Article: "Democrats are losing zeal for lobbyist reform"

[Skidmore]

This is not what we worked for, is it? Certainly not what I worked for...preservation of the institutionalized mechanism for corruption. Our Democratic congressional leaders need to hear from us. I hope you'll join me.

http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Common%2FMGArticle%2FPrintVersion&c=MGArticle&cid=1173351172940

From the Winston-Salem Journal Online, 5/12/07

Democrats are losing zeal for lobbyist reform
They are resisting tough changes they pitched to voters last fall
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Saturday, May 12, 2007


WASHINGTON

House Democrats are suddenly balking at the tough lobbying reforms they promoted to voters last fall as a reason for putting them in charge of Congress.

Now that they are running things, many Democrats want to keep the big campaign donations and lavish parties that lobbyists put together for them. They are also having second thoughts about having to wait an extra year before they can become high-paid lobbyists themselves should they retire or be defeated at the polls.

The growing resistance to several proposed reforms threatens passage of a bill that once seemed on track to fulfill Democrats’ campaign promise of cleaner fundraising and lobbying practices.

“The longer we wait, the weaker the bill seems to get,” said Craig Holman of Public Citizen, which has pushed for the changes. “The sense of urgency is fading,” he said, in part because scandals such as those involving disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Rep. Duke Cunningham, R-Calif., have given way to other news....

[sadiesworld]

1. I'm pretty disappointed in them...

and I expected very little.

[still_one]

2. I am too, but all I care about right now is that we win in 2008. The Supreme Court is at stake

After that, I will hold them accountable

That may seem ethically challenged, but in my view at this time the choices are very limited

[cqo_000]

4. The culture of corruption lives on...... n/t

[still_one]

6. perhaps, but reality is that if the Democrats lose in 2008 the Supreme Court goes right

and I don't mean conservative right, I mean hard no more civil liberties right

If you really believe that if a republican wins in 2008, and Stevens retires, that it won't matter, then you obviously are not looking at the recent appointments and decisions that have been made on that court

[sadiesworld]

8. The dems aren't going to be any more accountable

in '08 than they are now. Moreover, the Supreme Court is simply the third head of the same one party (for, by and of the elites) beast.

[still_one]

10. bull. Maybe you haven't followed how breyer, ginsberg, and stevens have ruled?

but hey, let's Nader the Democrats in 2008, and see what the republicans give us

[sadiesworld]

13. At the end of the day SC judges answer to the same elite masters

as the politicians do. I think a lot of people of all political stripes are starting to look for a third option.

[still_one]

21. Thurgood Marshal, Breyer, Stevens, Ginsberg, same elite masters, no way

As far as a third option, won't happen in my lifetime, and most likely if history is any indication, it will only enable the republicans to gain even more control

Better to change within the party:

Third Party Candidates from the past:

george wallace
john andersen
ross perot
ralph nader

The only way a third party would win is if we were a parliment

If a third party split the vote for president, and there wasn't a clear majority in the electorial college, Congress would select the President, and that person would most likely be from the majority who controlled Congress, which probably wouldn't be the third party candidate

[Nick at Noon]

3. If not the Democrats, who ?

This is a very important issue to me.  I have watched the
corrupting effect of lobbyists on our government and
particularly on Republicans.    If the Democrats refuse to
help us,  where will we turn ?     

[still_one]

7. Right now because the Supreme Court IS AT STAKE, you choose Democrats

After 2008, and Stevens replacement has been made, we should do what we need to do. As for now let your representatives know you are disappointed, but anyone naive enough to believe that it won't matter who wins in 2008, isn't thinking about the Supreme Court and the impact that will have

[bbgrunt]

9. time to create a 3rd party opposition.

[still_one]

11. really, then you will give it all to the republicans, because THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN

Stevens is in his eighties, and the next Supreme Court appointment is critical

Third parties take decades. In two years if the Democrats DON'T win, then the Supreme Court will be sealed for decades. I don't want to wait decades for a new supreme court, for my kid's sake

[still_one]

12. self-delete

[Deja Q]

17. How does one get the message and credibility out?

One can't. The usual stigmas accord ANY third party will plague them. And I learned from Green party hypocrites McGaa and Nader that third parties can be much worse than the typical two.

