A friend of mine, a union activist sent me something to read a few weeks ago. It sickened him and it sickened me. It paints a disturbing picture of what the idealistic freshmen class have been up to, in some cases, instead of pursuing their idealism.
Many Democratic freshmen raised tens of thousands of special-interest dollars toward their reelection even before they were sworn in for the 110th Congress.
The numbers show that although they said during their campaigns that they would reform the "culture of corruption" in Washington, many quickly immersed themselves in the town’s lobbyist-dominated fundraising network to fill up their coffers and retire their debt.
Many of us– 581 to be exact– contributed a little over $10,000 to Kirsten Gillibrand in the last few weeks before the November election and she beat arch corporate whore Tom Sweeney in a tough district. Since then — even before being sworn in — she joined both Ellen Tauscher's DLC-oriented New Democratic Coalition and the Blue Dogs. And she raised tens of thousands of dollars… from PACs and K Street lobbyists. The tobacco company Altria, for example, donated $5,000 to help her clean up her campaign debt.
Meredith McGehee, who works for the Campaign Legal Center, an advocacy group pushing for lobbying reform, said freshman lawmakers cannot do much to avoid becoming part of the system they ran to change."It’s next to impossible for a freshman member to arrive in Washington and not become a part of the lobbyist fundraising system," she said. "The minute you're elected, the first thing you're told is that you have to start working on your reelection because you're vulnerable. I think the current campaign-finance system makes hypocrites of all of them."
While I've been on the road — lecturing at McGill here in Montreal — Ken has been doing double-duty at Down With Tyranny. Thursday, he ended the day with a post about how the Democrats are taking over the K Street franchise. But me, I'm not discouraged. In fact, Meredith McGehee's "next to impossible" sounds almost encouraging… glass half full.
I'd like to propose that we see if we can help some worthy freshmen minimize the need to turn to K Street and the corporate PACs for political survival. I think I've identified 11 freshmen who are co-sponsoring anti-war legislation. In fact, one of the new freshmen, Joe Sestak (PA) — someone we had as a guest at Firedoglake – has proposed his own bill to bring the war to an end. The others are Patrick Murphy (PA), Steve Cohen (TN), Mazie Hirono (HI), John Yarmuth (KY), Dave Loebsack (IA), Yvette Clark (NY), Peter Welch (VT), Carol Shea-Porter (NH), Keith Ellison (MN) and Jerry McNerney (CA).
Maybe we could somehow come up with a way to help some worthy freshmen on a grassroots basis. Not all freshmen — just the ones who are living up to our expectations… or even just most of our expectations. I was turned off when I heard how difficult the DCCC makes it for these freshmen. it looks like they may actually be forcing them into whoring themselves out into the corrupt Beltway system. Should I invite a couple of them on for a session? Does someone have a better idea?
I'm proposing a few weeks of getting-to-know-you chats with the DCCC, a chance for our community to get a communications channel open with Chris Van Hollen, the DCCC political director, Jon Vogel, maybe some of the regional directors so we can get a better understanding of how they work and what is behind decisions that sometimes look strange to some of us. It's shaping up… a little slowly but it is coming together. Meanwhile I'd love to get some feedback on what to do about the freshmen.
Related posts:
- Blue America: Meet Linda Ketner
- Speak Out: Write Letters To Your Local Papers and Urge Members of Congress to Vote “No” On Supplemental
- Blue America Launches New TV Initiative in Arkansas — And We Need You
- Supplemental: Why Must Progressive Members of Congress Grovel For the Blue Dogs?
- Chellie Pingree: Lobbyists Will Spread “Fear and Confusion” During August Break
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Hey, Howie!
Hey gang — Howie’s stuck in transit due to weather issues today. He may or may not be able to log into the comments, so I told him I’d hang out and answer the questions that i could in the meantime.
Hi Howie, the best thing to do is get them to come here and talk to us.
If they want our support, is it too much to ask?
Sadly, I’m not surprised. Politicians who want to do the most good – and, unfortunately this is equally true in life – have to decide early on they will have a short term. It’s very easy to talk about ethics but most people do not walk the walk.
Howie, I probably don’t even have to ask this, but have the freshmen you reference avoided the path that ensnared Gillibrand, i.e., joining the NDC and Blue Dogs?
I think it is a good idea to demonstrate our commitment to public financing and show them there are some alternatives to K-street.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 2
Hi CHS. I’m about to transit myself to the gym to swim some laps. It is snowing again here in Columbus. I’ll be using my
four wheeltwo leg drive. (I moved from NYC to Columbus over a year ago, but still haven’t bought a car…just stubborn, you see!)Anywho, tell Howie I said hi, and it looks like you’ll have to wait a bit longer for spring (I liked that photo this A.M.)
ITTDGY at 6 — I hear you — it’s snowing here again today as well. But I did just have a gorgeous red-tailed hawk swoop down at my feeder by the kitchen window, perch on top of it while all the tiny birdies scrambled into the relative safety of the rhododendrons and the pines, eye me for a bit, and then swooop off again.
Very cool for me. Not so much for my usual tiny winged pals. They all escaped unharmed, but no one has braved coming back out into the open as yet.
It really seems like we have to adopt public financing as one of our serious long-term objectives if we don’t want to keep fighting this battle forever. Since it looks like a reasonable possibility that the Republicans are going to continue to decline at least in the next election from being unable to get rid of the Iraq albatross around their necks, this could be a historic opportunity to actually have the strength to get this enacted, if we get supporters elected. We should demand from candidates we support a commitment to strong public financing (not “public money unless your opponent has big money.”)
