Most corrupt in Congress?

[Faithless]

Three people on the list - Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont.; Rep. Robert Ney, R-Ohio; and Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla., are cited for their dealings with one-time super- lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is the subject of congressional and federal grand jury investigations. Abramoff was indicted last month on fraud charges from a Florida business deal.
...
Representatives for some of the 13 dismissed the report as "pure politics."

Eleven of the 13 are Republicans.

"Most corrupt" in Congress listed (http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_3060130)

Article Launched: 09/25/2005 01:00:00 AM * By Chuck Neubauer * Los Angeles Times

Washington - A watchdog group, naming what it calls "the 13 most corrupt members of Congress," is calling for ethics investigations of some of the most prominent political leaders on Capitol Hill in a report to be released Monday.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) (http://www.citizensforethics.org/) claims in its report that the 13 members violated a variety of congressional ethics rules. Among them are Senate Majority leader Bill Frist and House Majority Whip Roy Blunt.

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., was accused of misusing her congressional office for campaign purposes.

The bipartisan list includes House Resources Committee chairman Richard Pombo, a conservative Republican; Rep. Maxine Waters, a staunch liberal Democrat; and Republican Rep. Duke Cunningham, all of California.

Cunningham is one of two House members whose residences have been searched as part of separate federal criminal investigations. The other, Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., also is named on CREW's list.

Three people on the list - Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont.; Rep. Robert Ney, R-Ohio; and Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla., are cited for their dealings with one-time super- lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is the subject of congressional and federal grand jury investigations. Abramoff was indicted last month on fraud charges from a Florida business deal.

"They all violated ethics rules," Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW, said of the 13 members of Congress. She criticized both parties for failing to police ethics.

Representatives for some of the 13 dismissed the report as "pure politics."

Eleven of the 13 are Republicans.

Ney press secretary Brian Walsh said: "We don't give Melanie Sloan and her liberal organization an ounce of credibility."

The report is called "Beyond DeLay: The 13 Most Corrupt Members of Congress" and is based, CREW said, on news articles and other documents. The report was made available to the Los Angeles Times by the watchdog group.

Their list (http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/pressclip.php?view=672)

The 13 members of Congress recommended for investigation by the watchdog group are:

Sen. Bill Frist: The report accuses him of violating federal campaign finance laws in how he disclosed a campaign loan. It also calls for an inquiry over his recent sale of stock in HCA Inc., his family's hospital corporation. The sale has raised questions about possible insider dealing. Frist aides confirmed Friday that the SEC was investigating. They have denied claims of campaign finance violations.

• Rep. Roy Blunt: The report criticizes him for trying to insert provisions into bills that would have benefited, in one case, a client of his lobbyist son and in another case, the employer of his lobbyist girlfriend, now his wife.


• Sen. Conrad Burns: The report says that questions arose over $3 million in appropriations he earmarked for an Indian tribe in Michigan that was a client of lobbyist Abramoff. The senator received substantial campaign contributions from Abramoff and various clients.

"Sen. Burns did nothing wrong, and any accusation to the contrary is pure politics," said James Pendleton, his director of communications. He said Burns had earmarked the appropriation at the request of the Michigan congressional delegation.

• Rep. Bob Ney: The report says the chairman of the House Administration Committee went on a golf outing to Scotland in 2002, arranged by Abramoff, at a time when the congressman was trying to insert a provision into legislation to benefit one of Abramoff's tribal clients.

Ney reported to the House that the trip was paid for entirely by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank, which denied paying any of the costs. Ney has said he had been duped by Abramoff.

• Rep. Tom Feeney: The report says he incorrectly reported that a golf trip to Scotland with Abramoff in 2003 was paid for by the National Center for Public Policy Research, which denied it. A Feeney aide said the congressman had been misled. Questions also have arisen about two other privately funded trips.

• Rep. Richard W. Pombo: He paid his wife and brother $357,325 in campaign funds in the last four years, the report says. He also supported the wind-power industry before the Department of Interior without disclosing that his parents received hundreds of thousands of dollars in royalties from wind-power turbines on their ranch.

Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for Pombo, said that "each of the charges is baseless." He called the watchdog group "a Democratic attack group, and all of their charges should be taken with a grain of salt."

• Rep. Maxine Waters: The report cites a December 2004 Los Angeles Times investigation disclosing how members of the congresswoman's family have made more than $1 million in the last eight years by doing business with companies, candidates and causes that Waters has helped. Before publication of the Times investigation last year, Waters declined to be interviewed, but said of her family members: "They do their business, and I do mine."

• Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.): The report says he encountered controversy over disclosures that Pennsylvania taxpayers paid for his children's schooling while they lived in Virginia. Santorum maintained he did nothing wrong, and has pulled his children out of the school, according to reports.

• Reps. Randy "Duke" Cunningham and William J. Jefferson: Both congressional veterans are under federal investigation.

Cunningham, who has announced that he will not run for reelection, faces questions over his dealings with a defense contractor who allegedly overpaid him when he purchased Cunningham's house. Jefferson is under scrutiny for his role in an overseas business deal. Normally the House ethics committee does not hold inquiries while criminal investigations are underway.

• Rep. Charles H. Taylor (R-N.C.): The report says that questions have been raised about his private business interests, including a savings and loan in Asheville, N.C., and personal business interests in Russia.

• Rep. Marilyn N. Musgrave (R-Colo.) and Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.): Both second-term House members encountered criticisms tied to campaign activities, the report says.

Musgrave was accused of misusing her congressional office for campaign purposes. Renzi was accused of financing portions of his 2002 campaign with improper loans.

[Faithless]

Ethics. The new big issue for the American voter.

And it's not just about blue-dressed chicks giving gooey chomp-chomp to ding-dongs.

A lot of these issues are really no-no's.

Political observers say the number of statehouse scandals has fostered a climate that makes the news out of Washington -- near-daily stories of grand jury appearances, questions of insider stock trading, charges of high-level cronyism -- even more resonant with voters.

