Abramoff's revelations

[shockmonster]

I think that what happened with Jack Abramoff is one of the biggest threats to our democracy that we have. The idea that Congressmen can take their golden parachute (for retirment), and then become lobbyists after leaving Congress is a travesty and shows a corrupting environment that happens to everyone (ultra conservative, liberal, moderate,etc.) that becomes a congressman. They should cure this problem and not allow them to become lobbyists after work in Congress.

[60Shock]

SM, the total relationships and paybacks between all lobbyists and congressmen needs to be totally reviewed. This corrupting influence has completely gotten out of hand. The dollar amounts that numerous congrssmen receive for their re-election campaigns from various and sundry lobbyists are staggering. I personally believe it would be most fascinating and enlightening for a congressional committee to review the voting records of each congressman over a several year period to see how they voted in reference to bills involving lobbyists agencies who have contributed monies to their campaign funds. I seriously doubt that there would be any surprises.

[shockmonster]

There was a story on 60 minutes tonight on corruption regarding insider trading. Congressman were taking information that they gathered on the market and trading on it. Baccus was publicly trying to solve problems regarding the stock market and the economy and behind the scenes, he was betting against it in the market. Another congressman was trying to pass a bill that would require Congressmen to disclose all of their trading every 90 days to expose these corrupt practices but couldn't find another sponsor and only a few congressman were interested. When asked about this bill, none of the Congressmen asked knew anything about the bill. Corruption goes so deep, all of Congress are the problem. Even our own governor wants to recall government pension money from government employees but he doesn't offer his golden parachute.

[Maggie]

Why do you think K Street exists? Why are there so many lobbyists in Washington, D.C.? Well to begin with, in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with lobbying Congress because according to the First Amendment, we all have a constitutional right, even those who are paid to do it, to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

It is a simple fact of life that when Congress writes laws and the executive branch writes regulations that channel vast flows of money - and laws and regulations that have vast moral and financial implications - citizens affected by those words are going to try to make sure they’re written the way they want. They’re going to hire the best people they can find to do so. They want lobbyists with connections - and with expertise. They can help lawmakers understand how the words they write will affect their lives or their businesses. You can’t stop someone from lobbying Congress unless you want to repeal the First Amendment.

But the reason you have such a proliferation of lobbyists is precisely because Congress (and the various regulatory agencies that ultimately interpret the laws that are passed) has insisted in sticking its nose into so many parts of everyday life. On the corporate side, a great example is Microsoft. That company didn’t employ many, if any, lobbyists until it was hit with a huge lawsuit filed by the Feds; and now I would reckon a good amount of financial resources are allocated by Microsoft’s management to do what they can to influence Washington through K Street – they have to protect the bottom-line of the company.

You want to lessen the influence of lobbyists in Washington – have Congress get out the way and limit the power of regulatory agencies. Reform that part of the equation and companies (and so-called “special interests” - a term I hate by the way because it means nothing) wouldn’t need to spend money on K Street.

[shockmonster]

Why do you think K Street exists? Why are there so many lobbyists in Washington, D.C.? Well to begin with, in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with lobbying Congress because according to the First Amendment, we all have a constitutional right, even those who are paid to do it, to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

It is a simple fact of life that when Congress writes laws and the executive branch writes regulations that channel vast flows of money - and laws and regulations that have vast moral and financial implications - citizens affected by those words are going to try to make sure they’re written the way they want. They’re going to hire the best people they can find to do so. They want lobbyists with connections - and with expertise. They can help lawmakers understand how the words they write will affect their lives or their businesses. You can’t stop someone from lobbying Congress unless you want to repeal the First Amendment.

But the reason you have such a proliferation of lobbyists is precisely because Congress (and the various regulatory agencies that ultimately interpret the laws that are passed) has insisted in sticking its nose into so many parts of everyday life. On the corporate side, a great example is Microsoft. That company didn’t employ many, if any, lobbyists until it was hit with a huge lawsuit filed by the Feds; and now I would reckon a good amount of financial resources are allocated by Microsoft’s management to do what they can to influence Washington through K Street – they have to protect the bottom-line of the company.

