In “Call for Lobbying Changes Is a Fading Cry, Lawmakers Say,” Washington Post reporters Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Jim VandeHei depict another example of political maneuvering at the expense of the American people. The article validates the notion that a new political movement is needed to change the way politics is played – a movement like Unity08. Read the article here.
Days after Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) announced his resignation as majority leader and Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to corruption charges, House Republicans “flooded the office of House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) with urgent pleas for lobbying reform.” And Hastert, who was hardly an advocate for campaign reform, responded with a surprising proposal: “A ban on privately funded travel by lawmakers and severe restrictions on lobbyist-paid meals.”
Hastert said this just ten days after DeLay stepped down: "We need to reform the rules so that it is clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what is ethically acceptable.”
But since then, little progress has been made on passing the bill. In fact, as of today (over six months later), the House has yet to “name negotiators to draft the final package.”
In a private meeting with GOP leadership, House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) “voiced support” for reform. But when it came time to support the bill publicly, Blunt “had vanished” – many speculate because he was “locked in a tight race to replace DeLay.” Blunt's chief opponent for majority leader, Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), “gained a clear advantage in the race by publicly calling Hastert's travel ban ‘childish’ and by privately assuring colleagues that he would weaken the bill if he were elected. Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), the candidate for majority leader who championed the most dramatic changes, finished a distant third.”
And even if the bill is passed, the most likely result is a “minimalist package that would allow members to say they have responded to the Abramoff situation and other scandals but would do little to crimp their ability to accept lobbyist favors.” The reason: “... the political storm has mostly passed and that the need for more intrusive efforts to alter the congressional culture and the lobbyist-lawmaker relationship is less urgent.”
Is this the type of leadership that America deserves on important legislation? Send a message to Congress that you will not stand for their political sidestepping. Sign the Declaration of Independence from Politics without Purpose.
Talk more about campaign reform in our Shoutbox.
Subscribe
Aren't we all so happy that Congress is finally waking up and talking about the issues that affect all of us? The issues we care most about?
If not, let me name them all.
Flag Burning.
Gay Marriage.
Speaker Pelosi.
Name Calling.
Defeating the minimum wage.
As I say, good riddance to those who would even attempt to try and focus on divisive base-oriented issues like the war in Iraq, the deficet, cutting spending, disaster relief, health care, immigration, homeland security and social security.
So I say to Washington, D.C. Thank God For Congress.
Be real the "Minimum Wage" vote was just as much political theater as the flag burning the donkey's just wanted to be able to say they voted for it they knew it wasn't going to pass and made no real to build a coalition to do so or come closer.
Be a bit more equal opportunity in your disgust this is the movement of the middle not the left or right...
Let me be clear, I am participating to clarify a few things to the people regarding the propoganda being spewed by our own government. Both parties are working together to terrify the people! Both sides use words like terror (modern warfare), patriotism, and insurgent to expand the free market, calling foreign slave labor free trade, telling us we need to ship oil around the world or drill off our shores when we have untapped oil reserves in our own southwest to create economies for dicators - and worse of all manipulating the prime interest rate to inflate the stock market - hiding the real rape and pillage by foreign interests who buy our stocks and our property as leverage to take down our economic system... both political parties are committing high treason and should be abolished immediately for not building walls along both borders, selling out our nation for political office, and most of all not representing the people that put them in office, rather the party who bankrolls them, in many instances saying one thing to get elected and another once in office! So don't mention my fellow soldiers when pushing your agenda, stop pointing your fingers as others and look in the mirror! The founding fathers would be so ashamed of you all... Redemption is here! Exodus both parties and reduce them to the minority parties they deserve to be! American first, before foreign interests is our common ground and don't forget it! www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Unless and until we achieve publicly funded campaigns and eliminate porkbarrel earmarks, there will be no reform of lobbying. Our Constitution properly protects the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government - aka "lobby," and I'm not at all comfortable with the slippery slope that looms should we attempt to limit that important Constitutional safeguard...