Ellison in Minneapolis has a safe seat (he won 56-21-21-2, with the Republican almost finishing third to a third party candidate, and the Greens finishing fourth) so with him you’d want to be keeping an eye on the primaries (only a bit more than a year from now).
Apropos of nothing, yet somehow related…
Sen. Dick Durbin has reached out to Los Angeles area bloggers, and some of us are meeting with him next Tuesday.
Redshift at 8 — It’s such a double-edged sword the way things are structured at the moment. In order to be able to stay and work to enact better legislation on this issue, you have to begin to raise money immediately upon entering Congress in order to have any chance at all on holding onto your seat for more than one term — to enable you to build up enough momentum and seniority and chits and what-have-you to have the ability to work to enact better legislation. But to do that…
(You see here I’m going with this. And it sucks.)
SteveAudio — that is fantastic! Good on you guys!
Christy Hardin Smith @ 12
Thanks.
It will, I’m sure, be the usual suspects, Kleiman, Eskow, I haven’t called Arianna or John Amato to see if they’re coming but it wouldn’t surprise me.
Thanks Howie for a great post. IMHO, getting legislation passed to publicly fund all national elections is critical.
Dear Christy,
Please add my voice to the “let’s get them on” chorus. After supporting Gillibrand and trying to get out the vote for her from those residing abroad, I am waiting to see the result. I find it alarming how quickly the K Street nicotine habit seems to have taken hold.
Thanks to all of you there for such a rich panoply of comment and analysis.
On the bird scene, the red-tailed hawk news was interesting. A friend sent us a photo of a duel between one of those fellows and a Northern Harrier over turf rights. Guess who won.
Brief OT, EPU, since no special guests at the moment.
Senate vote 56 yeas 34 nays.motion failed to pass. The war continues with escalation,
unabatedundebated.7 Republicans voted correctly.
Eureka Springs, AR @ 16
Shall we take it as given that one “independent Democrat” voted incorrectly?
I think it has been awfully useful and beneficial for us to have so many candidates and elected folks on over the past year. I hear, repeatedly, not just from the elected folks but from their staff folks that the conversations and the tough questions help to bring some of the issues on everyone’s mind to a more honed edge. And that is very useful. It’s also helpful to get folks inside the Beltway Bubble to see that there are some very well educated, very thoughtful, very concerned folks on the blogs — and that gets them to stop dismissing everyone in the activist end of the base as the “screaming hippies” that folks like Howard Kurtz so desperately wants them to think we are. Which, frankly, could not be further from the truth based on the multiple meetings I’ve had with just our FDL readers.
This is what I stated toward the end of the last election. We need to stand with our candidates and let them know we will continue to support them so they do not have to turn to K Street. If we start now, we can have a sizeable kitty ready for 2008.
Timely and on-topic cartoon, thanks to Gary Trudeau.
Eureka Springs, AR @
16
What 7? I’m not seeing the roll call online yet(I assume the webmaster isn’t in today)
EvilDrPuma @ 17
In the previous thread is a post from a firepup that tuned into CSPAN just in time to hear Gee I Joe vote NO. No surprises here.
My contempt for Joe LIEberman knows no bounds.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 11
Ah, let me clarify. I’m not suggesting that we require candidates to commit to only accepting public financing, just that they commit to establishing a system of true public financing. Unilateral disarmament certainly won’t do us any good. But if we want to get a government where it isn’t an uphill battle to do what’s best for the country rather than what’s best for the people with money, we have to end this fundraising madness.
Our goal needs to be not just providing money (and TV time) for candidates, but providing a level playing field. We may not get all the way there, but we need people who will start the with a maximalist position, rather than starting with incremental measures and negotiating downward from there.
If blue america money was used by the freshman maybe they need a fax or e-mail campaign. A reminder to them who is watching, and who they work for (the voters) not K street.
Was there ever a time when lobbyist didn’t exist?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 25
Sometime back in the Middle Paleolithic, maybe.
Having volunteered for the Gillibrand campaign in the county that supposedly won the election for her, I, too, was discouraged when she joined the Blue Dogs, especially so since I have been receiving invitations to costly (NYC) out of district fund-raisers, yet haven’t received a committment on an appointment I asked for more than two months ago.
On the other hand a group of anti-war activists are meeting with her even as I write this, so I won’t pass judgement too hastily. Wait until tomorrow…
Lobbyists. So the options are term limits, public financing, outlawing them, or doing nothing?
I-L4L breaks his Sabbath in order to vote against the motion to debate Iraq. Debate!
Hope Imus and all the Demo-shills who enabled his election in CT on 11/7 are real proud of their support for this sanctimonious warmonger.
Lobbyists. It’s a rigged system.
Prairie Sunshine @ 29
Good catch there about the Sabbath. Back during the ‘00 campaign, didn’t Holy Joe say it would have to be something seriously important to make him break the Sabbath?
Apparently, Holy Joe’s dogmatic support for a war that violates multiple commandments is that important to him. Glad G-d is keeping notes.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 11
ding, ding, ding…
and We Have a Winner! Give that Lady a Cigar!
The trick is to be there long enough, gather enough support, and fight off the challenges..to make the change-over to public financing….neat trick, huh?
