A five point plan
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:38:07 AM EST
USA Today has an "Improving Elections" editorial piece up that includes five sensible recommendations for a better presidential campaign, including paper records of votes cast on electronic voting machines, monitoring and curtailing the influence of 527s and other independent soft money groups, and taking public financing.
While they won't all be easy, they get it right in terms of making the election a boost for democracy and tackling important issues, rather than about trivialities and wealthy interests.
Darkened windows on the Clinton library
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:08:37 PM EST
USA Today's editorial board makes the case for disclosure of the donor list for the $500 million Clinton Presidential Library. That is an enormous amount for someone to be raising from friends, business partners, foreign governments and interested parties who are either barred from making campaign contributions or limited to the $2,300 maximum. Because of the former president's unusual position and the sheer size of this conduit into a potential presidential administration, the complete list of donors should be made public. Read more on the flip. More support for independent ethics enforcement
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:18:39 PM EST
UPDATE (Friday): They keep coming. I missed the Houston Chronicle on Wednesday: Voters have made their dissatisfaction with the status quo clear by giving Democrats a working majority. The new House leaders must act swiftly to win approval for the task force recommendation and demonstrate that they are committed to ethics reform rather than business as usual. And the San Francisco Chronicle chimed in today: What we said: “There is no reason to trust Congress' ability to police itself. An independent watchdog commission should be established as a complement to any reforms. History has shown, beyond a doubt, that power corrupts without regard to whether someone has an R or a D after his or her name. I haven't seen or heard of anything from prominent TV pundits like Keith Olbermann (yet) on this, and I also haven't seen anything from prominent bloggers. Hopefully they'll jump on board for this final push -- if you know we've missed something, drop it in the comments.
...
Just trying to keep up with all the editorial support for an ethical Congress with independent oversight....
Last week, USA Today praised the proposal for its independence and transparency: When Congress judges itself, ethics fall by the wayside
Anyone who's been called for jury duty knows that one of the first questions a judge asks prospective jurors is: Do you know the defendant? A "yes" answer is almost always disqualifying, which makes perfect sense.
After all, how can people objectively sit in judgment of someone they know? Even if they could, the public would rightfully question the verdict.
Somehow, though, Congress has never been able to grasp that common-sense concept. They were joined by the New York Times: Members should face up to a vote that tests their mettle -- and most recent campaign promises -- as upholders of ethical reform for the peoples' House. We suggest lawmakers fight their anxiety by quietly repeating the name Jack Abramoff, Jack Abramoff -- the imprisoned superlobbyist who corrupted House members -- as a prevote mantra. And AlterNet ran my piece today on the strange contradiction of Congress hectoring Major League Baseball about the league's lack of independent oversight when Congress itself has a lack of... you know.
USA Today: 5 Reasons for Public Financing
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 05:48:08 PM EST
USA Today editorializes in favor of public financing of campaigns and lists five reasons we need it. Well worth the full read, but one of my favorites is this: Fat cats. Despite all the stories about an Internet-powered rise in small contributors, just 21% of all presidential campaign contributions have been in donations of $200 or less, little change from previous years. Meanwhile, contributions are up 91% from donors linked to the securities and investment industries, 68% from the entertainment industry, and 47% from drug makers. We need to continually debunk the myth that small donors are driving this election, when the opposite is true--large donors are increasingly important and powerful as campaign spending skyrockets. So it's good to have the most widely-read paper in the country make the case. The rest of their reasons for public financing are equally valid. Again, take a look. Opposing views on the lobby reform bill
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Tue May 22, 2007 at 03:43:23 PM EST
USA Today's opinion section today ran an editorial blasting House Demcorats for the weak lobby reform legislation pending, and also a countering op-ed by Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) defending the reforms they're presenting.
USA Today rightly says:
Cashing in on public service is one of the Capitol's most insidious problems. The more easily lawmakers slip from representing the public to representing private interests, the more likely they'll blur that distinction while still in office.
They present a staggering figure from research done by Public Citizen - 43% of lawmakers since 1998 became lobbyists upon leaving office! A few decades ago, lobbying after Congressional service was seen as "somewhat disreputable" - but no more; now, Congressional service is largely seen as a "stepping stone" to a more lucrative paycheck. And what about Democrats' promise to break the link between lobbyists and legislators?
If Democrats -- who wrested control of Congress from Republicans last November -- were as serious about cleaning up Capitol Hill as they claimed during last fall's campaign, they'd slow the quick transition from the Capitol to K Street. Instead, the House Democratic leadership caved in to opponents of new restrictions.
The Senate passed a stronger reform package in January - but the House is balking at following suit.
Not everyone would agree, however. For example, Rep. Marty Meehan, as mentioned above, holds just the opposite - House Democrats are keeping their promise to the American public, he says. Follow me after the jump for his argument.
We've got your back
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 10:59:41 AM EST
USA Today has a front page article on the various efforts by political groups - both partisan and non-partisan - to protect votes this election cycle.
According to the article:
The Justice Department will dispatch more than 800 observers, a record for a non-presidential election year, to look for evidence of discrimination, intimidation and other obstacles to voter accessibility in at least 20 states.
We hope, of course, that they won't be needed. But realistically, Tuesday will come and there will be instances of voter intimidation and discrimination, on top of voting machine malfunction and pollworker mistakes.
And that's why we're going to be there, with the 1-866-My-Vote-1 phone line, where voters can call in to get information on where to vote, and to report any problems they encountered at the polls. In 2004, 1-866-My-Vote-1 logged several tens of thousands of calls, enabling us to pinpoint the hot spots and identify problems almost as they happened.
This Tuesday, we'll be there again.
USA Today's harsh words for unethical Members of Congress
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Wed Oct 18, 2006 at 03:58:17 PM EST
Like most Americans whose names don't rhyme with Back Sabamoff, USA Today is disgusted with the state of politicians' "shameless money schemes."
Congress is supposed to be a body of public servants -- people who pass up more lucrative professions for a chance to influence policy and improve constituents' lives.
These days, however, it is getting harder to see the sacrifice in congressional service. An extraordinary number of representatives and senators -- well beyond the proverbial few bad apples -- are devising schemes to supplement their annual $165,200 benefit-rich pay packages.
The schemes, often entered into with a breathtaking audacity and sense of personal entitlement, are corrosive to democracy, injurious to the reputations of the many honest and diligent lawmakers, and illustrative of the adage that power corrupts.
They go on to classify some of the tactics used in these dishonest practices: nepotism, as symbolized by Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA), undisclosed land or investment incentives, as represented by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Harry Reid (D-NV) - to which list I would add Sen. George Allen (R-VA) - and direct action taken by the likes of Reps. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) and Charles Taylor (R-NC) to steer favorable legislation towards endeavors that they directly benefit from.
USA Today editorializes on lobby reform
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 11:24:01 AM EST
Today's USA Today brings us an editorial on Congress and lobbying, and the non-reform reform bills working their way through the House and Senate.
On the subject of the now-infamous golf trip Jack Abramoff, Rep. Bob Ney, and aides took in 2002, USA Today highlights some of the problem areas for Ney:
If the golf junket was legal at all, it would have been because it employed two commonly used ruses for skirting ethics rules: the special interest-funded vacation dressed up as a fact-finding mission, and the use of a private jet at a fraction of its true cost. Here's how Ney's aide, Neil Volz, described the system when he worked on Capitol Hill: "I was given tickets to sporting events, concerts, free food, free meals. In return I gave special treatment to my lobbying buddies."
The Editorial Board echoes much of what Common Cause has said about the so-called "reform" plans currently under consideration:
|
Common Blog