The hunger for money with which to run modern congressional (much less Senatorial or Presidential) campaigns (1,400/day, every single day for the average congressional race) leaves little room for idealism among our elected officials, even those few with virtuous inclinations. I don't know who on this forum besides myself and some of the Founders has run for office, but I can assure you that this absolute and ever present reality weighs heavily on aspirants and particularly incumbents minds. So long as the demand for private campaign funds remains in place (just like the addict's demand for drugs) the money will find its way in.
I have long been philosophically against term limits, arguing that it has the potential to deprive voters of their inalienable right to elect the person they feel is most qualified to serve them, this may be the only route to safeguarding against the destructive behavior that seems to invariably follow the relentless quest for campaign cash.
The two - publicly funded campaigns and term limits - in combination would yield such a profound transformation on the political process that I doubt we modern cynics would recognize the resultant democratic wonder.
Wouldn't it be grand?!
I have a modest proposal that MIGHT, in time help us to solve many of the problems we now have with our elected officials in Washington D.C.
We need to start and sustain a very basic program whereby we start at the bottom and work our way up. We must absolutely have a foundation on which to build. This foundation can be our LOCAL communities and cities.
It is MUCH easier to influence the outcome of a local election where the offices to be filled are such things as city commissioner, county commissioner, sheriff, probate judge, mayor, and similar low level offices that much of the population never vote for. In my community, local elections seldom see more than a 40% voter turnout. However, when there is an office to be filled that gets a significant amount of publicity the interest rises and turnout also rises. This publicity is something small local groups can work positively on. For example, a simple letter to the editor of the local paper can oftentimes generate more interest than the political races themselves. When people see someone's comments in such outlets they either disagree or agree but the response is still increased in the election itself.
Comments?
By demonstrating a strong influence on a local election, we can then demand that these local officials use whatever influence and connections they have to help nominate a slate of State office seekers. With enough local officials exerting pressure it is unlikely that the parties will fight it too strongly. Then, of course, we can exert more pressure on both the local and state officials to influence the selection of candidates for NATIONAL office.
I will admit that this is not easy. But, I have personally been involved in such efforts at the local level for election to city and county commissioners, school board members, and state representatives. We have had moderate success but with a little more participation from local citizens we will increase our success with each election. It is a slow and long process but if we do not start somewhere that we can actually do more than speak words or write letters we will never realize the success I see this forum and groups (Unity08) working toward.
Comment please!
Response to: Modest proposal
Darryel on July 9, 2024 - 12:30pm
It may work .. if you want a slow boat to china. The most efficient and effective manner to change national government is to remove the excessive and non-productive funding. If these money incentives, grants, and give-aways were removed, then a more rational and transparent governance system would evolve.
We are of the peoples lobby as they are not... So it is in our clear policies for national health insurance, pro unions, anti-slave labor, and free higher education will bring those millions to vote for us without the need for political bombardment! Think big words and a little stick my patriotic friends... the American people only need to hear our words to follow... a simple path at that! Long live the Union and to hell with modern slave owners... www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
As long as money is what wins elections, it's going to get there.. no matter what rules are made..
it may be a little harder, but let's not forget that Bill Clinnton invented soft money...
It's ony common sense...
And as for positions that the "American' people will rally around..
i don't see it. Everybody is too busy making a living to rally, we've got to take care of families and grapndparents and grandschildren..it's a full time job.
In my humble opinion, I think we would do alot bettter with less "clear" solutions and positions and more complex questions.. and a way of understanding the cost and benefit for everyone for adoptin certain policies.
There are over 300,000,000 people living in our country. I'm pretty sure that one "solution" is not going to work for everyone.
SMH: You said "The most efficient and effective manner to change national government is to remove the excessive and non-productive funding."