"People don't distinguish between various levels of government," said Bill Carrick, a Democratic campaign strategist in Los Angeles. "For most people, this is all part of one story."

Scandals may evoke national backlash: VOTERS SEEING STATE ETHICS BREACHES MAY SEND LEADERS PACKING (http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/12921952.htm)

Posted on Mon, Oct. 17, 2005 * By Mark Z. Barabak * LOS ANGELES TIMES

Even as clouds of scandal hang over Washington, D.C., charges of political wrongdoing have surfaced in state capitals in Ohio, New Mexico, Tennessee and elsewhere across the country, touching members of both parties and elevating ethics as a campaign issue in nearly a dozen states.

Already, some observers say, the effect can be felt in the November race for New Jersey governor, where Democratic Sen. Jon Corzine is locked in a closer-than-expected contest with Republican businessman Doug Forrester.

Given President Bush's unpopularity and New Jersey's Democratic tilt, "It's hard to understand unless you take the ethical climate of the state into account," said Cliff Zukin, a Rutgers University political scientist.

A poll last month by Quinnipiac University in Hamden, Conn., found that 53 percent of New Jersey voters considered government corruption a very serious problem, compared with 23 percent in May 2001 -- before Sen. Robert Torricelli and Gov. James E. McGreevey, both Democrats, were chased from office by scandals.

But New Jersey and Washington, D.C. are not the only places where charges of political malfeasance have been making headlines.

• In Kentucky, 11 current or former members of Republican Gov. Ernie Fletcher's administration have been indicted as part of an investigation into Fletcher's hiring practices. The governor has issued a blanket pardon for all involved -- excluding himself -- which antagonized many Kentucky voters.

• In Alaska, two members of Republican Gov. Frank H. Murkowski's Cabinet have resigned this year amid conflict-of-interest charges.

• In Illinois, Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich has been tied to a teacher's pension fund scandal. A criminal investigation is being led by U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who also is heading the Washington investigation into the leak that unmasked CIA operative Valerie Plame.

• In New Mexico, Democratic Treasurer Robert Vigil faces federal racketeering charges in connection with kickbacks he allegedly received from a financial adviser hired to help invest state funds. Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson, running for re-election next year and eyeing a 2008 run for president, is seeking to strip Vigil of his power.

• In Ohio, Republican Gov. Robert A. Taft has pleaded no contest to violating state ethics laws in connection with gifts he received. He also has been battered by the so-called "Coingate" scandal involving the loss of state funds in rare coin investments made by a major GOP donor.

• In Tennessee, an FBI sting has led to bribery and conspiracy charges against five current or former state lawmakers. All but one are Democrats.

Political observers say the number of statehouse scandals has fostered a climate that makes the news out of Washington -- near-daily stories of grand jury appearances, questions of insider stock trading, charges of high-level cronyism -- even more resonant with voters.

"People don't distinguish between various levels of government," said Bill Carrick, a Democratic campaign strategist in Los Angeles. "For most people, this is all part of one story."

The party in power always runs the greatest risk of a voter backlash against incumbent lawmakers. In the epic throw-the-bums-out election of 1994, Republicans not only won control of Congress but also gained 11 governorships and 472 seats in legislatures across the country.

Next year, there will be 36 gubernatorial contests and hundreds of legislative races. Republicans hold 28 of the nation's governorships, the Democrats 22.

[raacluse]

The problem has always been that Congress is reluctant or unwilling to police itself. Of course, part of that is due to the fact that it's hard to punish someone for transgressions (or perceived conflicts of interest) when you might need favors from them.

[Hiroshi2]

Damn Republicans.



Oh well, fuck the Democrats too. Somebody needs to start the "I'm-all-by-damn-self" party.

[A.R.A.M.]

Ethics. The new big issue for the American voter.

And it's not just about blue-dressed chicks giving gooey chomp-chomp to ding-dongs.

A lot of these issues are really no-no's.

Unfortunately, I don't think that there will be a real public outcry about what is going on in Washington. On the one hand their crimes are esoteric, involving rules and laws that people know little about. How exactly did Delay break the law? You need to be a lawyer to figure some of this stuff out. On the other hand, corruption and politicians go together like peanut butter and jelly, so I'm sure that most people think that this is just business as usual.

Also, these cases lack the salaciousness, and understandability, of a sex scandal. That is the only thing that can really fixate the country. Until a dead hooker or boy turns up in one of the congressmen's homes, cars, apartments, or offices, nobody is really going to care.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Damn Republicans.



Oh well, fuck the Democrats too. Somebody needs to start the "I'm-all-by-damn-self" party.

But once they get new recruits they wouldn't be by themselves anymore :biggrin:

[Faithless]

It is nice to see some of these fawkers fall.

Like supposedly tough-guy Duke Cunningham.

On a trip back to Vietnam a few years ago, he called his hosts ''gooks," he tried to make fun of Representative Barney Frank, and, in a famous moment in the mid-1990s, ran away from a physical challenge by Democratic Representative Jim Moran of Virginia, who chased him off the House floor and into the cloakroom, where Moran found him weeping.

The king of congressional corruption (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/12/06/the_king_of_congressional_corruption/)

By Thomas Oliphant, Globe Columnist | December 6, 2005 * WASHINGTON

THOSE OF US who are true fans of hypocrisy and corruption need to pause and salute Randy Cunningham on his way out of town toward the beckoning slammer.

He was the king, and one can hope the disgraced, now-former California congressman will be the gift that keeps on giving.

Otherwise mere fans will be left with the improbable assertion that this right-wing buffoon went on a defense contractor's arm for the gigantic sum of $2.4 million all by his lonesome in order to steer scores of millions of dollars in military business the guy's way.

Those of us who have derived comic relief from Cunningham's career know that this guy would screw up a two-car motorcade. Frustration looms, however, because the House leadership's ''ethics" machinery has been so completely and intentionally crippled that we will have to depend on the obligation in Cunningham's plea agreement to sing like a canary, and that means depending on Cunningham -- always a lousy bet.