In the meantime, we’ll continue to provide grass roots fundraising, (blue american, progressive patriots fund etc.,) and as soon as they get elected to go back to the old ways of doing things…..
hizzhoner
Perhaps one of the “exceptional eleven” could propose public finance of elections and we could see who signs on and what level of support they actually back their signature with.
This is an issue that in my mind cannot be easily set aside because it paints such a clear picture of how one thinks a Democracy should work and who exactly it should work for. Perhaps we could come up with a list of campaign contributors who are acceptable since the unacceptable would be so long. Then we could have an idea of the level at which any incumbant is willing to cross. (The K street line is awfully disturbing)
Thank goodness Howie is on top of the situation from the get go.
Eureka at 33 — I wish Howie were here to tell you all the discussions he’s been having on this. He’s such a firebrand on this issue.
Brett @ 21
CSPAN 2
Hagel
Coleman
Smith
Ensign
Johnson (hospitalized)
Hatch
Kyle
A note along the bottom of the screen said all Dems voted yes. No mention of Independent Dims.
I was just over at Open Secrets looking at totals. They say the average Dem house candidate spent $570,974 in their compaign. They are in office for two years so that’s about $6,000 per week that they have to raise to be ready for next year.
The Senate is way worse, nearly 4 and a half million, they have to raise approx $15,000 per week to be ready for their run every six years.
Fund raising has to go on in addition to their representative duties. No wonder they are tempted by K Street. There has to be a better way. And I’d really like to talk to some candidates about it.
I am curious though. For instance, Kirsten was a Blue America candidate, which argues that she was progressive, or at least gave the right answers to some questions? Then she joins the Blue Dogs and the DLC. So, what happened? Or was she just the only Dem running in that district?
Re what to do next. Having a Dem majority is nice, and we knew that getting a progressive majority right away was not happening. Now we have to keep moving left. Do we have clear standards and expectations? Do they know? Do they care?
Talking is always good.
This appears to be the best freshman class in years — if not decades.
Last summer, Bruce Braley (in Iowa) clearly had his eye on health care — now that he’s elected, where does he get his info? Mostly from lobbyists…?
To provide a little background for the comment: if I go online for software resources, I can freely access a smattering of good info. I can sometimes sign up for seminars. For example, see:
http://www.adobe.com/communities/developerweek/
In other words, online ’seminars’ are offered, and you simply sign up for the topics you need to follow closely. Seminars generally contain examples, allow for questions, and provide answers — if not in real-time, then responses can be accessed later at a blogsite or other online listing.
So say that Braley has questions about some aspect of a medical bill — why doesn’t the DCCC sponsor a seminar at 10 am EST on a Tuesday, at which the staff explain the key points? If reps from pharma, or unions, or hospitals, or AARP want to sit in and follow along, they’re welcome.
The downside is that you have to post ‘Road Rules’ and make people abide by them; create a ‘3 screw-ups and you’re outta here’ guideline, which people would have to SIGN before being allowed to attend online. People wouldn’t be allowed to ask 20 questions, but each attendee should be able to post at least 3. That way, there’s a public listing of topics, questions, responses. (Builds trust, if you follow my logic.)
And anyone with access to a public library, work, or home computer, could attend. So the Digital Divide shouldn’t be an issue… at least, not too badly.
In the case of things like Developer Seminars, registration is REQUIRED ahead of time. They limit the number of attendees, but it also lets the company know which topics are of greatest interest — in which case, they can schedule additional sessions.
Does the DCCC use these technologies? If not, why not? Why wouldn’t they?
IF they did adopt them, would they have enough brains to comprehend that seminars are **not** a means to control adn gain power. (Distance Learning, online seminars, and online meetings are increasingly prevalent, but I don’t see Congress leveraging their potential. However, using them to ’spin’ for partisan motives would destroy credibility in a hurry.)
I have seen these technologies provide incredible benefits, and it thoroughly cheezes me that government seems stuck in the 1840s. These technologies wouldn’t speed up Congressional Committee meetings, but they might at least improve the quality of info in the system. So what are the odds?
Last question: Have either Van Hollen or Vogel ever even heard of “The Cluetrain Manifesto”? Just askin’.
Uh, that’s only 90. Where were the other 10?
SteveAudio @ 10
Hats off to you folks ;-)
He’s a lucky man, if you’re willing to share your expertise. Kudos.
EvilDrPuma @ 26
That was before lobbys were invented, they called them guys-waiting-just-outside-the-council-cave back then, IIRC.
Very well said Red Shift at 11:43, as per usual.
The GOP routinely camouflages their money-laundering
non-profits in name only, under pseudonyms that obscure the true intent. We also can do a better job of making it a liability for the GOP to take money from certain groups.I guess a bake sale is out of the question.
Bushpoodles Mr. Elaine Chao and J-Lie lead their parties’ caucuses against debate, free speech, democracy re the debacle in Iraqle.
I think you’ve got the wrong people listed, ESAR. for example, Johnson’s a Dem and did not vote.
A non-vote is the same as a no vote, with the Johnson exception.
Go Blue America.
No insult to Kobe and Co intended.
John Casper @ 14
But – but -but, the public isn’t in favor of publicly financed elections. I know this, because I heard both Hoyer & Boehner say so on MTP last week.
And surely that is the only reason why they would say so – it couldn’t *possibly* have anything to do with *enjoying* this stuff, being pursued and fawned over, etc.
CCMask, what a great idea!!! Can’t you just see a whole new e-business starting up, with fresh baked bread and *brownies* whizzing around the country, benefiting freshmen Dems so they don’t have to resort to dirty $?
Just so we’re all clear on HoJo’s priorities: he wouldn’t campaign on the sabbath, but he will go to work to vote against debating the war:
comtempt.
BTW, if you missed Kirsten’s visit with us last October, it is here.
sorry mod(s) – I guess s*bb*th is a trigger word.
conniptionfit @ 46
I was joking. :))
Prairie Sunshine @ 43
whoops sorry about that
There was an interesting article over at the NYT: “Antiwar Anger at ’02 Vote on Iraq Follows Clinton” by Patrick Healy.
Well, I can respect that just as I am sure Hillary can respect that I will not be supporting her on that basis. The reason that I find Hillary’s approach to the Iraq War so troubling is given later in the article:
Isn’t this precisely the same problem we have now with George Bush? Someone who believes in Presidential authority to command but has never really tried to use it to lead or persuade, someone who wishes to be deferred to but refuses to acknowledge his mistakes or apologize for them. No offense, Hillary, but this is precisely the kind of President I don’t want.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02…..inton.html
There is also a decent article up “Iranian Force, Focus of U.S., Still a Mystery” by Scott Shane. I have been quite critical of Shane in the past but the article points out that besides a lot of generalities we know very little about the Quds Force. My only criticism is an ongoing one with sourcing. It is left out that Hooshang Amirahmadi who is quoted founded the American Iranian Council which has heavy corporate sponsorship by multinationals in the oil industry, banking, Halliburton, and Boeing or that he tried to run for President of Iran in 2005 (against Ahmadinejad) but was one of many candidates disqualified from participating. Abbas Milani who is connected to the conservative Hoover Institute was also cited. Neither man said anything that was completely outrageous but it still is important to know that both are not exactly disinterested bystanders.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02…..7quds.html
ccmask@50
Yeah, but it makes a great mental picture, doesn’t it??
Is it any wonder why not very many bother to vote?
The real problem with lobbyists is money. I don’t actually have a problem with companies and groups paying someone to advocate for their position; we might get better government if it didn’t happen, but it’s clearly “petition for redress” and free speech. The smaller problem is lobbyists being able to buy lots of time with legislators (captive audiences on corporate jets, for example), and the bigger problem is campaign contributions. (Does anyone think lobbyists would have the influence they do if they weren’t backed up by bundled contributions?)
The “money=speech” free-speech argument is another conservative myth that has become accepted as truth. There are some rulings that support it, but it’s not nearly as well-established as conservatives would like you to believe. And yet it’s rarely directly challenged, even by progressives. Another good argument for a strong public-financing law is to be able to take it to court and get that canard knocked down for good.
I thought Bush’s plan all along was to bring up the “surge” for a vote, Congress would vote no escalation, and this would allow the GOP to blame the Dems for loosing the war. Could that be why the votes weren’t there?
It all comes down to a whole body of legislatures not wanting to lose their jobs.
6k per day for my Rep and 15k per day per Senator total 36k per day. I can only think of one Alaskan baked good that might make the quota.
I’m still smarting from the tepid support Senator Clinton gave to Ned Lamont.
ccmask @ 56
I don’t think that’s it. Bush is a true-believer in the “surge” because he has to prove he was right all along, so he’s willing to take any longshot that might let him “win,” no matter how bad the consequences for the country if it fails.
Now, the GOP certainly intends to try to blame the Democrats for losing the war, but that doesn’t depend on them having a vote on it, they’ll do it regardless.
Another issue wrt lobbying is that free market capitalism has largely been replaced in the West by oligarchies. Two or three large suppliers dominate most major markets.
Where in the world is this woman’s head?
AP – Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told government leaders Saturday that the contentious debate in Washington over President Bush’s war strategy reflects U.S. doubts that democracy will take hold in Iraq.
Kirsten campaigned on, among other issues, Ethics Reform for Congress. Here is her proposed Ethics IOU (PDF, sorry) in which she pledges to be open and accessible and to list every meeting with a lobbyist. She includes a ‘Sunshine Report‘ (also PDF) which lists contacts with lobbyists or suspected lobbyists. Last entry is July 26, 2006. Hmm. Ah, found it, Kirsten’s Ethics IOU. I cannot find any further Sunshine Report from her since being elected or at her website, but the search engine sucks so I may be missing it.
PLEASE VOTE: IS BUSH THE WORST EVER?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..151326/793
Oklahoma kiddo @ 61
I still have doubts democracy will take hold in amurka.
In the real world, job promotions are given to those who deserve it. I’ve received raises because of the job I’ve done in the field and by the amount of sales I bring in. I never had to pay officers of my company money under the table to put a good word in for me.
Why can’t a representative or a senator be voted in again because of what he brings in? Instead of constantly campaigning, why can’t they get re-elected based on what they bring into their territory.
Is it because of the media? Do they need that money to combat a press that has proven, time and time again, that they are not doing their damn jobs?
Eureka Springs, AR @ 57
Eureka, that’s per week! But either way, it’s a lot of dough. Maybe poppyseed cake?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 58
Didn’t she donate some campaign strategy type? And didn’t that work out well?
HotFlash @ 66
or yellowcake.
HotFlash @ 67
Might have worked out so she got exactly what she wanted. That would be Lieberman of course.
OT – of special interest to California voters – the SF Chronicle spectulated recently that Arnold may run for Barbara Boxer’s senate seat.