Screw third parties; the main parties that really give a shit need to put out STRONG candidates and learn a thing or two about chutzpah. Or is it charisma? Or is it 'having a spine'? Oh well.

[bbgrunt]

26. Without somewhere for progressives to go as an alternative,

their issues are continually marginalized, ignored and ridiculed. This is unacceptable. I have had it with the usual arguments about 3rd parties. It is not the desire for a 3rd party that should be condemned, but our winner takes all method of voting that makes it impossible for alternatives to emerge without being called traitors to the majority party.

If everyone who jumped on the greens, Nader, and anyone else who threatened their party supremacy would instead take two minutes to support instant run-off voting, third parties would not be a problem. Unfortunately, "good" democrats won't consider this seriously because they don't want any competition to the dem/rep duopoly control of politics.

[Nick at Noon]

37. Not me !

I made the mistake of voting third party in 2000 and 2004. 
And it has darn near destroyed my country.  This time it will
be Democrat.  That does not mean it will be Democrat in 2010. 
I'm a firm believer in "throwing the bums out" after
one term.  Most of the Congressmen we send to Sodom on the
Potomac don't have enough sense to find the men's room in two
years.  Much less how to pick up spare money on K Street.  

Treat your Congress man like you do your drawers.   Change
them often whether they need it or not.   That's the only way
to keep them semi-honest. 

[Solly Mack]

5. ...

[Deja Q]

14. *sigh* Not a good way to retain credibility, I must say.

Not a good way at all.

If they keep this up, who's going to bother voting in 2008 at all? None of the Repub candidates are remotely worthy; the Dems will have this used against them and the criticism would be justified.

Lou Dobbs is sounding more and more like the type of guy I'd want to run. A shame he isn't. Nobody's found dirt to ruin his credibility. Yet.

[porphyrian]

15. They have heard from us. Most of them don't seem to be fucking listening.

And people wonder why so many can't be bothered to vote - our elected "representatives" can't be bothered to represent, so what's the point?

[Deja Q]

18. I read in the MN forum that Klobuchar hasn't been responding to peoples' mails.

Shocking indeed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=160x25878

Well, maybe they don't want to be re-elected. That's the message they are saying in so few words.

Just what is going on?

[porphyrian]

19. I seriously think they no longer believe they need OUR votes to win.

I'm not sure if they know something we don't, or if they've just bought into the oft-proven strategy of whoring for corporations to ensure reelection (despite their overture towards campaign finance reform, which appears to be dying from neglect), but they certainly don't seem to take us seriously, despite our numbers or anything we've done so far.

[Individualist]

28. The problem is that they take our votes for granted

Until they get the message, loud and clear, that we will not vote D REGARDLESS of what they do, nothing will change. Lockstep voting has created the problems that now exist with the party.

[Skidmore]

31. I say we need to slap them upside the head like we did before the last election.

Perhaps we didn't slap hard enough. I think you are absolutely correct. It's time for some of these jokers to feel real pain, the way a lot ordinary citizens do.

[Greyhound]

34. They don't need our votes for another year and a half, and they know full well that we have

no memory and are not interest in what happened 5 minutes ago, let alone last year.

[porphyrian]

42. Who's that "we," Kimosabe?

I get your drift, but they aren't paying attention if they think that applies to all of us, and our numbers are growing exponentially.

[KoKo]

16. Let your Representative KNOW HOW YOU FEEL! Here:

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml

[Skidmore]

20. Thanks for that useful link. I just e-mailed my rep and ask for

a reply in writing and that my letter be made part of the record.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. These days I send them to their LOCAL office

in writing, email they are getting swamped

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Well, they wouldn't want to endanger their bribes..er, campaign contributions.

“America is a nation without a distinct criminal class...with the possible exception of Congress." - Mark Twain

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. Noooooooooooooooooooooo!