Until he came along, we had to rely for bemusement on garden variety scandals like members taking money from undercover FBI agents posing as rich Arabs, turning postage stamps into cash, or bouncing checks at their credit union.

The most recent exposed crook -- Jim Trafficant, an entertaining Democrat from the Youngstown area in Ohio who had a penchant for hilariously bombastic rhetoric -- went away for hiding no more than 75 grand from his tax return and forcing employees to do work on his farm.

Cunningham left his federal court plea proceeding in tears. Trafficant, at least, had more flair as he was kicked out of the House and sent to the clink. Said the great man: ''When I get out I will grab a sword like Maximus Meridius Demisius (he ruined the name of the Russell Crowe character from ''Gladiator"), and as a gladiator I will stab people in the crotch."

Cunningham, his sentence still to be determined, bemoaned his shame and blubbered through his regrets. They don't make 'em like they used to.

Cunningham was one of the conservative movement's favorite wind-up toys, guaranteed to hold forth whenever it seemed useful to question another public official's patriotism, to disparage minorities be they racial or gay, or to claim the tough guy, masculine upper hand even by challenging colleagues to the fistfights he always seemed to walk away from.

His Republican colleagues rewarded the northern San Diego County congressman with the seat on the Appropriations Committee he used as the platform for his graft. He was, after all, a fighter pilot Vietnam vet, a highly decorated ace at that, and got away for years with making his war record seem synonymous with expertise on military matters and using it as an excuse for his bizarre behavior.

On a trip back to Vietnam a few years ago, he called his hosts ''gooks," he tried to make fun of Representative Barney Frank, and, in a famous moment in the mid-1990s, ran away from a physical challenge by Democratic Representative Jim Moran of Virginia, who chased him off the House floor and into the cloakroom, where Moran found him weeping.

In April 2004, Cunningham and Armed Forces Committee chairman Duncan Hunter of California took to the floor to denounce highly decorated Vietnam vet John Kerry for near treason in turning against the war. Kerry had ''energized the enemy," Cunningham thundered, adding that he voted as if he were Jane Fonda.

What no one knew then was that precisely one week before Cunningham had so loudly defended America, he had defrauded America by failing to disclose two $500,000 payments from the defense contractor on whose pad he served on his income tax returns.

In August 2004, as the defamatory attacks on Kerry were escalating, Cunningham affixed his name to a letter denouncing the Democratic nominee that the Bush campaign arranged. He signed it, according to the federal charging papers, on the same day he was cut two more checks for a half-million dollars.

One of my personal favorites happened during Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign. Cunningham got into the first President Bush's office with three House colleagues (Hunter, Sam Johnson of Texas, and Robert Dornan of California). They urged Bush to make an issue of a brief trip Clinton made to Moscow as a young man in the late 1960s and to suggest he might have been recruited by the KGB.

It would all be hilarious if the government had not charged Cunningham with accepting such a huge amount of money to fix the defense contracting process in recent years.

It takes a lot more than one unguided congressional missile to pull off a stunt like that, which is why -- for once in Cunningham's pathetic political life -- the time may have finally arrived for him to tell the truth.

Thomas Oliphant's e-mail address is oliphant@globe.com.

[haplesshobo]

Eleven of the 13 are Republicans.[/I]



Come on, its not like this isn't a two way street where the Democrats are somehow as pure as the driven snow. Think of Louisiana, and the systematic corruption in that state where people now blame the levee failure not to an overwhelming hurricane, but to possible corruption where inferior levees were built. Whatever party is in power is going to be tempted more, where interest groups are going to use their money on those in charge.

And, I'd like to know more about the group making the charges, if they aren't another partisan group with an agenda. I'm less likely to take them seriously if its a very liberal group that's singling out republican congressmen. The reason I'm curious is because they mentioned Bill Frist. Now, I think he violated his medical professionalism when he entered the Terry Shiavo debate with some of his assertions where it seemed he was making a diagnosis off a videotape. However, they also mention possible insider trading but those accusations of insider trading have already shown to be baseless. Bill Frist initiated the process for that stock to be sold months before anybody would have had any inkling about the trobules ahead.

[Faithless]

Well, as much as I'd love to deflect with you, I think the article is about those members of Congress.

Unfortunately, most of them are repubs.

The article does mention Maxine Waters. No love for her, if she's as bad as the rest.

But I think the focus on the repubs comes at time when they've set the stage, themselves, for pointing "holier than thou" fingers.

Oh, there's holes in them, alright. :rolleyes:

[haplesshobo]

Well, as much as I'd love to deflect with you, I think the article is about those members of Congress.

Unfortunately, most of them are repubs.

The article does mention Maxine Waters. No love for her, if she's as bad as the rest.

But I think the focus on the repubs comes at time when they've set the stage, themselves, for pointing "holier than thou" fingers.


I'm not exactly sure why you would think the republican party would somehow be more susceptible to corruption to the democratic party. After all, we've seen a history of corruption in Chicago and Louisiana when democrats controlled those areas. And, we've all seen high profile democratic leaders such as Jim Wright and Dan Rostenkowski step down due to allegations of msiconduct. But, the misdeeds by those high profile democrats didn't mean that the whole democratic party was corrupt just like it would be wrong to use cunningam to paint the entire republican party as corrupt.

If anything, I would guess that its whatever part, democratic or republican, that's in power that's most likely to be found to be corrupt. If you're going to bribe somebody, you bribe who's in charge.

[Yeahman]

James Traficant (D-Ohio) anyone?

The thing is that the Republican party project themselves as the party of morals. It generally helps their image but I also makes Americans hold them to a higher standard. It's a double-edged sword.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

http://www.dishmag.com/issue20/spirit/spi10-p1.html
Imagine a company or organization with less than 600 employees with these statistics:

24 accused of spousal abuse
7 arrested for fraud
19 accused of writing bad checks
117 directly or indirectly bankrupted a minimum of two businesses
3 have done time for assault
71 cannot get a credit card because of bad credit
14 arrested on drug-related charges
8 arrested for shoplifting
21 currently defendants in lawsuits
84 arrested for drunk driving in the last year

Keep in mind that accused does not equate to convicted. And who are they?

