Growing discomfort in Congress with the private financing arms race
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 07:32:12 PM EST
(Psst! We're raising money right now to Get it Straight in 2008, so please chip in! Here's one of many reasons why...) The big scandal news yesterday was Brent Wilkes, the lobbyist who "engineered the biggest bribery scheme in congressional history" with former Rep. Duke Cunningham, getting convicted on a perfect 13-for-13 counts of conspiracy, bribery, money laundering and wire fraud.
Cunningham and Wilkes are despicable characters who defrauded taxpayers for personal gain. They're not the norm, at least not in my view, but they help make the case for full public financing of Congressional races as in the Fair Elections Now Act.
But what's more important in the long run is the fact that regular members of Congress, the majority of whom intend to serve the public interest (unlike Cunningham), are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the current campaign finance regime and its demands of almost nonstop fundraising. As it gets worse, which it will, the case for public financing gets better.
I mostly look at this from an outsider's perspective, but after a couple meetings with members of Congress recently, I think it's worth exploring the promise of these changes among insiders, particularly the members of Congress themselves.
Hey, Senate: Git-R-Dun on Ethics Reform!
By James Benton
Posted on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 01:26:54 PM EST
The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, also known as S. 1, or the ethics and lobbying reform bill, is not everything we had hoped it to be. And it's nowhere near what we'd like it to be despite its lofty title and low number.
That's all right.
If the Senate gives its approval to S. 1 this week, as it's expected to do, Congress will finally have produced tighter ethics and lobbying rules after being dragged through the mud of the Abramoff, Foley, Ney and Cunningham scandals of years past. And we'll soon be reminded of why we went to this trouble, when Rep. William Jefferson, D-LA, goes to trial.
John Doolittle - now with twice the scandal!
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 05:01:06 PM EST
Here's an interesting AP article I almost missed, laying out the strange position Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) finds himself in.
You know about the one the FBI is actively investigating him for - $5000/month from Jack Abramoff to Julie Doolittle for questionable consulting work while the gentleman from California was ushering Abramoff's pet issues and projects through Congress.
And then there's the other scandal, the bribery case that's already landed ex-Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) in prison:
New book out about Duke Cunningham
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:49:49 AM EST
The journalists who broke and elevated the story of Duke Cunningham's corruption are releasing a book entitled The Wrong Stuff: The Extraordinary Saga of Randy "Duke" Cunningham, the Most Corrupt Congressman Ever Caught.
The book details Cunningham's rise as a Vietnam War hero to powerful Congressman, and his ultimate fall in disgrace that ended with his imprisonment. But, a note:
Beyond just telling the story of Cunningham's downfall, the authors -- [Marcus] Stern was joined in the book by Copley [News Service]'s George E. Condon Jr. and Jerry Kammer and the San Diego Union-Tribune's Dean Calbreath -- use it as a case study in openings for corruption in the earmark process and convey their desire for reform.
"This was not a news article; this was a book. We said in a book we had to have a voice and draw conclusions," Stern said. "We purposefully and consciously took on a voice and finished with something more akin to a call to action than anything we'd do in a news story."
If you read the book, come back and give us a review.
UPDATE: TPMmuckraker has more.
"A Scandal That Keeps Growing"
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Mon May 07, 2007 at 12:32:39 PM EST
Yesterday's New York Times ran an editorial summarizing what's come to light about the firing of eight US Attorneys in recent weeks. They lay out the conclusions that are becoming more and more difficult to ignore:
At best, the firing of eight United States attorneys, most of them highly respected, is an example of such profound incompetence that it should cost Mr. Gonzales his job. At worst, it was a political purge followed by a cover-up. In either case, the scandal is only getting bigger and more disturbing.
New reports of possible malfeasance keep coming fast and furious. They all seem to make it more likely than ever that the firings were part of an attempt to turn the Justice Department into a partisan political operation. There is, to start, the very strong appearance that United States attorneys were fired because they were investigating powerful Republicans or refused to bring baseless charges against Democrats.