OK, I can agree with the outcome of removing the excessive and non-productive funding but I just do not see how this can be accomplished. I would work for the same goals and my "modest proposal" was just that, modest. I have found that it we try to start at the top we are usually going to fail. Even if we try to start in the middle our chances of success are almost nil. I would like to see some of your SPECIFIC suggestions for changing national government by removing the excessive and non-productive funding.
It is, after all, the POLITICIANS in D.C. that pass the legislation that provides excessive spending and non-productive funding. HOW would you go about changing this?
Earn: You said "So it is in our clear policies for national health insurance, pro unions, anti-slave labor, and free higher education will bring those millions to vote for us without the need for political bombardment!"
This sounds fine until we look at it more closely. National Health Insurance that is provided by the government is certainly not "free". It would be paid for with our taxes. Pro-Union? We have been there and done that and it simply did not work in the long run. The union movement in the 30s and on up through most of the 50s DID provide the catalyst for most of the "social legislation" that congress has enacted but any more such legislation would most probably do much more harm than good. Anti-Slave Labor? Just what do you mean by that? Although a lot of people that earn only minimum wage believe they are doing "slave labor" it is certainly not the case. I DO agree that the minimum wage should be increased but I do not see a problem with "slave labor". As for free Higher Education, I have said on another thread that not EVERYONE is higher education material. Whether we like it or not, there are many people that are simply not cut out for college work. So while I think we should help ensure those that ARE capable of such work CAN go to college and earn a degree, I certainly do not endorse free education for EVERYONE. I do not even advocate FREE education for anyone! Most things that are free turn out to be pretty useless. Supported? Yes, by all means. Free? No.
I am, of course, referring to COLLEGE or HIGHER EDUCATION in my last post.
Response to: Modest Proposal
Darryel on July 9, 2024 - 4:43pm
Darryel,
You must be aware of the massive federal funding and can compose a list of your own of unnessary and unproductive spending. Let me give you a start with a few:
1. Eliminate the Dept. of Education ($54 billion)
2. Eliminate the Dept of Commerce ($7 Billion)
3. Continued Restructuring of Military Bases ($4 billion)
4. Reduction in state subsidies
5. Increase user charges and fees
6. Taxation of Employer-Paid Health Insurance
7. Eliminate farm subsidies
8. Eliminate most of the grant programs
9. Cut NASA budget by half
Earn Snyder: I just finished going through your web site and I can say that you are on the far left outer fringe. I certainly am not a conservative but neither am I a liberal. I consistently support and favor a more independent philosophy. Both the far right (as in the so called "conservative Christians") are just as dangerous to our basic freedoms and continued independence as are the ultra liberals (as in John Kerry). Our problem is, in my view, the lack of a strong middle ground. The Republicans and Democrats are, basically, in control of ALL political activity in this country and are, therefore, responsible for the inane legislation and rules that we are forced to live under.
Yes, we have problems with budgeting, Iraq, Education, and most of the other things you mentioned but YOUR response seems to be on the very outer edge of liberal activism which is completely wrong in my opinion. I started participating on this site because I thought there might be some benefit to it but now, after reading your web site, I am, again, very disappointed. I do not think that you have a firm grasp on the problems that we face and certainly not on the steps needed to correct those problems. Sorry, I just disagree with you in most respects.
Darryel, I couldn't figure out if he was far left or just ultra-fringe.
Anyhow agree with you that a strong centrist, moderate, whatever the right term is is the way to go.
Far left, ultra fringe, isolationist, expansionist? I consolidate for logical solution, I do not promote any party or stand heel to toe with any facist views... fyi, I consider anyone who limits themselves to a party line as the problem...