You want to lessen the influence of lobbyists in Washington – have Congress get out the way and limit the power of regulatory agencies. Reform that part of the equation and companies (and so-called “special interests” - a term I hate by the way because it means nothing) wouldn’t need to spend money on K Street.

I don't care about the lobbying of Congress. I care about the corruption of congress. Former congressmen or their underlings shouldn't be able to trade votes on issues for extremely high paying lobbying jobs when they get out of congress. That is what should be illegal and that is what Abramoff proposes should be done.

[shockmonster]

The Congressman that was interviewed said that votes in Congress should be about what's best for the United States, not what's good for the Congressman.

[Maggie]

There was a story on 60 minutes tonight on corruption regarding insider trading. Congressman were taking information that they gathered on the market and trading on it. Baccus was publicly trying to solve problems regarding the stock market and the economy and behind the scenes, he was betting against it in the market. Another congressman was trying to pass a bill that would require Congressmen to disclose all of their trading every 90 days to expose these corrupt practices but couldn't find another sponsor and only a few congressman were interested. When asked about this bill, none of the Congressmen asked knew anything about the bill. Corruption goes so deep, all of Congress are the problem. Even our own governor wants to recall government pension money from government employees but he doesn't offer his golden parachute.

I watched the 60 minutes segment. Obviously, both parties are guilty of it but I do think Boehner gives a better answer (in short, “I don’t handle my day-to-day trades and haven’t in years”) than does Pelosi, whose answer is simply blithering incoherence.

Of course, the best solution to the problem of a congress profiting from its own ability to move markets is to eliminate - or at least substantively reduce - congress’s ability to move markets. Since we’re not within hollering distance of a small government utopia, I have to think that putting members of congress's assets in blind trusts during their terms of office is a reasonable solution. The president has to. A number of executive officials have to. Why shouldn’t the congressional members? Anyone think that’s wrong?

[shockmonster]

Maggie-Your solution to corruption by congressmen using insider knowledge as well as the one that I proposed to make it illegal for a congressman or their underling to become a lobbyist after leaving congress are two good solutions to the corruption problem. I think that the problem is so pervasive that we don't know half of it. Gingrich (becoming a consultant to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for 1.5M) is the latest example of legal corruption when that is so pervasive for legislators who are in the system. It usually doesn't matter if Republican or Democrat. If they become a part of the system, they will become corrupted. We need to try to continue to solve the problem, but the only real solution is probably term limits which the courts said are unconstitutional.

[Maggie]

Maggie-Your solution to corruption by congressmen using insider knowledge as well as the one that I proposed to make it illegal for a congressman or their underling to become a lobbyist after leaving congress are two good solutions to the corruption problem. I think that the problem is so pervasive that we don't know half of it. Gingrich (becoming a consultant to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for 1.5M) is the latest example of legal corruption when that is so pervasive for legislators who are in the system. It usually doesn't matter if Republican or Democrat. If they become a part of the system, they will become corrupted. We need to try to continue to solve the problem, but the only real solution is probably term limits which the courts said are unconstitutional.

Term limits don't solve this problem. Think about it.

[t7017s]

In related news...

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/11/16/obamas-half-billion-dollar-crony-drug-deal/

[shockmonster]

In related news...

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/11/16...ony-drug-deal/

This article points to Democrat corruption and they may have more of it than republicans, but there have so many examples of corruption swinging both ways. It seems like the party who has the President has more corruption than the other party. Power seems to corrupt almost always. I've been very disappointed in Republicans that I've believed in.

[DUShock]

Money is free speech and corporations are people.

[shockmonster]

Money is free speech and corporations are people.

No one is saying that money isn't free speech. The discussion has centered around whether a Congressman or congressional aide should be able to trade a vote for a future job as a lobbyist.

[shockmonster]

Money is free speech and corporations are people.

Watch Huckabee this weekend for a view of Washington from the Conservative perspective of Abramoff and Huckabee.

[DUShock]

No one is saying that money isn't free speech. The discussion has centered around whether a Congressman or congressional aide should be able to trade a vote for a future job as a lobbyist.

Again, money is free speech and corporations are people.