Such as Carol Lam, who put Duke Cunningham (R-CA) behind bars...or Paul Charlton, who was investigating Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ). Given last week's revelations from former dupty attorney general James Comey (2003-2005) that most of the prosecutors performed well - or even exceptionally - and from some of the fired attorneys that they were pressured, or even threatened, by Michael Elston, an aide to the deputy attorney general, the NYT challenges our representatives to do what's right and pursue the whole truth.
It is long past time for President Bush to fire Mr. Gonzales. But Congress, especially the Republicans who have dared confront the White House on this issue, should not be satisfied with that. There are strong indications that the purge was ordered out of the White House, involving at the very least the former counsel, Harriet Miers, and Karl Rove.
It is the duty of Congress to compel them and other officials to finally tell the truth to the American people.
Jack Abramoff is obviously cooperating with investgators
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 05:31:45 PM EST
Jack Abramoff is yakking away - at least, that's the implication the Sacramento Bee gives in an excellent article summarizing the sudden flurry of Abramoff-related activity around the country.
"It's not clear to me or my lawyers exactly what they're doing," Doolittle said Thursday of his own case.
Really? This might clarify some things for you, sir:
The flurry of activity can be traced to the federal courthouse in Miami, where prosecutors revealed last month that they're prepared to reduce Abramoff's sentence for fraud in connection with his purchase of a fleet of gambling ships.
Prosecutors said he had more to tell about Washington corruption, and they were offering a lower sentence as an elixir to lubricate his tongue.
Seems to have worked, no? Since Bob Ney went to prison, nothing much had been happening in the investigation. Then, all of a sudden in the last couple of weeks we get:
- Rep. John Doolittle's (R-CA) home is raided.
- Kevin Ring, former aide to Doolittle and close friend of Abramoff's, resigns from his law firm.
- Mark Zachares pleads guilty to conspiracy with Abramoff.
- Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) announces he's being asked questions about an Abramoff-funded golf trip he took in 2003 - the same trip Zachares was on.
- Reports surface that Ed Buckham, former aide to Tom DeLay and lobbyist extraordinaire, may be nearing charges, which chould ensare DeLay. Buckham could also be a link between the Abramoff investigation and the Duke Cunningham bribery case (see also Brent Wilkes).
The common denominator? Jack Abramoff.
Yep, he's talking.
Private companies got $5.6 BILLION in earmarks in 2005
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 10:47:46 AM EST
From USA Today:
Congress steered $5.6 billion to private companies in 2005 -- more than state and local governments combined -- through its power to add special-interest items to spending bills, a new government database shows.
The database, completed by the White House Office of Management and Budget this month, identifies nearly 15,000 earmarks totaling almost $19 billion.
About $37 million of that money went to companies tied to the bribery scandal of former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA), who is now serving eight years in prison. Another earmark is the $18 million defense contract Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) inserted for defense contractor PerfectWave, whose owner, Brent Wilkes, has pleaded innocent to federal charges of bribing Cunningham.
Can I repeat that amount? $5.6 BILLION! That's such an immense amount of money, it's no wonder a large chunk of it was misappropriated - either accidentally or on purpose - or misrepresented or outright stolen.
"We'll know it when we see it" is not good enough
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 05:32:31 PM EST
Roll Call asks an excellent question: when it comes to Members of Congress who come under criminal investigation, what is the rule for stepping down from important committee posts? The answer, simply put, is that there isn't one.
House rules provide only that when a Member is convicted of a crime carrying a sentence of more than two years, he or she "should not" engage in committee business or vote on the floor. Further action is up to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and the House membership.
Both parties have formal rules that a leader or committee chairman who's indicted automatically steps down from those posts, but there is no formal rule applying to rank-and-file Members.
Well, uh...that just sounds like an invitation to do nothing...
Oh, and what do you know?!
|
Common Blog
