A New Day in Washington?

“‘We have kept our promise to drain the swamp that is Washington, D.C.,’ Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said, adding that the legislation is ‘historic.’” “‘These are big-time fundamental reforms,’ said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.” Noted Common Cause president Bob Edgar: ” If there is a positive side to Jack Abramoff and the wave of congressional scandal, this is it.“

Yes, this could be big. In the wake of the broiling Stevens scandal, the House votes 411-8 to pass a comprehensive new ethics bill: “Secret ‘holds’ in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing his or her tactics, would end. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish convention parties thrown in their honor. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted.” In addition, “bundles” — small campaign contributions packaged together — will now have to be disclosed, along with political contributions by lobbyists and the identities of the lobbyists themselves.

Of course, the bill still has to pass the Senate, where some conservatives are threatening to force a filibuster vote (in part due to the weakening of earmark rules, which is admittedly rather annoying.) But that was before Stevens’ unfortunate run-in with the FBI, so we’ll see. Right now, I’m cautiously optimistic that the right-wing will have to fall in line. As Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center put it: “It may not be a grand slam, but it’s a home run…There is no credible excuse to oppose this legislation.“

Stevens Hawking his Vote?

Is the longest-serving Republican in Senate history going the way of Casino Jack? FBI and IRS agents raid the home of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), he of the “Bridge to Nowhere,” the “series of tubes” (remix), and the Inuit-Bolivian connection. (The Senator’s son, a former Alaskan state senator, is already implicated in the probe.) “Stevens…is under scrutiny from the Justice Department for his ties to an Alaska energy services company, VECO, whose CEO pleaded guilty in early May to a bribery scheme involving state lawmakers. Contractors have told a federal grand jury that in 2000, VECO executives oversaw a lavish remodeling of Stevens’ home.”

We Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet?

“‘We’re sitting on the doorstep of a definitional moment,’ said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.” Faced with their own low poll numbers, the Democratic Congress readies a flurry of late-term legislation involving homeland security (implementing most of the 9/11 commission recommendations), ethics (gift bans and increased disclosure requirements), and child health care (expanding insurance coverage for children of the working poor.) “Republican leaders plan to stand in the way…But against such philosophical stands, there is a stark political problem: How many Republicans are really going to oppose legislation expanding insurance coverage for children, tightening ethics rules and bolstering homeland security?” More than one might think, I’d wager.

A Real “Modern Progressive.”

“The issue: Feingold’s recently signed campaign finance reform bill. Clinton, whose husband’s leasing of the Lincoln Bedroom had helped inspire the new law, was accompanied by an attorney. The attorney’s job: Look for loopholes, loopholes that would allow the Democrats to keep raking in soft money — unregulated, unlimited contributions to the party coffers. When Feingold objected, Clinton scolded him like Empress Livia dressing down a courtier. ‘You’re not living in the real world,’ she shouted. ‘Senator,’ Feingold responded coolly, ‘I do live in the real world, and I’m doing just fine in it.’” Hey, Hillary…want to see what a real “modern progressive” looks like? Writer Edward McClellan reviews Sanford Horwitt’s Feingold, a new biography of the Senator, for Salon, placing him in a long tradition of Wisconsin mavericks dating back to the inimitable Robert La Follette. “As Horwitt puts it, Feingold’s campaign was in the tradition of La Follette’s ‘progressives, who “mostly thought of themselves as perpetual underdogs against the big-money interests.‘”

My Clinton Concerns | State of the Field.

“‘You can look at this stage and see an African American, a Latino, a woman contesting for the presidency of the United States,’ Clinton said. ‘But there is so much left to be done, and for anyone to assert that race is not a problem in America is to deny the reality in front of our very eyes.'” Unfortunately, I missed the third Democratic debate at Howard University debate last night, so I can’t comment on the performances of Clinton, Obama, Edwards et al. I can say that this new NBC poll showing that 52% of the electorate wouldn’t consider voting for Hillary under any circumstances conforms to one of my major concerns with her nomination. As I said before, she’s a smart, talented, and impressive politico who’d undoubtedly sail the ship of state much more smoothly than the current administration. (Of course, so would you, I, the night-janitor at the local McDonalds, or almost anyone else one can think of.) But, really: [1] she’s thoroughly lousy on campaign finance reform, to my mind the issue that bears on virtually all others; [2] she apparently didn’t have the wherewithal or leadership instincts to realize the Iraq war was a terrible idea in 2003 (it didn’t take all that much to figure it out, particularly when you figure how much more information Clinton had access to than we did); [3] her view of centrism is apparently to act like Joe Lieberman every so often; and [4] most of the nation has already decided for various reasons that they don’t like her. With the Republicans scattered and in retreat, their ideology in eclipse, why do we keep throwing up marginal, tired candidates — Gore, Kerry, Clinton — on the off-chance that the electorate will manage to surmount their strong negatives, hold their collective nose, and vote for them?

