had been preaching such open-mindedness and tolerance…who knows! Very appropriate for T-Day!

And I just had apple pie and ice cream for breakfast :)

TeddySanFran @ 15

Pachacutec @
13

Sirota put some better names/labels on the same idea I was trying to get across before the election. My hat’s off to him.

Well, yours was predictive rather than observative. I’m not sure you’re not the first one over the finish line. Although Sirota’s labels are simpler, and more easily shouted into the megaphone, my hat’s still off to you.

Oh no, I make no claim to have been the original person to conceive of such a tripartite system. So many people have been discussing and clarifying these ideas I don’t know that anyone can claim original authorship, and I make no such pretense. I just distilled and articulated in my own way.

Let’s see, Joe Lieberman is married to Hadassah who’s married to Big Pharma. I wonder how he’ll vote. In a 51-49 Senate maybe Big Pharma won’t have such a hard time of it as people think. They may not get any new goodies but they will likely keep all their old ones.

Of course, the big one is the ban on Medicare to use its market share to negotiate lower drug prices. Will Holy Joe support lifting the ban or does he think it will make the world safer for terrorists, like leaving Iraq or pissing off Hadassah?

Howie Klein has been out front on this as long or longer than any other essayist here, and you can go back – way back – through his topics at his site and see quite a bit of prescience. Pach is right that Sirota has come up with some handy terms in his essay.

A lot of us who came back from the Green Party wilderness to work hard for the Dems in ‘05 and ‘06 will be back to stay ONLY if Dems shake their own tree, and soon. And if we stay, and continue to develop our co-operative riffs with Dem progressives, you’ll see the voting trends and participation among young people continuing to develop strongly in the Dems’ favor.

rat bastahd @ 24

As an aside, Jane, thank you so much for that post about your father’s sermon! I too left the church (and the inherent religion), but if someone on the pulpit had been preaching such open-mindedness and tolerance…who knows! Very appropriate for T-Day!

And I just had apple pie and ice cream for breakfast :)

I’ll second that. What a cool sermon and cool dad, Jane!

I just finished pumpkin pie and whipped cream for breakfast. Second slice…

PHARMA Lobby Wiki outline

Intent:
Create an interactive and timely public display of the entire PHARMA lobbying efforts.
Put all the players and actions in the sunlight.

Structure:
Show with graphical chart and summaries a complete contact list of lobbyists in each company and PHARMA lobbying groups.
Show PHARMA’s relationships to lobbying firms.
Show congressional reps and senators that meet and/or deal with these “active PHARMA agents”.
Keep an update of actions taken and proposals on the table, favors done and money changing hands.

Moderation:
A board of progressives “moderates” all input and edits.
Comments to the moderation board allow protests from all readers as to accuracy or appropriateness of content.

Hugh @ 26

Let’s see, Joe Lieberman is married to Hadassah who’s married to Big Pharma. I wonder how he’ll vote. In a 51-49 Senate maybe Big Pharma won’t have such a hard time of it as people think. They may not get any new goodies but they will likely keep all their old ones.

Of course, the big one is the ban on Medicare to use its market share to negotiate lower drug prices. Will Holy Joe support lifting the ban or does he think it will make the world safer for terrorists, like leaving Iraq or pissing off Hadassah?

Lieberman is not a good political role model for those wanting peace in the Middle East. This man’s sympathies along these specific lines do not lie with his country. Mr. Lieberman’s interests are not where they should be. This individual should be investigated for a lot of things. Naturally, I don’t expect my party, the Democrats to do it.

Lieberman is an unregistered, de facto agent for a foreign government.

marksb @
29

PHARMA Lobby Wiki outline

Intent:
Create an interactive and timely public display of the entire PHARMA lobbying efforts.
Put all the players and actions in the sunlight.

Structure:
Show with graphical chart and summaries a complete contact list of lobbyists in each company and PHARMA lobbying groups.
Show PHARMA’s relationships to lobbying firms.
Show congressional reps and senators that meet and/or deal with these “active PHARMA agents”.
Keep an update of actions taken and proposals on the table, favors done and money changing hands.

Moderation:
A board of progressives “moderates” all input and edits.
Comments to the moderation board allow protests from all readers as to accuracy or appropriateness of content.

Love it!

