“I wouldn’t classify those changes as major…Between charitable events and fundraising events, there will still be lots of ways to get in front of members [of Congress].” Abramoff, Schmabramoff…The lobbying industry remains unperturbed by the GOP reform bill making its way through the Senate. In related news, the Post delves into both the shady use of campaign treasuries by reps in solid seats and the inner workings of MZM’s lobbying-bribery machine. And, under its well-traveled new leader, the House plans to meet for less than 100 days this year to accommodate reps’ need to beg for money full-time.
Category: Campaign Finance
The $100 Million Question.
“There is a growing sense that there is going to be a $100 million entry fee at the end of 2007 to be considered a serious candidate.: Yes, Virginia, you too can be President someday…if you drop out of kindergarten and start begging for cash right now. The Post looks into the 2008 presidential campaign fundraising race, already in full swing (especially, this weekend, on the GOP side.) And, if he or she brings nothing else to the table, it seems the next leader of our country will be really good at prostrating before wealthy people.
Plutocracy Foyled.
“A player who has the ability to make it to the NBA can come from anywhere…In very much the same way, politics should give all of our gifted and talented citizens an equal chance to compete to serve in political life.” Wow, you learn something new every day. Before entering the NBA, Golden State Warriors center Adonal Foyle began an organization called Democracy Matters, dedicated to getting college students more involved in the fight for campaign finance reform. You can read Foyle’s speech about the connection between the NBA and the issue here. (By way of his adopted brother at Crooked Timber.)
No (More) Such Thing as a Free Lunch.
Good news for the Union Station food court: Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Rick Santorum (R-PA) successfully add a ban on lobbyist-paid meals to the reform bill. (Santorum, you say? Well, apparently, he chooses to conduct his theoretically-suspended meetings with lobbyists after breakfast.) And here’s a strange “reform” addition to the same bill: “Separately, the Senate approved by voice vote an amendment by Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) that would deny to any lawmaker a pay increase that he votes against but that eventually becomes law.“
Jacked In.
“In a different era I’d be killed on the street or have poison poured into my coffee.” Matt Drudge previews a forthcoming Vanity Fair interview with Casino Jack, and interspersed among the delusions of grandeur are more indications that GOP higher-ups — among them Dubya, DeLay, Newt, Burns, Mehlman, and McCain — knew Abramoff better than they’re letting on. “You’re really no one in this town unless you haven’t met me.” Update: Reuters confirms.
Duke of Deceit.
As Randy “Duke” Cunningham faces sentencing today, federal investigators take a closer look at his connections to the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), “the Pentagon’s newest and fastest-growing intelligence agency.” “In pre-sentencing documents filed this week, prosecutors said that in fiscal 2003 legislation, Cunningham set aside, or earmarked, $6.3 million for work to be done ‘to benefit’ CIFA shortly after the agency was created. The contract went to MZM Inc., a company run by Mitchell J. Wade, who recently pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe Cunningham.” Update: 8 years, 4 months.
Office Spaced / Abramoff the Table?
The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, which has recently been looking into lobbying reform, votes 11-5 on an amendment by George Voinovich (R-OH) to prevent the creation of an independent ethics office. (Three Dems joined the Republicans, minus Chair Susan Collins, to kill the plan.) While Voinovich claims an independent office would be redundant given the Senate Ethics Committee (which he chairs), watchdog groups such as Public Citizen are livid, and John McCain has already suggested he’ll likely renew the idea on the Senate floor.
Still, reformers face a serious challenge in the growing audacity of the GOP, who are banking on the Casino Jack story not catching fire outside the Beltway: “[A]s the legislation has evolved and Abramoff has faded from the headlines, calls for bans have grown scarce, and expanded disclosure has become the centerpiece of the efforts underway.” Nevertheless, the Republicans are playing with fire: The ballad of Casino Jack plays on, as attested by prosecutors recently subpoenaing travel agency records of a 2000 DeLay-Abramoff boondoggle to Britain.
Tel Aviv Tea and Moscow Moolah.
File this one next to Red Scorpion: The Boston Globe uncovers that, among Casino Jack’s various other projects, Abramoff wanted to dig for oil in Israel, and had established a company, First Gate Resources, with some Russian investors to do so. It seems these investors, “energy company executives of a Moscow firm called Naftasib,” may also have paid for a 1997 DeLay-Abramoff boondoggle to Moscow. Also, the Feds “have sought information about Naftasib’s interest in congressional support for Russian projects financed through the International Monetary Fund.” The plot thickens…
Earmarks to the Ground.
In round one of the Senate legislative response to Casino Jack, Trent Lott circulates a reform bill that would stifle earmarks and mandate the disclosure of meals paid for by lobbyists. Well, it’s a start…but for now, Dems seem wary of the bill, “which seemed to be less stringent on several points than legislation they have proposed.”
Congress on the Fritz, Fritz on the Congress.
“There is a cancer on the body politic: money.” Former Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC) argues for a campaign finance constitutional amendment — Worth reading in its entirety. “[I]n 1998 I had to raise $8.5 million to be elected senator. This meant I had to collect $30,000 a week, each and every week, for six years. I could have raised $3 million in South Carolina. But to get $8.5 million I had to travel to New York, Boston, Chicago, Florida, California, Texas and elsewhere. During every break Congress took, I had to be out hustling money. And when I was in Washington, or back home, my mind was still on money.” …
“What the court did in 1976 was to give the rich, who don’t have to raise money, a big advantage — in effect, a greater degree of freedom of speech than others have. No one can imagine that in drafting the First Amendment to the Constitution, James Madison thought freedom of speech would be measured by wealth. The Supreme Court, which has found constitutional other limits on speech, has rendered Madison’s freedom unequal. Congress must make it equal again.”