Looks like folks are going to send Congress another message:
After years in which big-dollar dealings have come to dominate the interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers, both sides are now facing what could be a wave of prosecutions in the courts and an uprising at the ballot box. Extreme examples of the new business-as-usual are no longer tolerated.
Republicans, who control the White House and Congress, are most vulnerable to this wave. But pollsters say that voters think less of both political parties the more prominent the issue of corruption in Washington becomes, and that incumbents generally could feel the heat of citizen outrage if the two latest guilty pleas multiply in coming months.
No fewer than seven lawmakers, including a Democrat, have been indicted, have pleaded guilty or are under investigation for improper conduct such as conspiracy, securities fraud and improper campaign donations. Congress’s approval ratings have fallen off the table, in some measure because of headlines about these scandals.
“The indictments and the investigations have strengthened the feeling that people have that in fact there’s too much money in Washington and that the money is being used to influence official decisions,” said William McInturff, a Republican pollster with Public Opinion Strategies. “Polls show that neither party is held in high regard.”
So much for the ’94 revolution.
The Disenfranchised Voter
So that’s at least 6 Republicans and 1 Democrat. Considering I have yet to hear of any House Democrats pleading guilty or being indicted recently, I’ll take a guess as to say that the 1 Democrat is “under investigation”.
6 to 1 in the House sure sounds like the corruption is equal in both parties to me!
/sarcasm
I mean we didn’t even mention the fact that the Republicans control the government right now.
Though I will say that the worse both parties do, all the better for people like me who think they both need to be replaced.
Steve
So we are to believe that Republicans were held in high esteem prior to the 1994 elections? Of course not. In fact, the famous House Post Office scandal got any number of Republicans in trouble. Newt Gingrich didn’t care; he knew that the party in power loses the most from widespread public dissatisfaction.
There were some good people in the Republican Class of ’94. I don’t think you’d find too many Democrats who would be heartbroken at the idea of seeing a bunch of new Democratic faces in Congress, as opposed to the same old warhorses. Liberals have nothing to lose from a public attitude of “throw ’em all out,” and it sure beats the alternative.
Nikki
I read an article where, in an attempt to prove both sides are doing it, the author, who did include Jackson, had to cite a former U.S. congressman who is now a state congressman in NC who is under investigation for corruption as a state congressman. Didn’t bother to mention anyone else involved in state corruption, though he has at least Louisiana and Ohio to choose from.
ATS
A journalist compared this regime to the Gilded Age of Boss Tweed.
I worked on the hill myself some years ago when Rostenkowski was at play, but there was nothing to equal this. Casino Jack Abramoff will oneday be as familiar a name as Teapot Dome.
Horshu
I’d like to see campaign finance limited to include corporations in the $2000 donation cap, thus reducing the influence of entities that aren’t even allowed to vote. Unfortunately, lobbying is a business industry unto itself, and if monetary corporate influence is reduced to $2000, the need for lobbyists is greatly reduced. It’d be nice to envision the void left being filled by community “lobbyists”, but it probably ain’t happening in my lifetime.
Otto Man
Agreed. I’d love to see some of the chickenshit old guard follow Daschle and Gephardt out the door.
searp
The lines that have been crossed include lobbyists and industry reps writing legislation, lobbyists used as staff augmentation and outright bribery.
I say clean them all out. Why pay taxes if it is more efficient simply to write a check to a designated corporation or PAC?
I personally see this as the direct result of the Republican elevation of corporate good over the common good. Capsule summary of republican ideology: tax money spent on ordinary citizens is wasteful, tax money firehosed to corporations is “privatization”. Wasn’t it enough that we cut their taxes to nil? Do they have to steal our hard-earned tax money too?
Steve S
6 to 1. Yep, that means that both parties are corrupt! Oh yeah, the standard Republican defense to their misdeads.
Hmm. Rostenkowski embezzled some $700,000 or so, through selling stamps and setting up fictional employees.
Cunningham received $2.4 million in bribes, from which he doled out $10’s of millions of dollars in defense contracts to fictional defense contractor companies.
Ok, now both of them are crooks. But you tell me which one did more damage to the United States and the taxpayers of this great nation. I’ll give you a hint, his nickname ryhmes with Luke.
Someone ought to replace all the street lights along K-Stree with red bulbs. This red-light district is a disgrace to our nation.
Steve S
Agreed. The thing is, Republicans don’t seem to understand balance. They’ve now promoted corporate good so far above common good, that I’m afraid we’re going to have a backlash.
We need another President like Franklin Roosevelt, someone who understands the balance and realizes that tossing things too far to the extremes results in calls for Revolution like what happened in America in 1776, France in 1789 or in Russia in 1917.
Gratefulcub
If the common good paid as much as corporate good…….
I love the ‘both sides are corrupt’ angle. The GOP is using the talking point: “None of these investigations are related, there isn’t a culture of corruption, these are isolated incidents and you can’t paint all Repubs with a broad brush.” Quickly followed by “William Jefferson!!! See, it isn’t the GOP, it’s washington.”
Isn’t it true that most lobbyists are republican? If not, Newt and Delay sure wasted a decade and a ton of money making K Street republican. Abramoff, Safavian, Duke, Delay, Ney….Republican.
Are there going to be some Dems caught up in the mess, of course. Corporate good will pay anyone willing to help, but the party in power is usually much more helpful.