I can’t help thinking of the media project an awesome progressive (?name – can I blame my pre-senile dementia on a turkey hangover?) did -
the visual summary that pulled together a picture of the Reich Wing’s progaganda machine.

I’m hoping this project will have as much – or more – impact.

Howie Klein has been out front on this as long or longer than any other essayist here, and you can go back – way back – through his topics at his site and see quite a bit of prescience. Pach is right that Sirota has come up with some handy terms in his essay.

Howie was once of my big influences in all this, as he and I talk frequently. When he offered comment in my post’s thread, I said as much. I’d also cite Matt Stoller and more peripherally, Sirota, as influences on my thinking in that post (Hostile Takeover is an awesome book). And Jane as well. I’m sure there are many others, including many comments and commenters, but those are the ones that stand out for me.

Hugh @ 26

Let’s see, Joe Lieberman is married to Hadassah who’s married to Big Pharma. I wonder how he’ll vote. In a 51-49 Senate maybe Big Pharma won’t have such a hard time of it as people think. They may not get any new goodies but they will likely keep all their old ones.

Of course, the big one is the ban on Medicare to use its market share to negotiate lower drug prices. Will Holy Joe support lifting the ban or does he think it will make the world safer for terrorists, like leaving Iraq or pissing off Hadassah?

I think in many ways Rape Gurney Joe is emblamtic of what is wrong with Washingtonians acorss the board.

At some point, probably because of what they had to do in order to raise funds to get there in the first place, most of the folks we send to DC begin to think that it is only about money and power. In fact, that money=power.

For the Republicans, it make genetic sense. They are the party of the business class.

But for Dems, who start out as social liberarls , do gooders and populists, it is something more insideous. It’s our consultants.

Dem consultants are the most dangerous thing for the soul of our party. Just look at the ridiculous spending Hillary engaged in to beat a guy she was always going to beat anyway.

It becomes all about raising gobs of money so you can hire more and more consultants. WHen you talk to you party chair about being a first time candidate, the first thing they do is tell you which fundraising consultant you should use.

Everytime you check in with the poarty leadership, all they want to know is how much money have you raised. And whethter you have hired the hottest coolest consultants.

At the back end, the candidate feels like s/he has built a business enterprise from the sweat of his/her own dialing for dollars.

In consultant speak it’s call “call time” and in order to be considered a serious candidate, you have to do a MINIMUM of 4 hours per day of call time.

So, does it surprise you to learn that after spending a year of his/her life mostly calling on the telphone to beg for money (think how hard that is to do)that the sucessful candidate gets to DC and thinks “I never want to go through something that awful again. How can I raise moeny with less effort?”

And just like a snake in the Garden of Eden, along comes a lobbyist with checks in hand.

PULEEZ!

The only way you fix this is with publicicly financed elections

Finally reading that Hoyer pork story for his MD district. Huh. No surprise. Seems like more than half the radio and LA Times articles I’ve heard/read over the last two weeks about the California reaction to the Dems win in the midterms concern the money the suddenly-important Californian reps and senators will bring in. It’s all pork, all the time. Well, and some needed infrastructure support as well… This is really pretty funny, ya know? I mean, here we are with a unwinable war on our hands chewing up our military and treasury, a health care system on the brink of collapse, corruption crippling the ability to do The People’s work, and of course the very survival of our representative democracy teetering in balance…and all we can do is rub our hands together in anticipation of the pork money due to arrive Any Day Now.
Sorry, rant over.

Public financed campaigns. This is NOT a difficult concept! Do it it! Like 30 years ago.

I like this: Senate Democrats Revive Demand for Classified Data

Seeking information about detention of terrorism suspects, abuse of detainees and government secrecy, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are reviving dozens of demands for classified documents that until now have been rebuffed or ignored by the Justice Department and other agencies.

“I expect real answers, or we’ll have testimony under oath until we get them,” Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, who will head the committee beginning in January, said in an interview this week. “We’re entitled to know these answers, and in many instances we don’t get them because people are hiding their mistakes. And that’s no excuse.”

TeddySanFran @ 23

omg the people digging a huge trench alongside our building in some misguided attempt at fixing either the plumbing or the sewer pipes have returned with their jackhammer….