“That’s the dilemma California Republicans face. Despite the conservative concerns about Schwarzenegger, his Hollywood star power and bipartisan appeal have made him the state’s most popular Republican and a strong candidate if he decides to run for Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer’s seat when his term as governor runs out in 2010.”
(jwildermuth@sfchronicle.com. and cmarinucci@sfchronicle.com.)
Maybe her dear friend Joe Lieberman will show up and truly doom any chances she can hold her Senate seat.
ccmask @ 65
Doesn’t always work that way, and if it did it wouldn’t necessarily be good. Governing is not sales. Bringing in money (aka pork) means what, maybe defense industry jobs? But that means all these weapons get made and they have to get sold to somebody, and that means encouraging a nice war somewhere else is good for business. OTOH, how do you measure maintaing forests and oil reserves and wildlife? Many of the things that, say, Richard Pombo and Ted Stevens did or want to do will hurt me and I’m in Canad for pete’s sake.
Making it about ‘bring in’ or even ‘territory’ is easy to measure but does not result in good government.
glass half full.
Not to be confused with Half-Glass Full…
;)
Eureka Springs, AR @
57
Yay! Alaska saves the day!
HotFlash @ 36
What to do next is to make it more understandable to the American public just HOW MUCH this current system is costing them, and that it would actually be cheaper to finance campaigns.
Case in point: my local council race had major funding from ‘contributions’ of a lobbyist whose company is registered in Denmark. Why? A Danish company bought out the old local family that controls the mineral rights to mine gravel from once-pristine streams. Consequently, someone in Denmark has more influence about salmon restoration than individuals who live along salmon-bearing creeks and streams.
BTW: I have heard more than one Republican express heated frustration at the extent of the K Street ’shakedown’. I know a few biz owners who actually grasp the relationship between good government and good biz conditions, and they are becoming really, deeply indignant about the current mess.
But anyone that I’ve encountered whose business relies on natural resources, tends to like things the way they are – keeps the electeds subservient. Which means the local American, who works for the Danish company, can continue to lobby for mining gravel (and disrupting spawning cycles) because of: (1) minereal rights grandfathered into laws created in the 1880s, and (2) a corrupt campaign system.
In short: the most predatory businesses that I know kind of laugh about campaign contributions — to them, it’s simply ‘business by other means’.
It’s the businesses that REQUIRE a decent quality of life to attract educated, thoughtful employees — those folks are expressing genuine angst about system dysfunction in politics. They are competing for good employees against other cities and regions, so they NEED good government and good quality of life.
In contrast, the predators make their millions by depleting public resources. That group likes, and needs, corrupt financing in order to buy complaint politicians.
On the other hand, the more responsible employers (biotech, education, software, health care) rely on the quality of life — created by conditions that rely on good government — in order to attract, and keep, good employees. Those industries need smart, courageous electeds.
So the predators use campaign finance abuses to ensure compliant, gutless electeds. Their industries rely on pillaging the public good — they count on privatizing all available resources.
In contrast, the industries that rely on good quality of life are expressing frustration about how the quality of life has diminished, thereby making it more difficult for them to recruit and attract the employees they want.
I see this thing whole issue in biological terms:
On the one hand, you have the extractors (minerals, gas, oil). Those people count on compliant, weak politicians who count on them for campaign money. They thrive in a corrupt environment, or a compromised system. The more rot in the system, the better they can thrive. They’re very opportunistic.
On the other hand, you have the ‘producers’ who create stuff out of learning, knowledge, imagination, and who require a decent ‘quality of life’ to attract employees. That group needs some megadoses of Vitamin C to clean up the system so that they can flourish. Their businesses are badly impacted by predations that impact overall quality of life (education, parks, courts, etc.)
newspaperbrat @ 70
I am happy to say the last vote I cast before leaving California was against Schwarzenegger for Guv.
Hot Flash: I meant things like health care, better schools, etc.
kathryn in MA @ 73
Heh. Eureka said “Baked”.
Very few people in Congress are going to pass our purity test. Those few we must honor with adoration, support, flowers, all the good things we
were promised in Iraqcan provide them.Publicity and the open source think tank thingie are two things we are especially good at. Let’s make sure they know we are available for issue analysis.
After these few, there are many more good guys [androgynous use] that we can influence and support.
For this B-list, I suggest a combination of monitoring their work, providing frequent feedback, and offering conditional support.
This group might be larger that we think. But let’s not confuse them with the A-list, the true angels.
In some ways it’s obvious what to do with the A-list, and less obvious how to handle people who want to straddle the gap between the real world and the Washington world. They don’t call it Inside the Beltway for nothing.
Btw if you live here, the delusion that you can influence policymaking is called Potomac Fever. Highly contagious. Leads to delirium.
And finally, I have Kirsten’s money raised and money spent from Open Secrets.
She raised and spent about 2.6 million, her opponent raised 3 million and spent 3.4 million. Hah!
But really, how accountable can we expect her to us is she when we contributed less than 0.3% of her campaign $?
Having freshmen who meet “most” of our criteria here to chat is a great idea, Howie.
Raising money for them here is always one way, but the kind of cash you are talking about begs for a “Big Idea”.. fundraiser, like an online auction or something. (one idea – you can burn all your old CDs onto your hard drive, then take them down to Half-Price Books and sell them!… kidding)
Does anyone have a “big idea” rolling around their brain?
egregious @ 78
egreigous – Your last sentence fractured me! bawhahahahahahahaha!
Redshift @ 59
Redshift @ 55
B-I-N-G-O.