Which party is it that wants to reduce corporate taxes, reduce taxes on the wealthy (dividends, DEATH TAX), against regulations on businesses, thinks global warming needs to be studied more, thinks trickle down not up, wants to cut social security, medicaid, medicare, who is anti union?
Simply put, who’s policies cater toward big business?
Where does corrupt money come from? big business.
The only Dems getting bribes from big business are the ones that sold out the values of the party, and need to be kicked out of town regardless.
Darrell
None from unions? Left wing advocacy groups? Gratefulcub is classic left “big business is corrupt and evil” mindset
DougJ
Good points there, Darrell. There have been so many scandals involving People For the American Way bribing government officials the past few years, it’s hard to keep up with them all.
And when are we going to start hearing the *good* news about the Abramoff prove? What about all the Republicans who *didn’t take bribes* from Abramoff? Why don’t we ever hear about them?
Andrei
I highly recommend you rent and watch The Corporation.
Perry Como
Both sides do it, and by both sides I mean Democrats. The problem is that Democrats have invaded the GOP. These politicians that are being caught up in the criminalization of politics are really Liberal plants from the Soros Commie Political Bootcamp. They’ve pretended to be Republicans for years, gaining the public’s trust, saying they are True Conservatives.
But it’s all a lie. The real goal has been to smear the GOP. After gaining the public’s trust, winning in landslide elections, and creating a conservative mandate that would rule for generations, the Liberal plants begin doing what Democrats do best: take large bribes from defense contractors. This undermines the Grand Ol’ Party in the public’s mind and those tricksy Democrats slink away counting their fistfuls of cash from their wealthy corporate benefactors.
One day real Republicans will be in charge of the government and corruption will be a thing of the past.
Gratefulcub
When union money could compete with corporate money, sure. Those days are over. The power of labor unions is almost gone. how many laws get through congress that support labor rights over corporate?
left wing advocacy groups? Do you really think that is where the bribery comes from?
Unions and advocacy groups are a part of the problem, but their pockets just aren’t deep enough to buy congressmen.
And there is no left wing advocacy group that can compete with the religious right. They don’t have money, they have votes. Who on the left can mobilize millions of votes?
Corruption exists on both sides, my point was: the party in power is more corrupt, and it isn’t close. It wasn’t in 94, and it isn’t now.
searp
Corruption is endemic in Congress, OK. Democrats have their hands out too, OK.
What party, though, is dedicated to the proposition that corporate profits count more than the common good? What party is addicted to “trickle-down” economics, without any real concern or analysis of whether this is an empty catch-phrase or a real economic effect? What is the party affiliation of probably 90% of american CEOS? What party is owned, bankrolled, and staffed by representatives of corporate America?
J’accuse.
carpeicthus
Throw the crooks out, no matter what party they are. It’s a good policy even if it wouldn’t hurt the Republicans more. That’s just gravy.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I agree. It’s the damn liberal media. They always want to criticize the Republicans for the bad things they do. What about the bad things they don’t do?!
Darrell
Companies make money by serving their customers. Companies who serve their customers poorly generally lose money and/or go out of business. Your point is..?
Since most of the big company CEOs look to big govt one way or another, I’d say you’re way off the mark. Warren Buffet is a Dem. I think Bill Gates is too. Those are the two most wealthy CEOs. Now if you’re talking small business owners, I wouldn’t be surprised if 70% + voted Republican
I give up. Which one?
Kimmitt
Perry Como — thanks, man.
searp
Darrell:
“Companies make money by serving their customers. Companies who serve their customers poorly generally lose money and/or go out of business. Your point is..?”
My point had nothing to do with your regurgitation of econ 101. My point was that a political party that ostensibly represents all Americans is simply a front for corporate interests.
Although it is off topic, if you believe that companies that provide poor service go out of business, you do not live in my world.
I will give you a hint on the last one: the party in question has a name that begins with “R”. Remember, us “D”s are owned and staffed by labor unions and trial lawyers.
We call doing favors in exchange for cash corruption, evidently Republicans now prefer the term “business”.
Bruce Moomaw
It’s even worse than that, John. Rich Lowry recently noted in NRO’s “The Corner” that, even though the GOP nationally is now about as popular as a road-killed skunk, it won’t make any difference in their control of Congress because modern computer software allows House seats to be gerrymandered with incredible efficiency; and so the Dems will have to not only win, but win by a landslide, just to get control of the House back.
He’s right. Two days ago I took a look at Congressional Quarterly’s record of the 2004 election returns — and was stunned to see that the Dems would have had to beat the GOP by a TWELVE AND A HALF PERCENT landslide in the total national House vote just to regain control of the House at all! (To say nothing of the fact that they’ll have to pull the same feat to ever retake control of the Senate, since — as Grover Norquist gleefully pointed out in an August 2003 Washington Post op-ed — “The Founders gerrymandered the Senate for Republican control” by giving small states, and thus rural voters, hugely disproportionate political clout over urban voters in that body. As Robert Dahl has pointed out, the Founders did so — despite the furious objections of both Madison and Hamilton — simply because the small-state delegations at the Constitutional Convention publicly threatened to ally with Britain or France in a traitorous war against the new Republic if they didn’t get such disproportionate power.)
Ain’t democracy wonderful?