Don’t you just love life in the big city? :-)

Hillary spent $17,000,000 (more than any other candidate spent) on her recent campaign. Which she could not lose. To what end? To whose end?

looseheadprop @ 34

Hugh @ 26

Let’s see, Joe Lieberman is married to Hadassah who’s married to Big Pharma. I wonder how he’ll vote. In a 51-49 Senate maybe Big Pharma won’t have such a hard time of it as people think. They may not get any new goodies but they will likely keep all their old ones.

Of course, the big one is the ban on Medicare to use its market share to negotiate lower drug prices. Will Holy Joe support lifting the ban or does he think it will make the world safer for terrorists, like leaving Iraq or pissing off Hadassah?

I think in many ways Rape Gurney Joe is emblamtic of what is wrong with Washingtonians acorss the board.

At some point, probably because of what they had to do in order to raise funds to get there in the first place, most of the folks we send to DC begin to think that it is only about money and power. In fact, that money=power.

For the Republicans, it make genetic sense. They are the party of the business class.

But for Dems, who start out as social liberarls , do gooders and populists, it is something more insideous. It’s our consultants.

Dem consultants are the most dangerous thing for the soul of our party. Just look at the ridiculous spending Hillary engaged in to beat a guy she was always going to beat anyway.

It becomes all about raising gobs of money so you can hire more and more consultants. WHen you talk to you party chair about being a first time candidate, the first thing they do is tell you which fundraising consultant you should use.

Everytime you check in with the poarty leadership, all they want to know is how much money have you raised. And whethter you have hired the hottest coolest consultants.

At the back end, the candidate feels like s/he has built a business enterprise from the sweat of his/her own dialing for dollars.

In consultant speak it’s call “call time” and in order to be considered a serious candidate, you have to do a MINIMUM of 4 hours per day of call time.

So, does it surprise you to learn that after spending a year of his/her life mostly calling on the telphone to beg for money (think how hard that is to do)that the sucessful candidate gets to DC and thinks “I never want to go through something that awful again. How can I raise moeny with less effort?”

And just like a snake in the Garden of Eden, along comes a lobbyist with checks in hand.

PULEEZ!

The only way you fix this is with publicicly financed elections

Wonder if a pithy campaign could link acts of legislative whoredom with public financing?

I’m thinking of 2-part messaging; the first component is Congressperson/donor specific, the second generic.

This model would allow the general message to be adapted with a hook shaped for local issues.

Frame:

Part A – Senator/congressman X sold you out to company Y. The congressman got 2,500 (or whatever).

Part B – Taxpayers gave company Y 25 million.

Part C (general message):

Campaign donors own Congress and steal from all of us.

Had enough?

Support public election funding.

Or oppose it – if you love the fat cats more than you love your family.

[another example of why I won’t be writing ads…..]

LHP and OK k —
What is the main argument against publicly financed elections? Other than the potential loss of influence, of course. As I recall, the first amendment is dragged into the discussion, as in private financing of candidates is free speech. Has this ever been settled at the SCOTUS level?

turkey sandwich and olives for breakers here …
I shoulda made a pie!

The Sirota piece and Pach’s piece combined are important for our understanding and action … we have only begun to fight.

Breakfast: peacan pie!

Prof @ 38

I like this: Senate Democrats Revive Demand for Classified Data

And this:

With Democrats in control, it will be harder for executive branch agencies to sidestep requests for documents. Behind each request will be the possibility of Democrats’ voting to issue subpoenas that would compel documents or testimony, although Senate aides said they hoped to avoid conflict.

So far, few signs have emerged that the administration is preparing to be more responsive, even in the absence of a Republican majority’s protection. Mr. Bush has promised to work with Democrats, but there appears to be little change in the reluctance of the Justice Department’s officials to start opening its files to Mr. Leahy’s committee.

This, my friends, is how a constitutional confrontation begins.

One of the things that kind of follows from my piece was the idea that each party, to be viable, must have (and does have) its own media arm.

The People Party, or what I called the Grassroots Progressives, have become viable of late in my view because we have created our own effective media arm. The Nation and Mother Jones just didn’t cut it before.

