Imagine getting a note from your bosses' go to guy requesting a donation - to a favorite charity, to the bosses' bonus fund, to his or her kid's school.  The note said, "You'd better pony up for this!"  What would you do?  Well, in all likelihood, you would whip out your checkbook and start writing.  In this economic climate especially, no one wants to put their job in jeopardy.

But how would it make you feel?  Somewhat used, I imagine.  Perhaps resentful.  What if your boss was an elected official, and the chief of staff was hitting you up for a contribution to the bosses' campaign fund?  You can't say no and expect to get a good job review ever again, and your boss gets a guaranteed flow of funds into his or her campaign coffers.  Oh well, that's the way the game is played, right?

So, if you haven't heard, the Senate has voted in favor of the Department of Justice conducting an investigation of Alaska Congressman Don Young for mysteriously inserting a provision into a piece of legislation AFTER it had passed the House and Senate but before the President had signed it.

The provision would have widening an interchange at Coconut Road and Florida's I-75 -- an interchange that would have been helpful to a developer who'd held a fundraiser for Young shortly before the earmark was inserted.

The House has not voted on this yet, but probably will soon.

It is certainly an unfortunate and scare precedent to have a member of Congress insert changes to a bill after it has already been passed. It also seems a commentary on the level of `favoring' that goes on in Congress to benefit campaign contributors.

It's not like we couldn't find some other way to spend the money on infrastructure, like some new bridges, say.

Yesterday, Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs unveiled its bipartisan Foreclosure Prevention Act. While it includes some generous tax breaks and credits for home builders, who will be able to write off in 2008 and 2009 major losses going back four years, it does not contain a bankruptcy provision aimed at helping homeowners in foreclosure. The bankruptcy provision would have empowered bankruptcy judges to reduce mortgage interest and principal for struggling homeowners.

Democrats have said they will offer the bankruptcy measure as an amendment, but it probably won't pass because it is seen as a "bailout" by Republicans.

Home builders, btw, gave $10,414,568 in campaign contributions in the 2004 election cycle, 78 percent to Republicans, according to Center for Responsive Politics. They gave $9,165,700 in 2006 cycle (76 percent to Rs) and $4,940,220 so far in 2008 cycle (64 percent to Rs).

Mortgage companies are also big fans of the new bill, whose contributions total $7,814,104 in 2004 cycle, $6,887,354 in 2006, and $3,372,789 so far in 2008 cycle.

You could say these guys are partly to blame for the whole sub-prime lending crisis, since they are the ones who helped drive it. They also made tons of profits in the process - obviously why they kept lending and building even in the face of obvious market distortions.

I wonder if they have learned their lesson? I am sure the countless families that wanted to own a home certainly have learned their lesson because Congress won't bail them out now. Democracy in action.

Check out this new video from Common Cause/New York: