Will they never learn?
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Wed Sep 20, 2006 at 05:33:12 PM EST
Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) is one greedy -- if not totally oblivious -- politician. According to TheNation.com, he not only wants lobbyists to keep donating money to Republicans, but wants them to only donate to Republicans.
Last week, according to Roll Call, Reynolds warned a gathering of top lobbyists to refrain from donating to Democrats. "For those of you thinking about hedging your bets, I am watching you and I am going to know," said Reynolds, according to one Republican source at the meeting. "We will have no choice but to report to the Republican Conference any changes in your pattern of giving," Reynolds added, according to a second source.
Maybe Rep. Reynolds didn't get the memo, but his Republican colleagues are going down in blazes of shame over illegal doings with lobbyists; it seems to me that the chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee should be encouraging a more thoughtful approach to donations from lobbyists, or at least sharing the shame with Democrats.
K Street's Reign of Terror
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Tue Aug 29, 2006 at 12:13:37 PM EST
Thomas Frank has an opinion piece in today's New York Times that's part rant and part rallying cry. On the whole, the sentiment is pretty partisan, so I'm not going to waste space here on the specifics he gets into. However, I did just want to highlight a couple of choice quotes that Frank uses to characterize Jack Abramoff and the legacy he's left in politics.
Before he became K Street's most enterprising racketeer, Jack Abramoff was best known as a sort of young Robespierre of the Reagan Revolution.
Right on the money, that one, right down to his own Reign of Terror on the American left.
In Washington today, where each bad idea to rattle through the nation's billionaire class seems to have a dedicated think tank to push it along, we are living out Abramoff's dictum: that an idea is not worth hearing unless a large amount of somebody's money is behind it.
It kind of hurts to hear it put in such plain and honest words. This is the Abramoff legacy, and it's one he and his ilk will be proud of unless we do our part to make sure the status quo changes.
"Transactional lobbying" the name of the game
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 01:15:35 PM EST
Transactional lobbying, noun. 1. Providing a campaign contribution to a lawmaker in exchange for a political favor. 2. The exchange of check-containing envelopes between lobbyists and politicians linked to Congressional earmarks. see also: quid pro quo, bribery.
You may have seen the much-talked-about article in the New York Times about Brent Wilkes, the defense contractor who (along with Mitchell Wade) has been named in the bribery scandal that forced the resignation and plea deal of former Representative Duke Cunningham. If you haven't, check it out - it's a disturbingly open account of how business is accomplished these days in Congress.
It's business as usual on K Street
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Tue Jul 25, 2006 at 11:49:54 AM EST
The business of buying access stops for no one, federal investigations be damned.
An elite K Street corps of top political donors, undeterred by Justice Department investigations into campaign contributions by lobbyists, has given generously so far during this election cycle.
The majority of the 20 biggest lobbyist-donors say they believe in the political process and view the long list of contributions they make as part of the price of doing business. Each of these lobbyists donates more money than most Washington, D.C., households earn in a year - the average median household income was about $44,000 annually from 2002 to 2004, according to D.C. government statistics.
I guess you have to admire their perseverance, but these are the guys leading the pack on K Street. If they're not changing their ways, it's going to set a bad example for the lobbying masses.
While some lobbyists say they have been scared away from giving campaign donations in the current environment, most K Streeters in this elite class of top donors say that if anything has changed, it's simply that they have become even more conscientious about the rules.
Well, that's something. If they're going to lobby, it's nice that they finally feel obligated to pay attention to the law.
When the Money Keeps Rolling In
By Matt Caruso
Posted on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 01:02:07 PM EST
Jeffrey H. Birnbaum reports in Monday's Washington Post that Jeffrey S. Shockey, the #2 staffer for the House Appropriations Committee, received a $2 million dollar parting gift from his lobbying firm in 2005. Before lobbying for Copeland Lowery, Shockley had previously worked for Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), who is now Appropriations Committee Chairman. Parting gifts from a lobbying firm are ordinary; however, the $2M sum has raised many eyebrows in Washington. Birnbaum writes, "The situation is an example of a common occurrence -- the spinning of the 'revolving door' between the public and private sectors."
The line between public and private sectors is blurry at best. Shockey did not leave behind a cache of clients, so what, exactly, will the firm receive in return for the payoff? Birnbaum writes:
The reason, several seasoned lobbyists speculated, must have been the firm's desire to keep its communications with Shockey and the appropriations panel absolutely seamless. "There would be no need to pay out that amount of money unless you needed to maintain a superlative relationship with that person after he leaves," one veteran lobbyist said.
If these allegations are true, then this is another example of the ongoing endeavor to purchase our democracy. Is the Congress and its staffers working for the American people? I don't think the American people endow parting gifts.
|
Common Blog