They are the members of the United States Congress.

Also don't forget about that study that was posted here a while ago: the only class of securities investors who consistently beat the market are our elected officials. Not that that implies they're illegally using insider information or anything ...

I say they just send in a SWAT team and arrest everyone in that fucking building ...

[VV o n g B a]

the problem is finding replacements who won't do the same thing given the chance. if i had insider info i don't know that i wouldn't use it. congressmen are just in a position to get more insider information than anyone else b/c everybody wants a congressman on their side. that's some powerful crack right there.

[Yeahman]

Let's dissolve Congress.
Or at least reduce the number of people we need to hold accountable. 50 Senators. The 1st Congress had 26 Senators and 65 Representatives. The House had 2.5 times as many members at the Senate. So if we have 50 Senators we should have 125 Represenatatives. That should cut down on the gerrymandering too. And imagine the money we'd save. 360 Congresspersons off the public payroll. We'd save $58 million a year.

[LaiSteve66]

Imagine a company or organization with less than 600 employees with these statistics:

24 accused of spousal abuse
7 arrested for fraud
19 accused of writing bad checks
117 directly or indirectly bankrupted a minimum of two businesses
3 have done time for assault
71 cannot get a credit card because of bad credit
14 arrested on drug-related charges
8 arrested for shoplifting
21 currently defendants in lawsuits
84 arrested for drunk driving in the last year

Keep in mind that accused does not equate to convicted. And who are they?

They are the members of the United States Congress.

Is this actually true?

[VV o n g B a]

Let's dissolve Congress.
Or at least reduce the number of people we need to hold accountable. 50 Senators. The 1st Congress had 26 Senators and 65 Representatives. The House had 2.5 times as many members at the Senate. So if we have 50 Senators we should have 125 Represenatatives. That should cut down on the gerrymandering too. And imagine the money we'd save. 360 Congresspersons off the public payroll. We'd save $58 million a year.i see it the other way. if we had more congressmen, power would be more diluted and they'd more closely (in theory at least) represent their home districts. the original number of reps was 1/10k ppl. at 300 million ppl, we'd have 30k congressmen. we could pay each a pittance while they retained their day jobs and none of them would have enuf power to do jack.

[Yeahman]

if we had more congressmen, power would be more diluted and they'd more closely (in theory at least) represent their home districts.
Isn't that what we're trying to prevent? We want them to stop trying to kiss up to their constituents and start thinking more about the common good.
But more Congresspersons would help prevent corruption. Bribes don't have the same effect if power is spread over thousands of people.

[Craig]

Is this actually true?Look at the origin of the information to make a determination as whether you trust it to be a serious newsworthy source ...

[Yeahman]

From the watchdog's website:
"The mainstream needs a parallel to the conservative groups mentioned above — CREW will fill that niche."

[Faithless]

If anything, I would guess that its whatever part, democratic or republican, that's in power that's most likely to be found to be corrupt. If you're going to bribe somebody, you bribe who's in charge.
And the republicans are in charge.

It's just a shame that they don't know how to maintain that control. They fuck themselves over with this little thing called "ethics".

[haplesshobo]

And the republicans are in charge.

It's just a shame that they don't know how to maintain that control. They fuck themselves over with this little thing called "ethics".

And, if the democrats were in charge, do you honestly think there would be any less corruption?

[VV o n g B a]

And, if the democrats were in charge, do you honestly think there would be any less corruption?the dems were in the majority for close to 50 years before they were kicked out of office by the public for corruption. the reps seem like they're headed for a decade and a half before the same thing happens to them.

but u're right. i think the game has changed so much recently that it'll be hard to go back. each new majority will simply take up from where the old left off.

[Faithless]

And, if the democrats were in charge, do you honestly think there would be any less corruption?
I do know that you need to get rid of it, when it does exist. And thankfully, some of these idiots are getting their just due. :cool:

Certainly, there is this --

The cacophony over scandal is still ringing in the ears of Democrats, who lost control of Congress in 1994 after a string of ethical misdeeds. Among them was the House bank scandal in which hundreds of Republicans and Democrats admitted to writing bad checks at the House bank.

But then, there is this --

When the House Republicans took over, they imposed stricter limits on gifts to lawmakers and the payment of travel expenses. But the GOP leadership also told lobbyists: If you want access, hire Republicans.

And then, there's this --

"Democrats were in power for 40 years. It's taken the Republicans only 10 years to get as corrupt," said Stanley Brand, a general counsel to the House under the late Speaker Tip O'Neill, D-Mass. "It tends to coagulate around the entrenched majority. They get sloppy, arrogant and inured to the risks of not following the law."

Congress' ethics a worry -- Public expected things to change (http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051209/NEWS01/512090339)

By Donna Cassata * Associated Press * Publication date: 12-09-2005

WASHINGTON - When Republicans seized power in Congress a decade ago, they pledged to sweep out the stench of scandal and restore bonds of trust with the people.

Now, the people may be wondering whether the new bosses are the same as the old bosses, or possibly more corrupt.

A House Republican leader has been indicted for money laundering. The Senate GOP leader is under investigation for a financially well-timed stock sale. The probe of a lobbyist threatens to ensnare more than half a dozen members of Congress of both parties and the Bush administration.

It wasn't supposed to be this way.

Politicians work under an elaborate set of ethical rules, toughened in several waves of change. The public was given reason to expect a tempering, at least, of the abuses of the past - Abscam, Keating Five, Koreagate, high crimes and misdemeanors.

Instead, the climate for wrongdoing has become, if anything, more combustible.

Among the reasons are the colossal amounts of lobbying money in play; the insatiable cash requirement of campaigning; and, as has been seen before regardless of party, the entrenchment of a congressional majority that comes to feel it's immune to the rules.