If ‘money=speech’ were true, then the authors of the Bible would be the richest folks in human history.
And Mark Twain would be a gazillionaire.
And Jane Austen would be a mega-millionaire.
And…
A rose may be a rose by any other name, but it’s name is not what gives it value.
The bogus assumption that ’speech’ can be quantified equates William Shakespeare with whatever venomous drivel Malkin publishes today.
ccmask @ 65
I don’t think this particular problem is related to the press not doing their jobs; most campaign money goes to selling the candidate through the media to people who aren’t paying a lot of attention to politics (but who do care enough to vote.)
But I think another problem with your analogy is that it focuses solely on competence in office, which would further increase the advantage of incumbency. They’re not up for a promotion, they’re arguing that they should keep their job rather than be replaced by someone who hasn’t worked there or brought anything into “their territory,” but who says they can do a better job. Companies don’t work that way (thankfully), but elected positions should.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 75
Good on you. Hope you voted for Arianna! ;~)
newspaperbrat—
:)
And for the record:
Not my world—I am a newbie wrt courtroom and mediaroom etiquette.
My world—if somebody tells you that you are being followed, don’t start looking around. Then they know that you know. Yay years of working in Russia, you kind of know when the hair on the back of yr neck stands up.
ccmask @ 76
OK, that makes sense, then. But, how does one quantify such things? And actually, I would think that most political campaigns do come down to such things, or at least the perception of such things, but how to measure them? We are living the the age of the Healthy Forests Act, the Clear Skys Act, and No Child Left Behind.
I am not sure how we can make a new system that will fix things, when a lot of the problem is that the existing system is being ignored and gamed. EG, House Ethics Committee’s wrist slaps, legislation slipped in after debate, US Attorneys being fired, signing statements, etc. etc.
We keep falling back on the same system. Politicians promise us stuff, we elect them, they do whatever works out best for them while keeping their position by whatever means. From time to time we throw out the rascals, but usually we just end up with a new set of rascals.
Question: why would anyone spend millions of (admittedly mostly someone else’s) dollars to get a job that pays $160,000 / annum? A sense of civic duty or is it the perqs?
HotFlash @ 79
I think the answer lies in the fact that her Republican opponent raised more money, but still lost. Money is necessary in the current system, but it isn’t everything.
It is not a recipe for success to ignore people who are active, engaged, and part of your word-of-mouth network, and who were also able to raise a significant amount of money without corporate backing or personal wealth.
readerOfTeaLeaves @ 83
readerof..
Bible and Twain and Austen, would that be speech=money? If money=speech Shakespeare would be pushed out by Bill Gates and the Framers of the Constitution by BigDefenseIndustry.
Candidates like Jerry McNerney and the other exceptional eleven will be in for a huge fight come 2008. Grassroots and netroots support can help in getting up the money Jerry and the others will need to fight off the RNCC but also some power we do have is in pushing for reforms. I’ll mostly cut the kids some slack in having to deal with their present reality and yet we Progressives can hopefully guide them and the elders into a better way. Telling those we’ve helped elect that we expect them to lead these reform efforts seems foundational in fact. While we all hate the fact that outrageous amounts of money are required under our current system I suppose the ultimate solution, as many before me have suggested, is via real campaign finance reform. Publicly financed campaigns resources from Common Cause and Public Campaign and … are good places to turn to in informing members of our community.
new thread
Redshift – I wonder how much denero and how long a lawsuit, of the type you mentioned, would take?
readerOfTeaLeaves – I wonder how short of a list these companies have in terms of near single issue deal breakers….planting a significant portion of our grassrooted efforts firmly in line of the worst of the common thread might be worthwhile. Dare I suggest some targeted triangulation on our part..)
Redshift @ 88
And some more number-crunching. Kirsten got 117,799 votes to Sweeney’s 104,157. That’s about $22 per vote for her and $34.50 for the loser. The point is votes, not $. Lobbyists can only provide $, *we* vote. And we can deliver ‘free’ votes with our canvasing, calling, blogging and of course Have You Had Enough.
Another point, just a tickle of a thought here, but I think it’s important somehow: *Some* of that campaign money stays in the district, but a large proportion goes to consultants and for advertising — newspapers and radio and TV air time. And we know who owns them. Advertising is *hughe* dollars for a campaign. Anybody got stats? Jacqrat?
So. Does anything clarify if we consider the campaign industry to be another engine designed to separate ordinary folks from dollars and pump said dollars upward?
HotFlash @88 — my point, precisely. When speech is quantified as ‘money’ then the whole purpose, nature, and meaning of speech is leeched out. We allow ourselves to equate ‘Got Milk?’ with the Articles of Confederation. Thus, are we lost in foolish error.
ESprings @91… good point. I’d not thought of it this way, but you certainly make a good point. Many of these companies probably do have fairly… ‘targeted’ focus. (Given the difficulty of getting a law through the system, they’d be smart to target small.. or be Tom Delay’s best buddies.) Figuring out those ’single issues’ would definitely be an interesting way to start triangulating… ingenius, methinks.
Wonder whether Van Hollen and Vogel would be willing to name a few issue or two…? (After reading “Cluetrain” one hopes ;-)
Hotflash @ 80
The word was that she spent very little in our county which is the southernmost part of the district and thus the pricey metro New York media market, although we are actually 100 miles north of the city. Yet, I believe she did better here than John Hall whose district covers the southern part of the county. I can’t help but think that the difference was local volunteers who were not part of the county Democratic committee which was mostly devoting their resources to Hall. It seemed to me that it was the grassroots supporters and local Democratic organizers not the establishment Dems who won her our county.
