This seems a bit overwrought to me. I can't believe that there are so many highly-paid lobbyists that are going to get laid off that it would actually affect the area's economy to an appreciable degree. And you can be sure that there are plenty of others who wouldn't mind plonking down some big bucks for a skybox. Maybe a few select hangouts might feel pinched. But the DC Metro area's economy is pretty well diversified these days.




And aren't we kind of getting ahead of ourselves? It seems just yesterday that the CW was that this would blow over at some point and that it would be business as usual after some cosmetic changes. You'd need to switch to a totally public campaign finance system to really make a dent. And even then, you've got the Buckley v. Valeo precedent to contend with that says money = speech and thus protected.

Well, this is why one shouldn't build an economy on corruption. We can't save the DC lobbyist economy at the expense of the country.

Amen Nick.  You get it.

Now put it on bumper sticker for the fifty percent of the voting public who do most of their reading there.

You are mistaken about my intent.  I am NOT giving up.  I am asking a serious question.  More than half of the posts I have seen on Abramoff have been about getting party advantage.  I am not opposed to party advantage, but the serious issue is getting Congress to criminalize its own bad behavior.  "Lobbyist" reform or "earmark" reform are great little bits of whip cream, but where is the pie?

The problem of corruption in Washington is not a cycle, it is more like the swirl in your toilet.  It is constant.  Sometimes we notice, sometimes the evidence is not clear enough.  There was a period in the early 90s when some top senators (I'm thinking Bill Bradley, bt I know there were others) retired because they were 'no longer willing to participate in the constant money raising process.'  What do you think they had in mind?  Just 'cause we don't see the toilet every day doesn't mean it isn't there.

The trick is to change the environment and get rid of the behavior.  This means congressmen must criminalize so called normal congressional behavior.  Period.  No excuses. 

Look, the issue is not what the laws are. Abramoff pled out. These activities are currently illegal.  There's no need for reform There's need for proactive enforcement, starting with a real ethics committee, and with a commitment by officeholders and lobbyists to abide by the law.  Talking about new laws is a distraction. They've broken, systematically, brazenly, in full light of day, the current laws.

A customer of mine is a CFO of a big non-profit, and is a retired partner from a big 6, 5, 4 I dunno the right number anymore accounting firm. He played a role in a cleanup following an embezzlement scheme.  He says these people always get caught, because nobody notices when  they steal a hundred dollars, so they steal two hundred. And then four hundred. And in no time they're stealiing a hundred thousand, and people notice. A similar dynamic is taking place here. Reform isn't the issue. Enforcing the law is the issue.

Just saw the post from Josh on the new Abramoff Rose Garden Holdings mystery in Hong Kong. Well, hey, no wonder the investigators can't find any evidence of the company in Hong Kong, THE WHITE HOUSE HAS A ROSE GARDEN . . .

Even a ripped fishing net can catch a whale every now and then. That doesn't mean the rest of the fish are getting caught.  Abramoff is there because the whole system is a mess.

Cook 'em all, not just the worst ones. 

Abramoff was simply a very egregious version of what goes on every day.  His money orgy was more obscene than other money orgies.  But, lets see how many of the already exposed lobby-hogs survive for lack of provable criminal activity.

All three of the candidates to replace DeLay are tainted.  However, apparently not tainted enough to be thought to be at risk of indictment.  Even the Republicans are not dumb enough to elect a majority leader who they expect to be indicted.

Sure there are criminals who can be prosecuted under current laws, but that is just the scum frothing to the top of the polluted water. 

The reason that "Dollar Bill" (he got that nickname because of his prolific fundraising) and many other politico's "retired" in that time frame was that legislation was enacted that would prohibit them from keeping all the money that was raised for their campaigns.  After a "date certain" (ok, I forget the exact year and am only on my first cup of coffee) their campaign funds would have been forfit.

Eliminate the "Plum Book".

For those outside DC, in every change of administration, there are "political" appointments in every agency, bureau, and department in the government.

While the public hears about the Ambassadorships in the MSM (going price about $250,000 in fundraising contributions), the most dangerous insertions are in mid-level posts to administrative agencies.

These hacks interfere on a daily basis with "career service" federal workers- the ones that usually get it right. Examples are rife but usually under reported:

DeLay's redistricting plan for Texas was trashed by Just-Us dept. career lawyers as violating the voting rights act.  A political appointee (so far unnamed) refused to accept their opinions and allowed it to proceed.

Career analysts at State had it right about Iraq- enough said.

An appointee at EPA from the oil and gas industry "revises" reports that could cast unfavorable light on his "former" industry and support global warming- and then returns to a better job in that same industry.

And then there's...."Brownie".....the poster child for the concept of political patronage trumping competence.

This form of "redirection"- the "go along to get along" philosophy that is imposed on the career people by the hacks- results in money being pushed and diverted from the original appropriations to many worthless projects to benefit the "inner circle" of the appointed hack's money sources, guaranteeing that in the next political cycle the money will flow in again.

Every agency and bureau in the government has these "party" representatives that can make the career of a capable employee disappear- red-lined for advancement certainly.

This is where the "recession" that Larry points out will begin- partly because these appointees steer government dollars by political intimidation and fear the whistleblower- that they may think twice now that the light is shining into the darker corners of that corruption.  

I'm sure that Larry could cite chapter and verse about similar scenarios...... 

Regardinmg:

  I don't think taking a bribe has ever been legal.

Of course not.  But what is a "bribe"?  Congress is no slouch when it comes to defining away the problem. 

Normal people look at much of what is going on in campaign finance and say THAT is bribery, but normal people don't get to write laws.

Perhaps it's bribery to schedule your access time based on donations and gifts?  I am ready to say so, but Congressmen don't have the backbone to do so.

Since Congress controls the definition of "bribe," it is easy for them to make sure that all their favorite behaviors are not bribes.