This is like that scene in Animal Farm, where the barn animals elect the pigs to go to the farmers to represent all the other common barn animals, and the pigs, instead of using their higher intelligence to represent the barn animals, begin morphing into human-like characteristics. The barn animals know that the sell-out is about to happen.

Schmoles!

[formercia]

24. Abramoff is just the tip of the iceberg

What he was doing is just an example of what goes on on K Street. The boys threw him under the bus because he was becoming too obvious and they needed someone to throw to the sharks.

[OneBlueSky]

25. and WHY do you suppose this is happening? . . . could it be . . .

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$? . . .

just askin' . . .

[w4rma]

27. Hillary is not supportive of this type of reform. Her support is only for show. (nt)

[Skidmore]

29. Self-kick because if you condone this and make excuses for it, you are part

of the problem and should be ashamed. I'm at the point that I don't want to hear complaints about change not happening from people who are willing to wink and nod at this type of corruption and lecture those of use who are appalled by it on the subtleties of governance. This crap has nothing to do with governance or leadership and everything to do with self-interest, and not yours or mine.

[Kelly Rupert]

30. Well, good to know they learned their lessons

:eyes:

[Greyhound]

32. Corporate donations to their campaigns and PACs have doubled, so this is no surprise

to me at all. In fact, this is exactly what a few of us said was going to happen last year, but were shouted down and told to STFU.

I hate being right.

[leftofthedial]

33. what do you call 10,000 dead lobbyists?

a good start

[Blue_Tires]

40. agreed, but it's a two-headed coin

if politicians' influence were not so easily bought, lobbying and "consulting" would not be such a lucrative venture for special interests...

[leftofthedial]

41. the game has been rigged by the oligarchy

the current system is not in the public interest

we need a purge and new start on democracy; what we have is irreperably corrupted

[yurbud]

35. how much would it cost to get an oil tanker full of tar and semi trailer full of feathers to K St?

Maybe we need to help the Democrats by removing the temptation.

[EFerrari]

36. I'm happy Authorized Propaganda isn't asleep at the wheel.

:eyes:

[Prophet 451]

39. Ban lobbyists!

Or maybe just ban paid-for lobbying.

I'm not being knee-jerk here, I have actually thought about this. Paid-for lobbying exerts a massive influence on the democratic process and ensures that the voice of business (a voice often directly opposed to the welfare of the masses) is heard far more often that the voice of the people.

[KharmaTrain]

43. Egg Then Chicken

This, by no means, takes any Democrat off the hook if they're loading up on lobbyist money or selling their votes ahead of the interests of their constituents, but how do you indict the system when there's no alternative?

I'll play reverse Repugnican here...their long argument about campaign finance reform is it gives the other side an undo advantage...at least for a while...while tactics are changed to comply with the restrictions. Thus if the laws still allow someone to raise unlimited funds, it's political suicide to unilaterally disarm while your comepetitor gets the cash that buys the expensive TV time that is where the lion's share of campaign money goes.

There needs to be a push to do two things. First...draft a campaign finance reform bill that shortens the political season. We now live in an endless campaign cycle where no sooner does on election happen then the fundraising for the next one begins. This year's prolonged and worthless extended presidential primary is a classic example of money being raised and wasted...except for the pundits and advisors and others who have made elections and the money they attract as a full time business. The British have it right in limiting their campaign seasons...and thus also toning down the constant partisan hackery that goes with "scoring" those big political points.

Also, broadcast reregulation needs to be addressed. The corporate media will make a lion's share of the billions spent next year on all kinds of races...doing so via our public airwaves. They can charge what they feel and can play the gatekeeper on whose a "serious" candidate and who isn't purely on the amount of money they spend on advertising. The restoration of aspects of the Fairness Doctrine that prevent price gouging are needed now and a complete revision of Telcom '96 needs to follow to break up the consentration of station ownership in a few, highly lobbied corporates and back into local control...making it more accountable to the public its licensed to serve.

[Skidmore]

44. They need to remember that a fat cat and his lobbyist only have one vote each

when it comes to the ballot box just like the rest of us. They need to realize the power of the ballot and go to the people.