Prof @ 44

Prof @ 38

I like this: Senate Democrats Revive Demand for Classified Data

And this:

With Democrats in control, it will be harder for executive branch agencies to sidestep requests for documents. Behind each request will be the possibility of Democrats’ voting to issue subpoenas that would compel documents or testimony, although Senate aides said they hoped to avoid conflict.

So far, few signs have emerged that the administration is preparing to be more responsive, even in the absence of a Republican majority’s protection. Mr. Bush has promised to work with Democrats, but there appears to be little change in the reluctance of the Justice Department’s officials to start opening its files to Mr. Leahy’s committee.

This, my friends, is how a constitutional confrontation begins.

Prof., BRING IT ON! Just as I fear K Street money-sucking D’s the most, I would bet R’s fear a united D party ready to issue subpeonas. These fuckers are law-breakers and I want the D’s to expose them!

marksb @ 42

LHP and OK k —
What is the main argument against publicly financed elections? Other than the potential loss of influence, of course. As I recall, the first amendment is dragged into the discussion, as in private financing of candidates is free speech. Has this ever been settled at the SCOTUS level?

I don’t think the public financing issue has been settled at the Supreme Court level. The free-speech argument is frequently used by the lobbyists against public financing of campaigns. So where does that leave us? The ability to “buy elections” is okay? I would hazard the framers of the Constitution did not envision the purchasing of elections by the highest bidder as being appropriate or conducive to the ideals of Democracy. Perhaps public financing of elections is a legislative function. It is a sticky question. I’ll grant. But something needs to be done.

Prof @ 45 .

The Bush Administration might refuse all requests from the Senate Judiciary Committee, on the ground that the Administration already gives information to whichever Senate commitee the President chooses. A Justice Department spokesman, Brian Roehrkasse, said.

“When making those decisions, it is vital to protect national security information, particularly when they relate to sensitive intelligence programs that are the subject of oversight by the Intelligence Committees. “

And then there is the good ole unilateral executive approach:

“We also must give appropriate weight to the confidentiality of internal executive branch deliberations.”

These things can be resolved in three ways:

(1) In a court suit over enforcement of a subpoena. (But “how many Divisions does the Pope have?”)

(2) In an impeachment action.

(3) In te 2008 election.

Marksb and Kirk and who ever else is on Wiki ideas – if you’re still here …

my son is very good at wiki stuff – in fact, I just used him for a client project – and he may be interested in helping on this – I’m checking with him but let’s connect up folks who’d like to work on it to form a team … ?

Pachacutec @
46

One of the things that kind of follows from my piece was the idea that each party, to be viable, must have (and does have) its own media arm.

The People Party, or what I called the Grassroots Progressives, have become viable of late in my view because we have created our own effective media arm. The Nation and Mother Jones just didn’t cut it before.

oooh – I likey that view! Thanks, Pach.

Siun @ 50

Marksb and Kirk and who ever else is on Wiki ideas – if you’re still here …

my son is very good at wiki stuff – in fact, I just used him for a client project – and he may be interested in helping on this – I’m checking with him but let’s connect up folks who’d like to work on it to form a team … ?

What fun! I’d be happy to play on the team.

[The Medicare Part D plan is having annual re-enrollment. The drug companies/insurance corps who crafted this evil thing started “revising” their approved drug lists a few months ago, sending long notices off to our patients (at a public mental health clinic). The prescribing docs aren’t notified - although the same drug co’s track every prescription we write, so they know exactly where to find us.

The pharma/insurance corps systematically exclude effective drugs, so I spend hours (in a half-time position) not doing direct patient care, but re-sending “authorization” forms begging for the patients to be given the very same drugs they got through Medi-cal for FREE before the friggin’ Part D scam.

If I can help in the most minute way to turn back pig pharma, please count me in. Their greed is literally killing my patients, and I hate pig pharma’s corruption and contamination of our food and agriculture.

Can’t wait to play.]

Siun @
50

Marksb and Kirk and who ever else is on Wiki ideas – if you’re still here …

my son is very good at wiki stuff – in fact, I just used him for a client project – and he may be interested in helping on this – I’m checking with him but let’s connect up folks who’d like to work on it to form a team … ?

ULP! OK, let’s form the team. I don’t know how useful I’ll be over the next couple of months as I move into the hard part of treatment, but I’ll do what I can.