She was initially given little support from the NDCC. Most of the early money was raised in NYC. Schumer and Bill Clinton made campaign appearances for her in the fall. Traditionally the district is conservative (read knee-jerk Republican) but that is changing. We have to continue pointing out that the Republicans represent the opposite of traditional values. As a bully whose abusive tactics carried into his domestic life, Sweeney was an extreme example. ( Sorry I went beyond the point at hand.)
To reiterate Howie’s important question, how do we hold these new electeds to their word? The cynics here ask how much a freshman can do anyway. But who asked that of the Republicans in the 90’s?
HotFlash @ 92
HotFlash, this was one of main (and IMHO, most insightful) points made in “Crashing the Gates” by Kos and Armstrong. I highly recommend it — it was a real eye opener (and blood pressure raiser) for me. i thought that I was reasonably well-informed, but that book provides a whole new level of insight.
If you’ve not read the book, you’re in for a rare treat. And read with special relish the whole point they make about how campaign consultants have ZERO incentiive to make sure their candidates win — but have strong incentive to sell teevee ad time. Read it with something soothing; you’ll need a calmer-downer ;-)
And also explains part of why the media are in bed with the system as it now exists — who’d want to lose out on millions of ad money?
Captain Plaid @ 89
Thanks for the pointers; we definitely need to team up with existing organizations on this.
HI JML,
One of my questions was what word did she give? I understand that Howie intervied all the Act Blue candidates for ‘progressiveness’, but I don’t know what his criteria were. I expect that pro-choice was one point, and that anti-war was another, and probably ethics but we don’t know what either of them actually said. And she’d not my rep, so I can’t even e-mail her and ask about her meetings with lobbyists that she promised to list. Can you?
readerOfTeaLeaves @ 96
And I figgered that out all on my own ;)
newspaperbrat @ 84
I did. And would do so agin.
If they’re being pressured into taking money from lobbyists soon after they’re elected, why hasn’t the need for campaign finance reform hit them? Dumbasses. The tarnished golden goose needs to be put down.
Gillibrand does post her daily schedule on her website, and it is archived here by Sourcewatch. She is the first member of Congress to do so.
I’m not surprised to see her join the Blue Dog Democrats as she represents a very conservative district.
Hi Hotflash@98
I was initially sceptical, but so determined to work against Sweeney I volunteered for her fairly early on. In her speeches, she was impressive, clearly very smart, very informed, had a detailed stategy for leaving Iraq, presented plans for local implementation of alternative energy sources, pro-choice. She was local, although she had returned to the district after a, I would guess lucrative, stint as a lawyer in NYC, and before that had been with HUD under Andrew Cuomo during the Clinton years. She was informed on local economic issues especially dealing with farming which is an important in the majority of the district — the aforementioned old-fashioned conservative Republican farmer. Her grandmother had been a Democratic activist in Albany. That’s as much as I know. I will say she was a real fighter and had everyone on alert for any funny business at the polls on election day. Fortunately, New York is the only state still with the old lever-type machines so we were spared electronic “malfunctions” although Republican politics in our county have in the past been extraordinarily criminal.
truth @ 101
I think Senator Tester does this as well.
Thanks, truth@101.
JML@102, seems like she’s doing OK by her district then? And if Schumer and Clinton came out for her then it’s not a total surprise that she’s DLC and Blue Dog friendly. So, do we have any cause for complaint? Jeez, I wish Howie was here to ’splain what he’s meaning!
readerOfTeaLeaves @
37
Great Idea! I want to sign up for the seminar/teach-in on Iran and how to prevent a bush attack.
And also the one on how to get effective campaign finance reform, because I volunteered for both Kirsten and John Hall and I want them to win again without having to sell out.
And the one on The Libby Trial – the nature of neo-cons (Required Reading: “Anatomy of Deceit” and “U.S vs. Bush”
But why do you think the DCCC will provide these seminars? FDL’s been getting 200,000 hits this week. Doesn’t that suggest a collective vision and experience able to generate some interesting classes?
truth@101 — just checked out yr blog Main St USA — great resource.
Griffin – As much as 200k hits per day!
let the sunshine in: encourage all the freshmen to post their daily schedules. strip away a layer of insulation. let “we the people” really see our representatives – and lobbyists – in action.
if they’ve got nuthin’ to hide…
Eureka Springs, AR @ 103
Griffin @ 105.
“…But why do you think the DCCC will provide these seminars? FDL’s been getting 200,000 hits this week. Doesn’t that suggest a collective vision and experience able to generate some interesting classes?”
I thought that Howie was asking for ideas, and the DCCC needs to try some new things ;-)
Trust me, I have no expectations whatsoever.
As for 200,000 hits/day, I suspect that can be attributed to several factors: (1) strong needs among many who find at FDL something they don’t find elsewhere, wrapped in World Class Snark, (2) outstanding quality of information, (3) deep sense of distress among many ‘normal folks’ who are urgently seeking not only information, but also a voice.
It also suggests to me that technologies like blogs (and seminars) are coming of age. However, people don’t come to blogs — or seminars — to be lied and spun to. Which is another reason Van Hollen really needs to read “Cluetrain” if s/he hasn’t already.