"It's very dangerous to a democratic society to have a system in which money talks to the extent of American politics," said former Rep. David Bonior, D-Mich.

The steady drumbeat of scandal has registered with Americans. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that 88 percent of those surveyed said corruption is a serious problem and 67 percent said a moderate number to a lot of public officials are involved.

Democrats were considered more ethical by 36 percent, while 33 percent cited Republicans - a difference within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Some 40 percent of women said Democrats were more ethical than Republicans, while 32 percent of men offered a similar view.

"Everything seems to be corrupted," said Sylvia Kind, a dietitian from Akron who participated in the survey.

In 2004, federal lobbyists spent $2.1 billion - the equivalent of the gross domestic product of the Republic of Congo. The biggest spender was the health care industry at $325 million; technology and the financial services were not far behind.

In the same year, candidates pursuing the presidency and seats in Congress spent more than $3 billion campaigning.

Years ago, Sen. Humbert H. Humphrey, D-Minn., said a senator paid attention to the government for five years and spent the sixth and last year of his term campaigning, recalled Senate historian Donald A. Ritchie. Today, lawmakers begin raising money non-stop from the moment they take the oath of office.

Faced with those steep expectations, abuses are inevitable, but the recent missteps have been staggering.

"Democrats were in power for 40 years. It's taken the Republicans only 10 years to get as corrupt," said Stanley Brand, a general counsel to the House under the late Speaker Tip O'Neill, D-Mass. "It tends to coagulate around the entrenched majority. They get sloppy, arrogant and inured to the risks of not following the law."

Leaders take the blame for misdeeds that occurred on their watch - and are assailed if their own hands are dirty. The combination of failing to control the malfeasance and contributing to it can be politically fatal.

"Any evidence of skullduggery or foul play reflects much more heavily on the leadership group," said former Rep. Bill Frenzel, R-Minn. "It reflects on the entire Congress, but the ones to pay the price are the leaders."

Caught in the recent wave of investigations and indictments are former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas; Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Administration Committee. All have denied any wrongdoing.

Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., resigned after pleading guilty to taking $2.4 million in bribes in exchange for steering government work to defense contractors.

Scandals aren't limited to Washington.

In Ohio, Republican Gov. Bob Taft was convicted of four misdemeanor ethics violations for failing to report gifts and golf outings. In prison is John Rowland, the former GOP governor of Connecticut, who traded access to his office for vacations and home renovations. Former Republican Gov. George Ryan of Illinois is fending off racketeering charges.

Democrats can't claim they're immune as several in their ranks figure prominently in Justice Department inquiries. The investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff could take down lawmakers from both parties as well as members of the administration.

The cacophony over scandal is still ringing in the ears of Democrats, who lost control of Congress in 1994 after a string of ethical misdeeds. Among them was the House bank scandal in which hundreds of Republicans and Democrats admitted to writing bad checks at the House bank.

Voters had no problem grasping the offense and the familiar notion of writing rubber checks when no money was in the account.

When the House Republicans took over, they imposed stricter limits on gifts to lawmakers and the payment of travel expenses. But the GOP leadership also told lobbyists: If you want access, hire Republicans.

"To some degree it's reaching a new level," said former Rep. Vic Fazio, D-Calif. "The degree in which Abramoff is tightly tied to key members for the Republican Party is something unique. ... This is a guy who took good care of a lot of people in the Republican Party at the same time he abused his relationship with them." The Abramoff web, however, has caught a few Democrats, including Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, who also has denied wrongdoing.

[Azn Retribution]

Patrick Leahy
Orrin hatch
Joe Lieberman

All three are piss poor excuses for carbon-based lifeforms


The biggest problem with politics is

The people who want to lead and are able to attain that position are the LAST people on earth who should be ruling.

The reluctant leaders who have to be pushed kicking and screaming to rule because they can do the most good. The ones who are afraid and aware of the corruption that comes with power are the ones who SHOULD be ruling. (Reference: George Washington, Fictional: Jean Valjean, Les Miserables)

Funny how that works.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

I guess we should start looking into William Buckley's suggestion that we should be ruled by the first 100 names in the Boston phonebook ... there was actually an experiment done like that in China a while ago at the town level, the government basically selected a big group of people at random for in-depth consultation about various issues, gave 'em lots of information on the subjects, and let them debate and formulate policy recommendations.

[Faithless]

Blunt PAC's biggest donor made fortune from phone sex (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Blunt_PACs_biggest_donor_made_fortune_0125.html)

RAW STORY | Published: January 25, 2006

Acting Majority Leader Roy Blunt's political action committee received its biggest contributions from the coffers of a "world class phone sex operator," according to today's edition of Roll Call.

Excerpts follow:
#

Seeing as he's an outspoken social conservative, some folks were surprised to find out that one of the largest contributors to Rep. Roy Blunt's (R-Mo.) political action committee last year was a businessman who made his fortune in the 1990s off the phone-sex business.

Jeffrey Prosser, dubbed by the Columbia Journalism Review in a 1998 story "a world-class phone-sex operator," gave $5,000 to Blunt's Rely On Your Beliefs fund in 2005 and his wife, Dawn Prosser, gave another $5,000, making them the largest donor couple to Blunt’s PAC.

...

Blunt's ROYB Fund executive director, Keri Ann Hayes, said the Congressman had no clue that Prosser was a 1-900 kind of a guy. "Mr. Blunt was not aware of the colorful history of this individual contributor when his PAC accepted the donation," she said.

Hayes said Blunt will not return the money because "the funds were given in a 100 percent legal and ethical fashion."
#

Read the full, registration-restricted article here (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/51_72/hoh/11871-1.html).

[haplesshobo]

And the republicans are in charge.

It's just a shame that they don't know how to maintain that control. They fuck themselves over with this little thing called "ethics".

And, now the democrats are in charge.