Prof @ 45

Prof @ 38

I like this: Senate Democrats Revive Demand for Classified Data

And this:

With Democrats in control, it will be harder for executive branch agencies to sidestep requests for documents. Behind each request will be the possibility of Democrats’ voting to issue subpoenas that would compel documents or testimony, although Senate aides said they hoped to avoid conflict.

So far, few signs have emerged that the administration is preparing to be more responsive, even in the absence of a Republican majority’s protection. Mr. Bush has promised to work with Democrats, but there appears to be little change in the reluctance of the Justice Department’s officials to start opening its files to Mr. Leahy’s committee.

This, my friends, is how a constitutional confrontation begins.

“A konstitutional konfrontation iss an ugly sing – und I sink it’s JUST ABOUT TIME VE HAT VUN!”

well Kit has a chronic illness so his time can be tricky as well and I haven’t got his “yes” yet but I can hook folks up to talk about the possibilities and we can see what’s doin’

I sadly have a feeling this could be all too important and also not a quickly solved problem

Marksb and Kirk – drop me an email at media dot firedoglake at gmail dot com and I’ll connect everyone up and we can see what we could do.

Prof @ 49

Prof @ 45 .

The Bush Administration might refuse all requests from the Senate Judiciary Committee, on the ground that the Administration already gives information to whichever Senate commitee the President chooses. A Justice Department spokesman, Brian Roehrkasse, said.

“When making those decisions, it is vital to protect national security information, particularly when they relate to sensitive intelligence programs that are the subject of oversight by the Intelligence Committees. “

And then there is the good ole unilateral executive approach:

“We also must give appropriate weight to the confidentiality of internal executive branch deliberations.”

These things can be resolved in three ways:

(1) In a court suit over enforcement of a subpoena. (But “how many Divisions does the Pope have?”)

(2) In an impeachment action.

(3) In te 2008 election.

Is it an inherent responsibility for elected officials, other than the president, who vote in support of wars predicated on false information or false premises to take responsibility for those votes which are perhaps ground in falsities? Ignorance is no excuse. And if so, should not these same officials who acquiesced and abrogated their responsibilities to humankind therefore face the same investigatory tribunals as does in this the case the President of the United States? I am here thinking of the Nuremberg Trials and shared responsibility for war crimes.

Bear Country – sorry, I was doing too many things at once and missed your offer above – send me an email if you’d like to work with a team on the pharma project …

(fighting with comcast here about our net service … and trying to keep up while sitting on the phone with them)

Hey has anybody seen *ilson? Fini, have you talked to him?

rat bastahd @
25

My biggest fear is that the Steny Hoyers win the battle for the Dem. Party soul and they become what we just replaced. For those whom I could not convert before this election (and even some who did vote D), their response was always the same: “both parties do it.” I cannot give support to the D’s who embrace K Street, period.

Pelosi is doing nothing to counter the image of corruption as usual, let’s be honest. She’s talking a good game, but her picks (particularly is the Hastings selection is true) speak more to rampant cronyism than a true embrace of honesty in government. How are her links to K Street? Has she scrupulously avoided lobbyist money? Or are her links straight from Silicon Valley, cutting out the K street middlemen?

Starting before the election, there has been a great deal of talk about her political sense and skills. The fight for Majority Leader and this boiling undercurrent regarding committee leadership isn’t exactly a demonstration of those supposed skills.

OK I know there’s not many of us left around this thread, but we probably need to realize and accept that it’s gonna’ take some time to clean the system. Our reps have years under their belts doing the same old thing and nothing to replace it. So asking them to eliminate corporate and lobbying (same thing) money and take, uh, nothing in return is rather difficult. Once there’s a comprehensive public funding system set up, great. But where’s the money to come from in the meantime? We can only raise so much to replace the old system.

Mods–

Italics prison on Pach’s thread, 59 thru to the end.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 48

marksb @ 42

LHP and OK k —
What is the main argument against publicly financed elections? Other than the potential loss of influence, of course. As I recall, the first amendment is dragged into the discussion, as in private financing of candidates is free speech. Has this ever been settled at the SCOTUS level?