The other reason for the concept of online seminars is because trust has almost been eradicated in American government, and unless there are some practical means to rebuild trust, the US government is simply going to implode. The Bush administration, from a biological analysis, is parasitic to a degree that it has killed its host — the American taxpayers, the ’social capital’ required for governance, and also the public lands from which so much of American wealth has been privatized, looted, and otherwise stolen.
But perhaps I’m preaching to the choir…?
200,000 hits?! I’m glad not to be on server duty ;-))
HotFlash @
106
Hotflash – thanks! I took a special interest in Gillibrand because she represents my mom’s district. A Blue Dog Democrat is a huge improvement over that thug Sweeney.
Reader – brilliant!
readerOfTeaLeaves @
109
Late, but Howie, how can we compete with the K Street funders if we don’t organize? Raising money by the tens and twenties is just too hard for our best and brightest. We need to identify the mid-level givers who can put up money in at least the hundreds, if we want to justify their time.
Last time you raised this issue, I pointed this out, and pointed out a way to do it. We need to get the data from ActBlue to see who the middle sized givers are, and get organized to help in a good-sized way.
Here’s another idea. Every congressperson puts up a blog. When a lobbyist comes, a staffer posts a summary of the meeting, including specific reasoning for the position asserted by the lobbyist. The comments section permits us to rebut the points made by the lobbyist, most of which are made up by public relations people, not experts. From this site alone, we have all kinds of genuine expertise on most anything, and think what the rest of the left blogosphere has.
Then ask yourself what the wingnuts will put up on the few occasions when our people get in to see a congressperson: the inanity of the comments will intensify our views, and we can take the edge off theirs.
masaccio @ 114
Something along these lines is what is needed. My, admittedly limited, contact with our various electeds over the past year leads me to believe that the low level staff is virtually clueless about the issues aside from the party line and what they present, if they say anything, is what they have been told is the politic approach. There is an almost total distrust of the public and public involvement.
And what about the idea of a “Spotlight” feature for our public officials as well as the media?
They stole 12 billion in cash in Iraq, not counting the oil and you think you are going to find a way to outfinance them. ALL politicians are for sale to the highest bidder.
Work for impeachment of the small fry. Taking out Nancy Pelosi on an impeachment for taking impeachment off the table should stir some stuff.
masaccio @
114
FWIW, I agree that this is a very good idea. However, I wouldn’t assume that all comments to such a ‘blog’ would necessarily be hostile or argumentative. Given good guidelines and a well thought out system, something like this could be an asset. Lobbyists often have good information; however, a system like the one that you mention might be viewed with terror by less effective lobbyists and Congressmen.
For instance, if a lobbyist for a local hospital, or local PTA, my local cops were providing info or comments, then interested citizens would very likely post supportive or informative comments. (Such a system could incorporate DKos-type voting mechanisms, which require some form of registry and login. If users had ‘5 votes’ per month, they’d be judicious in awarding them their support. That would make using — and reading! — such a system reasonably efficient. Violations of system guidelines would require banning a user for ‘x’ period of time.)
These kinds of information exchanges are happening all over America. Except in politics. And it needs to happen in the political arena, although it would only be feasible if certain social guidelines were in place, and users would have to agree to them before the system would allow them to participate.
Online learning software makes valuable use of ‘tests’ and quizzes — allowing users to determine what they already know about a topic, or what they need to figure out. And these systems also incorporate white boards, so that seminars can include diagrams, charts, and other good content.
I realize that government ain’t perfection. But it needs to be less corrupt, because IMHO we are heading for ’system collapse’ in terms of American politics unless things get cleaned up and some new mechanisms and processes in place.
Our society is so complex, and so rapidly moving, that it’s really outpaced the ability of Congress to keep up. That worries me. Something like this blog concept might at least help with some of the more urgent issues.
It’s not as if every Congressman needs to do a blog on every topic — they need to be strategic and stick to their areas of expertise. But if that could occur, I am convinced that it would start to move things in a more productive direction AND ALSO they could get better information from knowledgeable citizens who do not ordinarily have time (nor interest) in interacting with their electeds.
Food for thought, at any rate.
Thanks to Howie and FDL for the chance to ‘think through my fingertips’ yet again.
Howie: you need to try a run for political office, either Congressional, or big-state legislature.
I have done it (Dem candidate, California Assembly-1994), and as much as I believe in the good faith of folks such as you, I can never get over how MSM, and essentially all bloggers, fail to investigate, self-educate, and understand the realities of modern American politics.
Every person now reading this who senses him/herself beginning to disagree with this post’s direction, or who disagrees at the end, must run for office in order to hold moral authority to disagree.
I can only repeat/re-phrase it: if you don’t like the money-whoring integral to every non-filthy-rich candidate’s campaign-cum-office holding behavior, try raising $1,000,000, plus-or-minus 25%, in FREE MONEY in a six-month period.
The term “Free Money” is essential to the understanding of modern American politics, because donors are asked to give with no publicy explicit offer of ‘return on investment.’
Campaign finance reform is the ONLY way out of our mess. Unless and until we do that, the moral emptiness of corporate values will continue to guide America’s demise.
Admittedly, we may only be looking at an empire in decline, but of course, we became that empire based on moral advance, and so it’s sad to lose it.
Oh, well, Howie…back to goes-nowhere complaining about hoped-for political behavior, versus (political) financial realities…
Thx, MoneyIsGod
Yes, here in America we have a choice.
We choose between the destructive Satanic memes with a right wing Koolaide drinking slant or a left wing “progressive” slant.
Either way in the end both are destructive and Satanic.