I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked that after attacking 'the culture of corruption' and promising a more ethical Congress, the Democrats are now being critized for failing to keep their election promises.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/23/washington/23lobby.html?_r=1&hp&oref=login

The Democratic leaders were forced to scrap a promise to double the current one-year lobbying ban after lawmakers leave office. Now, they are struggling to pass legislation requiring lobbyists to disclose the campaign contributions they “bundle” — collect and deliver — to lawmakers. Failing to deliver on both measures would endanger similar provisions already passed by the Senate.

Other House rules changes this year appear to have done little to alter business as usual on Capitol Hill. House Democrats voted along party lines on Tuesday to block the censure of one of their most powerful members, Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania. He was accused of violating a new ethics rule that prohibits lawmakers from swapping pork for votes.

Republicans cited the accusations against Mr. Murtha as evidence that the Democrats were already in breach of their own earmarks rules.

Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan, filed a motion accusing Mr. Murtha of threatening to punish him for trying to delete a $23 million earmark for a drug intelligence center near Johnstown, Pa., Mr. Murtha’s home base.

Mr. Rogers said Mr. Murtha, chairman of the military spending committee, had tried to intimidate him by promising that he would not receive any military earmarks “now and forever.”

Mr. Murtha did not dispute the accusations but said in a statement that the Appropriations Committee considered all requests fairly. Famous as a political horse trader, he has boasted of his skill at doling out or withholding earmarks to prod lawmakers into passing legislation.

So far, from what I've read, it seems that Murtha committed a clear cut violation but since he's good friends with Nancy Pelosi, its doubtful anything will happen to him. Unlike Wolfowitz, Murtha was critical of Iraq and I guess that makes his ethical lapses more acceptable. :wink:

[Faithless]

If he's got a true ethics problem, I don't mind saying, "Where's Murtha's hand? I need to slap it."

But you, on the other hand, seem to be saying that you'd look the other way if Mark Foley wanted to fuck some intern up the ass for his political whim. :wink:

*** *** ***

Here's a nice one:

Report: Corzine gave state union leader more than $6 million (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj--corzinesex0523may23,0,302673.story?coll=ny-region-apnewjersey)
May 23, 2007, 4:47 PM EDT

RECASTS with new details including comments from Corzine spokesman and Cryan; should stand for AMs.

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) _ New Jersey's multimillionaire governor gave his ex-girlfriend, a powerful union leader, more than $6 million when they broke up in 2004, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

Gov. Jon S. Corzine and Carla Katz, president of Communications Workers of America Local 1034, have repeatedly refused to discuss the financial arrangement between them. The newspaper cited unidentified lawyers familiar with the deal and union officials who conferred with Katz during recent contract negotiations in its report.

Through a spokesman, Corzine declined to respond to the Times' report. Corzine, 60, dated Katz from 2002 to 2004 while he was a U.S. senator. The Democrat was elected governor in November 2005.

...

What's that saying about absolute power?

[haplesshobo]

If he's got a true ethics problem, I don't mind saying, "Where's Murtha's hand? I need to slap it."

Why just a slap on the hand? Why don't you demand that he gets stripped of his chairmanship if he's going to abuse that power? Or, why not demand that he has to step down, like Wolfowitz? After all, wasn't the argument that Wolfowitz could not effectively lead the WB to root out corruption with the cloud of corruption overhanging his own head? But, doesn't the same apply to the Democrats? How can they seriously clean up Congress when one of their own leaders blatantly commits ethic violation and the Democratic party looks the other way? After all, with Murtha, we're talking about a much bigger sum of money- 23M dollars vs. Wolfowitz's deal with his girlfriend

[QUOTE]
But you, on the other hand, seem to be saying that you'd look the other way if Mark Foley wanted to fuck some intern up the ass for his political whim. :wink:

rolleyes:

I was the one that started that thread about Foley and brought it to the attention of this forum.

[haplesshobo]

Just realized my earlier response was unclear because I didn't quote it properly:

If he's got a true ethics problem, I don't mind saying, "Where's Murtha's hand? I need to slap it."

Why just a slap on the hand? Why don't you demand that he gets stripped of his chairmanship if he's going to abuse that power? Or, why not demand that he has to step down, like Wolfowitz? After all, wasn't the argument that Wolfowitz could not effectively lead the WB to root out corruption with the cloud of corruption overhanging his own head? But, doesn't the same apply to the Democrats? How can they seriously clean up Congress when one of their own leaders blatantly commits ethic violation and the Democratic party looks the other way?

After all, with Murtha, you could argue that what Murtha did was worse than what Wolfowitz did in terms of mismanagement, corruption, and total dollars. With Murtha, we're talking about 23M vs. the 60K pay raise Wolfowitz's girlfriend received.


But you, on the other hand, seem to be saying that you'd look the other way if Mark Foley wanted to fuck some intern up the ass for his political whim. :wink:


:rolleyes:

I was the one who started the thread about Foley and brought it to the attention of this forum.

[kimpossible]

:rolleyes:

I was the one who started the thread about Foley and brought it to the attention of this forum.

Yes, but the question put before you here, today is - are you ready? okay, good.

Did you, haplesshobo, post it in favor of intern buggery?

[Faithless]

Fine. Bring down Murtha.

I'm still seeing a ton of repubs who have as many ethics problems.

I read some US News columnist who seems to think that this recent ethics legislation may cause a lot of politicians to resign out of fear.

So, it's not okay for Foley to ass fuck, but it is okay for Wolfie?

[haplesshobo]

Fine. Bring down Murtha.

I'm still seeing a ton of repubs who have as many ethics problems.

I read some US News columnist who seems to think that this recent ethics legislation may cause a lot of politicians to resign out of fear.


What ethics legislation? You mean the publicity plow that was signed with much fanfare this January, but which the Democrats have already repeatedly broken?

Looks like there's another ranking Democrat who should then be brought down: David Obney, the powerful chairman of the Appropiations Committee.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070603/ap_on_go_co/congress_pet_projects


WASHINGTON - After promising unprecedented openness regarding Congress' pork barrel practices, House Democrats are moving in the opposite direction as they draw up spending bills for the upcoming budget year.

Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify "earmarks" — lawmakers' requests for specific projects and contracts for their states — in documents that accompany spending bills.

Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them.

Such requests total billions of dollars.

As a result, most lawmakers will not get a chance to oppose specific projects as wasteful or questionable when the spending bills for various agencies get their first votes in the full House in June.

Budget watchdog groups who "scrub" appropriations bills for questionable provisions are outraged.

"Who appointed him judge and jury of earmarks?" Tom Schatz, president of the Citizens Against Government Waste. "What that does is leave out the public's input."

[Yeahman]

Rep. Jefferson indicted in bribery probe (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070604/ap_on_go_co/congressman_probe_30;_ylt=AvQRTgbGTSh7sw7E6WXctwUL 1vAI)

[Faithless]

Rep. Jefferson indicted in bribery probe (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070604/ap_on_go_co/congressman_probe_30;_ylt=AvQRTgbGTSh7sw7E6WXctwUL 1vAI)
I'll go with The Nation on Jefferson (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=85828). The fucker's voting record reads like a republican.

...
Let's be clear, if Tom DeLay needed to go, so does Bill Jefferson.

What makes Pelosi's refusal to cut Jefferson loose so disappointing is the fact that Democrats owes the congressan from New Orleans no loyalty. Indeed, if ever there was a member of Congress who merited abandonment by his party, official censure and a hasty exit from the legislative branch, it is William Jefferson.

Putting aside the bribery probe, Jefferson has a horrific record of breaking with his Democratic colleagues to sell out his constituents, his country and the poorest people in the world. He may be a Democrat, but on the issues that really matter Jefferson has served the Bush administration and Wall Street more diligently than a number of Republicans.

Jefferson's has been one of the steadiest Democratic votes for the president's foreign policy agenda. The Louisianan voted to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq, consistently supports emergency "supplemental" spending to maintain the occupation of that country, and favors deployment of the "Star Wars" Strategic Defense Initiative. He voted for the USA Patriot Act when it was rushed through Congress in 2001, and was a big backer of Vice President Cheney's national energy policy. And, though his record on social issues is mixed, Jefferson has on a number of occasions cast his lot with the White House and its social-conservative allies to help enact restrictions on abortion, school prayer initiatives and a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
...

[Yeahman]

I've lost all respect for the Nation. Far too dishonest.

He voted for the war, funding, and the Patriot Act just like every other Democrat.

[yoMAMA]

Rep. Jefferson indicted in bribery probe (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070604/ap_on_go_co/congressman_probe_30;_ylt=AvQRTgbGTSh7sw7E6WXctwUL 1vAI)

he gave new meanings to "cold, hard" cash.

:biggrin:

[haplesshobo]

I'll go with The Nation on Jefferson (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=85828). The fucker's voting record reads like a republican.
[/I]

I have to agree with yellowman here; this is a pretty pathetic argument to try to shift responsbility by selling out Jefferson as now a republican despite his party affiliation. You could make the same argument about Bill Clinton and every other moderate democrat.

The curious thing is why in the original article that group didn't single Jefferson out when it turns out that his corruption was worse than everybody else they listed combined? I reread it, and I still would have missed his name until I highlighted his name it with my edit function.

I think a lot of responsibility goes to Pelosi. Again and again, she's made questionable decisions where she has supported ethically-challenged Democrats for leadership decisions:

There was her support for John Murtha for Majority Leader, despite his involvement in the abscam scandal years ago where he was on record when he said that he wouldn't take that bribe at that point, but left the door open in the future.

And, then she bypassed ranking democrat Harman and thus left Alcee Hastings in line for a committee chairmanship despite the fact that Hastings had been impeached and removed from office for corruption and perjury. Later, Hastings still got the Senior Dem Whip position.

Plus, there's Alan Mollohan, who despite being ranking Democrat on the House Ethics Committee, has also been plagued by ethics violations.

So, are Pelosi, Murtha, Hastings, Mollohan, etc. all dyed in the wool Republicans?

[Faithless]

Pelosi is probably no different than then republican speaker Dennis Hastert. And it should be especially raw to republicans who don't support those they consider perverts, only to find that Hastert would try to cover for one. But not only Hastert, but Boehner, Reynolds, Alexander, Shimkus.

It's ironic that the party of anti-perversion would support their pervert Foley. Hopefully they aren't dyed in the wool perverts as well.

But as far as them argument:

I have to agree with yellowman here; this is a pretty pathetic argument to try to shift responsbility by selling out Jefferson as now a republican despite his party affiliation. You could make the same argument about Bill Clinton and every other moderate democrat.
He seems to have voted more like a republican than a democrat.

But that's besides the point. Who needs him in congress if he's got a serious ethics problem.

Can you say that about your fellow repubs with ethics problems?

[Yeahman]

He seems to have voted more like a republican than a democrat.
Rated 79% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record.
Rated 78% by CURE, indicating pro-rehabilitation crime votes.
Rated 92% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes.
Rated 33% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record.
Rated 75% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record.
Rated 78% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record.
Rated 0% by FAIR, indicating a voting record loosening immigration.
Rated 87% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record.
Rated 90% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record.
Rated 25% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes.

Find me a single Republican with that kind of record.

The only issues where he was in opposition to most Democrats (and in tune with the American public) is partial-birth abortion and gay marriage.

[Faithless]

You're refering to the ontheissues.org site? I saw those stats too, but I was also looking at some of the votes they noted.

His votes for any of the ...AFTA's seem pretty republican.
He does have that mixed environment voting record.
You mentioned some of those issues for which you have a hard-on.

But his voting record, as rated by some of those records, does seem good for America.

But I guess he's no Lincoln Chafee (http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Lincoln_Chafee.htm).

Nevertheless, if he's as corrupt as they say he is, he should be gone.