Darryel, my fight is real and true... Propoganda has confused all Americans on these issues as this is why you feel my site is far left and on the outer fringe... but I feel good because my objective is to enlighten you to think of the future and not the past as we move forward... but please give me more feedback! Does my site bother you because I do not use party propoganda, pick a side, or the fact that I look forward toward technology to solve problems? Not sure what it is you are scared of, for most it is fear itself? www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
I have read many comments to the “dis-unity” of Unity08. I hope by putting my thoughts and beliefs into words that I can help others understand or formulate their own. The radical nature of this movement is not in how it will deal with any single issue, but instead is focused on the change it will effect in the power of politics. “platforms , “wedge issues,” “corporate money, “ these are the tools of the two-party system. Let us (Unity08) achieve ABC before we attempt to tackle XYZ. The struggle here is not to solve the abortion issue, debate states’ rights, or abolish all war. Methods attempting to do so are product oriented, but Unity08 is process oriented. The movement is an attempt to change the lens with which American view and control politics. If you will, a paradigm shift. Until the format for how we handle issues is changed, the issue themselves are irrelevant, because we, the center mass of the political spectrum, do not control the process. The “unity” in Unity 08 is therefore about unifying to take control of the political politics. I for one stand united with you all in this agenda regardless of your personal beliefs or philosophies because I would rather have people who use an effective political model make decisions versus people who use a stagnate process but sometimes make the choices I favor. I hope this personal acknowledgement will aid others in their own understanding.
Steven
This is not a college forum or an experiment for the right or left... this is a propoganda war between truth and deception ... like the bloggers understand, we will overwhelm the beast and all who profit from this fraudulant and out dated systems of government process that is being maintained by those that feed off of it ... for it those that use this blog and others like it to confuse the reforms being presented to the people as the enemy... www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Darryel, my fight is real and true... Propoganda has confused all Americans on these issues as this is why you feel my site is far left and on the outer fringe... but I feel good because my objective is to enlighten you to think of the future and not the past as we move forward... but please give me more feedback! Does my site bother you because I do not use party propoganda, pick a side, or the fact that I look forward toward technology to solve problems? Not sure what it is you are scared of, for most it is fear itself?
I understand propaganda very well thanks. I also understand it when people try to use one forum to promote their own PERSONAL agenda by misleading statements and by stretching the truth at times. I do not understand how YOU think you are qualified to "enlighten" anyone about the matters being discussed here. I can understand a open discussion of various issues and even taking a stand on certain issues that you feel strongly about. But if you are going to do this, just say so. Do not try to couch your positions in more and more rhetoric that only goes in circles and never seems to reach a destination.
I will confess that I have NO IDEA what you mean by using "technology" problems. The use of this term in the context of a political discussion (and that is what these forums are regardless of what you might believe) simply does not make much sense. Politics is certainly not a "technological" issue. If it can be described as anything with one word we would have to describe it as a "belief" in one or more issues of importance to large numbers of people. That is not "technology", it is human nature.
I understand you more and more as we go along. Your use of the terms "my site" like you are saying "my football" as though the people playing with you must abide by your rules and believe in your decisions just to be able to play. This idea of using "my" appears to be juvenile at best.
Finally, I am not "scared" of anything at all. The use of this term in the context you use it is further evidence of a juvenile approach. Reminds me very much of children at play.
I am SERIOUS about trying to help effect a change in the way our government works. The politicians have taken so many freedoms away from us all that we are in real danger of losing them all except what the politicians decide we "need". I personally believe that George Bush, for example, is a real danger to this country and to the world. He has been chipping away at many of our basic freedoms for over 5 years now and shows now signs of slowing down. He can only do this with the gutless collaboration of a corrupt congress. And, lest you think that I am a DEMOCRAT, I can say some of the same things about Clinton. I am not a Democrat nor am I a Republican. I vote for and support the issues that I believe are important to me, my family, and my country. I have voted both parties for many years (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon first term, Carter, Reagan first term, Bush I, Clinton both times, but NOT for BUSH II).
So don't try to hide the information on "YOUR OWN" site by using words and phrases that appear to be designed for little more than chaff in the wind. I continue to have problems with your basic philosophy as laid out in your site. I believe that there are others here that would agree.