Larry, you are right - campaign contributions, given legally, are not the problem. Not even those contributions legally given by an outright crook, like Abramoff, are a problem. The problem is bribery. Bribery is when a politician agrees to do something in exchange for money. That is illegal, even if the money is a campaign contribution.

I don't know if Democrats were ever as crass as this Congress is proven to be. I do know that the minority party, which controls not one committee in Congress, and whose votes are irrelevant, is not going to be very successful at requesting bribes. That would be like me standing on a street corner, in net stockings, offering favors to passing motorists - the market for 70 year old men's favors is kinda thin. But, Abramoff certainly proved that the market for majority party committee chairmen's favors is a vigorous one.

Yeah, but unless this meme is sold via traditional media, it won't take hold on its own.

Why? I thought you'd never ask...

Because individuals in traditional media who have the most to lose if this meme takes hold are the same ones making decisions on what gets sold.

APB

Look, let's cut the idealistic notion that one should just outlaw labbying.  In fact, it is constitutionally protected and encouraged activity (the right to petition government) -- and realize that what has gone wrong (excuse the Marxist language here) is the commodification of a right. 

I have been a lobbyist -- registered in my state and in DC.  I did if for Civil Rights laws, when I was young and had tons of energy, and given what happened in 64-66 -- I claim success.  But I learned the craft from a woman in rural Minnesota who offered to teach me -- and who did it for over 30 years for no salary, no fees, just in later years for expenses (parking and the like) -- and never made a political donatiion in her life.  But she was responsible for creating the best state system for providing services to children with physical and mental disabilities of any state in the Union.  Let's tell her story so you can see what honor is really about. 

Mary had a retarded child right after World War II.  Her Husband had been badly wounded in the war, and lived most of the time at the VA because she could not cope with nursing him and taking care of her child at the same time.  She figured others might be in the same fix -- so she started asking around, and in a few years of the late 1940's she filled shoeboxes with kids names, their parents names, the particulars.  Then she organized her index cards by legislative district, and started organizing meetings of impacted parents, district by district, and eventually she had the beginnings of an organization.  She found that local families would help with her kid when she had to travel (no interstates in those days) to more distant districts.  By 1950 she had a state wide organization -- so she started having regional meetings a couple of times a year, where platforms were agreed, priorities established -- and people who could volunteered to either meet with all legislative candidates prior to election -- or go to St. Paul and monitor the session.  Newsletters got established -- addresograph plates were made from the names in the shoeboxes, and other parents were trained to recruit new members right after they found out they too had a child that fit the criteria. 

Between about 1950 and the late 1960's this "lobby" succeeded in totally changing how children with what we today call "Special needs" were dealt with by state programs.  From a time when the only choice was to instutionalize a child -- to the model for the present day when we mainstream most kids with help -- provide in home care, and all the rest -- this was an accomplishment of one very smart and motivated woman, and thousands of volunteer parents.  After 1950 not a single Minnesota Legislator was elected without having to address the details of state programs and commit to specific improvements.  And while Mary is now dead -- she lives on in her lobby, that still assumes that the state has to have the best program in the nation, and no one would dare run for the legislature without affirming that interest.  And yea, it is expensive. 

Now that is lobbying in its most honorable form.  Come out against the process and you come out against the creativity of quite ordinary citizens to petition Government, and do it intelligently, and about issues that vitally concern them.  What we need is not prohibition -- what we need is clear minded reforms. 

What we need right now is a new Berlin Wall between Campaign and political finance and the act and right of lobbying.  Let's face it -- many elected to the Senate and House really don't know much about the topics on which they need to legislate.  Being a very knowledgeable person, a quick study, a polymath, has never been much of a recommendation for political office.  Given this -- Members of Congress NEED to talk with folk with an interest in the details of the bills that come before them.  It is how that is arranged and organized that counts -- and the most critical reform right now is to make it totally independent of how one finances one's next campaign.  Thus my proposition for a new Berlin Wall.

-- First, let's end all political fundraising (with one exception) during the time congress is in session.  My exception would be events for small donors (under 50 dollars) in the State or district represented by the member. 

-- Second, let's totally reform the PAC system.  Outlaw the so called "Leadership PAC's" that exist so members can transfer and obscure the origin of funds.  Donations to a member or candidate should be clear donations.  As things stand now various interests donate to a "safe" candidate's fund -- named something obscure such as Citizens for a Better America, and then that money gets targeted where the candidate would feel it not such a good idea to take "that" money. 

In recent day's I have been laughing at an obscure idea.  I want to require that PAC's name their interest in their title -- but how to go about inforcing that.  This is a role for English Teachers -- we ought to have a commission of randomly selected English Teachers who determine whether a PAC is clearly named as to legislative interest. 

Do You know that "Volunteer PAC" is about Big Insurance owning the Health Care System, or that "Promoting Republicans you can Elect" is about preserving the role of Banks in the Student Loan program with a Federal Guarentee against any loss?  (A subsidy for the Banking and Finance Industry against low risk.)  Most of the members who ended up with this money never had to defend it -- it is obscured in the Leadership PAC system. 

Third -- Require members to Journal all lobby contacts -- phone, in person, E-Mail, at events.  Contacts should be reportable within a day of the contact, and should contain the subjects that were discussed.  Apply to official and unofficial contacts.  Journals should be posted on the internet. 