Can you say the same thing for those republicans who took bribes from Jack Abramoff?

[Yeahman]

His votes for any of the ...AFTA's seem pretty republican.
So he's a Clinton Democrat; A Democrat who has seen the light.

Nevertheless, if he's as corrupt as they say he is, he should be gone.

Can you say the same thing for those republicans who took bribes from Jack Abramoff?
If a Congressman did something illegal, he should be gone.

[haplesshobo]

But as far as them argument:

He seems to have voted more like a republican than a democrat.

But that's besides the point. Who needs him in congress if he's got a serious ethics problem.


:rolleyes:

As yellowman has shown, its a pretty ridiculous argument to try to paint him as a republican. You could pretty take almost any politician, and narrowly focus on a specific issue and then claim that he's a traitor to their political party. And, I have to agree with yellowman that that Nation article was just intellectually dishonest- it was just cherry picking and conviently ignoring anything that didn't support his rant. Jefferson also voted no on making the Patriot act permanent, no on continuing gathering intelligence without civilian oversight, no on declaring iraq war was part of the war on terror with no exit date, no on approving the removal of saddam hussein? How exactly does that make him a servant of the Bush administration, somebody more loyal than most republicans?

And, now, that we all know that he's really a democrat, you want to say that's beside the point even though you were the one who originally tried to argue that. How convienent, eh?

Can you say the same thing for those republicans who took bribes from Jack Abramoff?

Where did I ever argue otherwise? If somebody is guilty of corruption, then he should be punished. But, at the same time, if somebody isn't guilty, then he shouldn't be punished for a crime he didn't commit. That's why I questioned the original article, why it was focusing on republicans even though we all knew that in some of these cases the evidence showed there was no corruption and yet it didn't highlight william jefferson even though the level of corruption on his part superceded the corruption for every other politician on that list.

[Faithless]

Thanks to both of you for bringing this thread full circle, then.

As hopefully we'll see a number of corrupt repugs hit the road in larger numbers than the dems.

[Faithless]

Rats. Are these (http://www.armchairsubversive.org/) more corrupt democrats?


Ted Klaudt (http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail6162.cfm?Id=0,57158)
Joseph Monteleone (http://www.chroniclet.com/2007/05/05/monteleone-found-guilty/)
Patrick Lee McGuire (http://www.armchairsubversive.org/Patrick_Lee_McGuire.htm)


Klaudt needs to be protected by his speaker and party (http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2007/district.htm), because he's his party 's straight shooter (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/sexual-perversion-and-modern.html).

[Faithless]

Whose this guy named David Vitter?

Why, he's the republican hypocrite that "... Got Nabbed in Madam Scandal" (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2007/07/how_david_vitter_got_nabbed_in.html).

A family values kind of guy. Once said that Billy Clinton had to go because of his lack of morals. Sounds like it time for Vitter to do the same -- owning up to his own words.

Oh, but he apologized for screwing around behind his wife. Man, you can get away with it that way? Damn, the religious right knows how to play the adultery game.

[Yeahman]

FBI, IRS search home of Sen. Ted Stevens (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070731/ap_on_re_us/stevens_investigation;_ylt=AjdlrnvqcqTiTVzcrINTd12 s0NUE)

Finally. Ted "Internet is a series of tubes" "Highway to Nowhere" Stevens may be on his way out. Next step: Recind Alaska's statehood status.

[Yeahman]

Whose this guy named David Vitter?

Why, he's the republican hypocrite that "... Got Nabbed in Madam Scandal" (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2007/07/how_david_vitter_got_nabbed_in.html).

A family values kind of guy. Once said that Billy Clinton had to go because of his lack of morals. Sounds like it time for Vitter to do the same -- owning up to his own words.

Oh, but he apologized for screwing around behind his wife. Man, you can get away with it that way? Damn, the religious right knows how to play the adultery game.
At least it was straight sex. Not the case for Bob Allen and Larry Craig.

[power puff girl]

Whose this guy named David Vitter?

Why, he's the republican hypocrite that "... Got Nabbed in Madam Scandal" (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2007/07/how_david_vitter_got_nabbed_in.html).

A family values kind of guy. Once said that Billy Clinton had to go because of his lack of morals. Sounds like it time for Vitter to do the same -- owning up to his own words.

Oh, but he apologized for screwing around behind his wife. Man, you can get away with it that way? Damn, the religious right knows how to play the adultery game.

don't forget the other levels of hypocrisy swirling around. because he broke the law and had heterosexual intercourse with a female prostitute, he is not being forced out by the republican party. but, with david craig, the homophobic republican party quickly turned on him because craig's act involved another man. no wonder david craig wants to fight these charges despite all the pressure from the republican party leaders. after all those years of being a loyal soldier for the republican party, it quickly turned its back on him.

[haplesshobo]

FBI, IRS search home of Sen. Ted Stevens (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070731/ap_on_re_us/stevens_investigation;_ylt=AjdlrnvqcqTiTVzcrINTd12 s0NUE)

Finally. Ted "Internet is a series of tubes" "Highway to Nowhere" Stevens may be on his way out. Next step: Recind Alaska's statehood status.

Its official. Senator Stevens is indicted, albeit so far only charged with lying to officials. But, since FOX News broke the story, we'll have to wait to see if MSNBC covers the story to determine the veracity of the story.

I revived this thread not to cherry pick some facts to try to make an overreaching claim that one political party is innately more corrupt than its rival political party. I'm not Anti-Republican or Anti-Democrat, just Anti-Stupidity.

But, Steven's indictment and subsequent loss of his powerful chairman position has national implications because of how it will affect the upcoming Senate race in Alaska in a otherwise solid Republican state and how that will in turn affect the expected Democrat Senate majority next year.

[Yeahman]

I was watching some pundit show on PBS today and they were saying how Stevens was one of those politicians who never even pretended to be for good policy. Alaskans voted him in to get some pork and he delivered. The irony is that Democrats may not win the seat because they are seen as less able to deliver the pork.