I don’t think the public financing issue has been settled at the Supreme Court level. The free-speech argument is frequently used by the lobbyists against public financing of campaigns. So where does that leave us? The ability to “buy elections” is okay? I would hazard the framers of the Constitution did not envision the purchasing of elections by the highest bidder as being appropriate or conducive to the ideals of Democracy. Perhaps public financing of elections is a legislative function. It is a sticky question. I’ll grant. But something needs to be done.

IIRC, the Supremes have held that money = speech in some decisions on campaign financing. I saw a NOW episode on AZ’s public financing and it is basically voluntary – you can sign up or go the donation route. This may be the only way to do it short of a constitutional amendment.

If the dems are going to simply “flip” k-street,and continue the gravytrain,their support with the independents will vanish like dew in the summer sun.As will the support from socially Conservative”Regan” dems….I think their is a real,solid understanding of the use of big money to corrupt ALL pols regardless of their affiliation.I hope for the new speaker to suceed in her swamp-draining,and “golden-glove”Harry to knockout the lowlife types who inhabit K-street,but I also understand that the true power-structure will seek to defend itself…with money…lots and lots of it

Finally, music thread is done and we’re back on a new thread with politics and Fitz.

See you upstairs and sideways.

Terry in Maryland @ 60

Pelosi is doing nothing to counter the image of corruption as usual, let’s be honest. She’s talking a good game, but her picks (particularly is the Hastings selection is true) speak more to rampant cronyism than a true embrace of honesty in government. How are her links to K Street? Has she scrupulously avoided lobbyist money? Or are her links straight from Silicon Valley, cutting out the K street middlemen?

Starting before the election, there has been a great deal of talk about her political sense and skills. The fight for Majority Leader and this boiling undercurrent regarding committee leadership isn’t exactly a demonstration of those supposed skills.

I have no problem with asking hard questions about where Pelosi’s (or any other politician’s) money ties lie. However, I’m going to question your assertion that the Majority Leader “fight” and any uncertainty about committee leadership point to a lack of leadership skills on Pelosi’s part. This is one of two ways I can see politics being played–the other being the dictatorship of patronage we’ve seen from the GOP all these years. I know which form of “leadership” I prefer, even if it does give the cable news chatterboxes something to misrepresent.

It would be great if at least some of the aspects of Pelosi’s lobbying and ethics bill could be made into law. Given that her man Murtha has openly criticized it and said that he’d only support it out of loyalty to her, you have to wonder what they’re saying about it behind closed doors.

I have a few fears:

- Pelosi is only submitting legislation like this as window dressing. She can visibly support lobbying reform with the knowledge that it will be shot down.

- If she DOES truly support this and hopes to get something done, does the open discontent show that either she doesn’t know her Dem colleagues’ opinions or knows them and has been unable to work them toward public consensus.

I wouldn’t expect the Dems to work in lockstep as the Repubs did under Rove’s stern hand. Still, it seems like it’s in their best interest (and Pelosi’s as leader) to do the closed door work to move these first tone-setting items along.

EvilDrPuma @ 66

Terry in Maryland @ 60

Pelosi is doing nothing to counter the image of corruption as usual, let’s be honest.

I have no problem with asking hard questions about where Pelosi’s (or any other politician’s) money ties lie. However, I’m going to question your assertion that the Majority Leader “fight” and any uncertainty about committee leadership point to a lack of leadership skills on Pelosi’s part. This is one of two ways I can see politics being played–the other being the dictatorship of patronage we’ve seen from the GOP all these years. I know which form of “leadership” I prefer, even if it does give the cable news chatterboxes something to misrepresent.

I agree that we don’t want to return to the GOP style dictatorship. An effective leader can, however, work his/her membership behind the scenes. This is a skill that has been attributed to Pelosi before the election. She should know the currents that are rippling through the Dems and work to influence the direction of those currents. Why on Earth would she come out for Murtha when she said previously that she was staying above the process and when it was clear that he was the underdog? She certainly demonstrated her loyalty to an old friend, but at the same time gave the impression that she didn’t understand her colleagues or know where they stood. Very Bush-esque in a way.

I know it’s poor form to say so out loud, but this is where Nader used to come in and make sense re: “corporatist parties” vs average U.S. citizen.

But, nowadays, it is forbidden to mention the N word. Please accept my apologies for even bringing it up.

You’re off message, Jane. Democrats are always good. Always.

Want the $ out?

http://www.PublicCampaign.org