To be fair, the other Dems haven’t been all that great at articulating a progressive alternative to Republican-lite DLC-ishness yet either, but at least there’s some potential for it there. Sen. Obama‘s got all the right JFK moves, and this all-things-to-all-people ambiguity may be one of his strongest political assets. But right now I think he’s relying too much on his initial spate of public goodwill, and missing a chance to really draw the nation’s attention to the issues that concern him. And John Edwards‘ son-of-a-millworker-made-good brand of populism, while laudable, doesn’t yet seem fully formed to me. But, at the very least, Edwards — unlike some of his more-willing-to-triangulate opponents — seems more often than not to let his flag fly, and act from the courage of his convictions. Right now, particularly with McCain hopelessly derailed by his blatant compromises of principle, Edwards may be the closest we’ve got to a Straight-Talk-Express this year (well, this side of Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul.)

At the moment, I’m still leaning towards Obama, just because of his tremendous upside — he, unlike virtually every other candidate, has the possibility to transform, revitalize, and realign our current political debate if he plays his cards right. But, Edwards is still in my estimation, and I’ll be taking a long hard look at him over the coming months (and either, in my humble opinion, are preferable to Senator Clinton, for the reasons listed above.)

Backcourt Violations.

“‘Conservatives got everything they could reasonably have hoped for out of the term,’ said Thomas C. Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who specializes in Supreme Court litigation.” Proving the crucial importance of the Alito-O’Connor switch (and, I’ll continue to maintain as my answer to Emily Bazelon’s line of questioning, the 2004 election), the Roberts Court flexed its muscle in depressing fashion this week, voting 5-4 (as feared) not only to gut the McCain-Feingold act in the name of “free speech” but also — seriously, no lie — to partially roll back Brown v. Board of Education. (In another well-reported case, the majority’s inordinate fear of bongs trumped this stalwart commitment to free speech.) So, if you’re keeping score, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy came down like this: money good, corruption good, drug hysteria good; clean politics bad, youthful irony bad, integration bad. Oh, wonderful. Suddenly, the announcement that the Court will take a look at the Guantanamo cases doesn’t sound so appetizing. Update: Slate‘s slate of legal observers discuss.

Prison Stripes for Scooter (and likely Jefferson.)

“I think public officials need to know if they are going to step over the line, there are going to be consequences…[What Libby did] causes people to think our government does not work for them.” A sadly necessary Capitol corruption update: As you no doubt heard, earlier in the week Scooter Libby was sentenced to thirty months in jail for his lies and evasions in the Valerie Plame case. (Libby has asked for a delay of the sentence, which probably won’t happen. And E.J. Dionne evaluates GOP sentiment for a pardon here — for now, the White House remains mum on the subject.) Meanwhile, on our side of the aisle, pretty obviously corrupt Democratic rep William Jefferson, he with the thousands of dollars stashed in the freezer, is indicted on 16 counts of racketeering, money laundering, and obstruction of justice, mostly involving bribes offered and taken from West African business and political officials. Jefferson is fighting the charges, but the House — wisely — has already moved against him, opening an ethics inquiry into him and setting the stage for his expulsion.

Hillary Inc.

“‘Everything has been skewed,’ Clinton says, jabbing her index finger for emphasis, ‘to help the privileged and the powerful at the expense of everybody else!’ It’s a rousing speech, though ultimately not very convincing. If Clinton really wanted to curtail the influence of the powerful, she might start with the advisers to her own campaign, who represent some of the weightiest interests in corporate America.” In a cover story for The Nation, Ari Berman takes a gander at the corporate connections among Hillary’s inner circle, concluding that “[i]t’s hard to see how her advisers’ corporate work doesn’t reflect poorly on Clinton’s progressive claims or create a liability for her with Democratic voters.“

“The Other K-Street.”

“Congressional Republicans have been renowned — and often criticized — for harnessing the clout of special-interest groups and lobbyists to advance their agenda…After the 2006 elections, left-leaning groups now conduct their own, similar meetings to advance the Democrats’ cause.” The WP delves into the new Democratic tinge of the K-Street lobbying world. Hmm. Well, I guess I’ll take a left-leaning lobbyist over a right-leaning lobbyist any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but I would hope the Pelosi House keeps this new K-street bunch at further remove than did their predecessors. Both Democratic reps and liberal interest groups have displayed their reluctance to commit to real campaign finance and lobbying reform in the past when the tide’s swinging their way, and I fear, once the cash starts flying around in earnest, that this liberal-leaning slope will get just as slippery in very short order. You don’t wear the ring, people. You destroy the ring.

DeLay cries foul.

“We have cooperated with everything. We’ve given them everything, including computers; they’ve taken computers that I had here. They’ve gotten everything that’s got anything to do with my life.” A deposed Boss DeLay decries his treatment by the FBI, taking particular umbrage at the investigations into his wife Christine: “She did her work and she was underpaid for the work she did and they can’t make the case. It’s a Justice Department that is running amok. Fish or cut bait. Do something.” Underpaid? Christine DeLay, it may be remembered, was paid $500,000 in PAC funds by the DeLay campaign, $3,300 a month for three years in funds apparently skimmed from the US Family Network, and another half-million in a retirement account set up by former DeLay staffer and lobbyist Edwin Buckham.