Fourth -- Drasticly limit Earmarks, which it appears are now for sale.  As with most things, there are good reasons for some of these -- if the administration opposes something, but a majority approves the idea, an earmark forces the Administration to do the program. 

Fifth -- California and about five other states make it illegal for the chair or ranking member of a committee to take donations for campaigns from any interest with business before their committee.  (They also make transferrs illegal).  I think something like this is a good idea -- but with the Appropriations and Jurisdictional committees so complex in DC -- it would need to be reworked. 

Sixth -- create a high powered court to deal with members of the House or Senate who violate the rules.  Justice ought to be swift and sure -- heavy fines, disbarment from office, and even jail time if necessary.  Court must be non-partisian. 

Seventh -- require that all mombers of the House and Senate as well as all political appointees and staff resign from office in any non-profit organization, and stay resigned until service in office is terminated.  (Applies to kids, wife or husband, and parents and in-laws too.)  Likewise, any non-profit that appoints a currently serving elected official, family member or member of the staff of such official to a decision making role on the board of a non-profit, instantly and immediately has lost of status.

Eithth -- Lay some heavy duty reporting requirements on all registered lobbyists.  Monthly reports (on the internet) of clients, fees received, dispursements from client accounts that are vouchered.  Totally prohibit any conversion of lobby fees to campaign contributions.  Prohibit any diversion of client funds to any elected official, campaign fund or political party.  Prohibit transfers to non-profits or charity. 

Nineth -- we have to outlaw astroturfing.  How, I am not sure.

Tenth -- Organizations that operate for a partisian (a particular party) interests need to be under the control of political parties with clear lines of who is responsible for both policy and operations.  My friend Mary, illustrated above was totally non or bi-partisian.  Many issue lobbies are such.  But to be so, it has to be clear.  IRS needs to establish rules on this for non-profits, and inforce them. 

There's more -- but let's make Lobbying Honorable again by setting the rules so as to eliminate the stink. 

Look, let's cut the idealistic notion that one should just outlaw labbying.  In fact, it is constitutionally protected and encouraged activity (the right to petition government) -- and realize that what has gone wrong (excuse the Marxist language here) is the commodification of a right.

Since when does it require money and expensive trips to "petition the government"?    I think my constitutional right to "petition the government" is being trampled on, because I can't afford to do it.  I'd petition the government about my inability to petition the government, but sending my congressman on a golfing junket is out of my price range.  I guess I'm screwed out of one of my constitutional rights.  

they can locate everywhere he was phsyically, a vast interconnected web of interests...

we need the words of the Christian Coalition
the words of his Southeast Europe and Mid East connections suspected of work with Al Qaeda

the people that were behind the Kwiatkowski/Edmunds demotions...

oh, and the mobsters who carried out an execution in FLA

for that matter there was a similar triple homicide involving a tribe about the time of an approval vote for gambling in Mississippi, it's a cold case but just to be on the safe side maybe people could see if any of his groups had connection with their representatives in tribal council votes

yeah, Haley Barbour country it is...

Because he nailed the most ironic part of this. Under Hot Tub Delay's K Street rules you were not allowed to bribe Democrats and would not have gotten value for dollar anyway. Who in their right minds would even bother trying to buy a Democratic Rep?

The rigid discipline of the K Street Project will be its downfall. I am sure you could find dirty Democrats who would willingly climb on the gravy train if they could have, but Conductor Tom made sure everyone had a Republican ticket.

I like Larry's points, especially because you couldn't bribe me to become a sales pitch, or allow myself to bend over,  to bring about anyone's demise or death. Of course, the downside to that is the upright position means that some want to lay you out flat. 

How about his lack of willingness to aggressively pursue a story that involves someone who gave him seats or access?  Is it really that difficult a concept?

Luigi, the point you make about P.R. being more direct democracy than lobbying is very good as far as being thought-provoking, but have you really thought through the ramifications of such a suggestion? You want to be hearing from "Harry and Louise" and their opponents the rest of your life?

I would rather hear from Harry and Louise for the rest of my life, than have deals made I know nothing about, and that happen because of money and golf trips (and worse).  And that, I think, is the choice we're down to.  The system, as it stands, is ripe for exploitation from venal people like DeLay and Abramoff, not even because they are greedy for money, but because money = power in Washington.  

Think of the scandals we've had over issues like this.  Not just the current rash, but Duke Cunningham (which was more old fashioned pocket lining, but still involved influence peddling), Clinton's fundraising scandals and so on.  Think of the issues that can't be honestly discussed, because doing so would offend this or that wealthy donor group.  Money is quietly but definitely distorting our democracy.

The Harry and Louise thing made me think of something else.  These interest groups spend countless dollars on directly influencing politicians.  If they weren't getting results for that money, they would be spending it on PR campaigns instead.  Businesses are rational, calculating entities, and they don't spend money on activities unless they are seeing results.  All Abramoff did was take the current system to a higher level, and then get caught.  He wasn't the first, and he won't be the last.        

Also since access for journalists is their coin, as we see from Bob Woodward of late, if journalists are getting freebies from lobbyists it is going to affect their view of their subjects and how they approach gaining access.