Democratic proposals just as bad as the Republicans.

[oc2002]

I really think this is not a coincidence, but that neither party wants to give up the money flow from K-street to their pockets.

We need to take a stand with our own people first and let them know we know they are just not going to dance around the issue and do nothing and get away with it. The Democratic proposal is weak, and no enforcement is in their proposals.


http://www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=395891&content_id={FC65279E-EC85-451B-B097-56F9122DD91C}¬oc=1


The Question Remains: Who Will Enforce the Rules?

January 18, 2006: House and Senate Democrats came together today on a strong and creative set of reform principles. We applaud their total ban on gifts, as well as their proposal to require lawmakers to disclose outside job negotiations.

There is no legislation yet to correspond to the reform package. But at this point, we must ask the same question we asked when Republicans introduced their reform proposal on Tuesday: How will all these new rules and regulations be enforced? We need more than words. We need an independent ethics commission because Members of both political parties have proven time and again that they cannot and will not police themselves.

"Both of the parties' proposals fail to get at the heart of the problem, which is a complete lack of enforcement of the rules in Congress," said Common Cause President Chellie Pingree. "Without credible enforcement, new rules are just more words."
(...more...at link)

[Inland]

1. Right! w/out an enforcement mechanism, the content of rules don't matter.

It's the problem of bush lawlessness writ small. As long as nobody investigates or punishes, the lawbreaker just asserts that there's nothing to see and the lack of investigation seems to confirm that.

[papau]

9. A law is enforced via the Courts, as administered by the executive,

Commoncause wants outside of the administration review of when to go to court.

not a bad idea - but not necessary to make the new law at least useful.

[merwin]

2. From what I understand, money does not flow from K street to the dems.

There is absolutely no way that the democrats can enforce this right now. This administration has shown that the government is only as responsibile as the peoople running it.

[oc2002]

5. yes, it does flow to both parties, though more goes to the party in power

I hope the media, and the people here see that this is more of a problem with both parties, but should not let our own get away with it like the other side does.

[papau]

6. No - this is a GOP problem only-the flow of money to Dems is not thru K ST

Indeed the lobbying scandal should be called the GOP lobbying scandal.

Money flowing to a political party is not a scandal - and is protected under the Constitution's right to petition and speech clauses.

It is the "buy a law" crap that is illegal - and the GOP even had them on the floor of the house doing "write a law" crap.

This is not bi-partisan. This is a GOP scandal.

[oc2002]

14. I was not refering to the Abramoff scandal, but PAC money in general.

The Abramoff scandal is a republican one, but the dems also get corporate money one way or another.

Untill the democrat say enough is enough, we can do without the corporate funds, both parties will continue to put corporate interests ahead of the voters.

[BuyingThyme]

3. The Dems fucked up royally yesterday.

Turned a corruption debate into a legislative debate.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Politicians really giving up their perks? Yeah, right.

We can safely place that on the "Fat Chance" shelf.

[1932]

7. The two Democrats on the ticket in 2004 accepted NO PAC money.

And the one with the southern accent had NEVER accepted a corporate dollar ever.

I think there are Democrats who want to represent the people and who do not want so much corporate money in politics.

[Clark2008]

12. Yes they did.

Not to bash, but they did, so let's not lie.

DOUG IRELAND, LA WEEKLY - Edwards' legislative record - what little there is of it - is hardly populist. In fact, Edwards is a classic, corporate-friendly, centrist New Democrat. In his five years as a freshman senator, Edwards on his own produced little legislation, much less than some other first-termers - although he was assigned by Tom Daschle to represent the Democrats in negotiations over a patients' bill of rights, and so can boast he was a co-sponsor of the final, but aborted, bill.

However, there's one highly significant chapter in his Senate career omitted from Edwards' campaign Web site. Edwards, who comes from a state where banking is big business, played a critical role in brokering legislation to allow banks to sell mutual funds and insurance, and to engage in other speculative ventures. This law, worth hundreds of billions to the banks, blasted a gigantic hole in the Glass-Steagal banking law's firewall of protections designed to prevent the kinds of bank collapses that marked the Great Depression of the '30s - meaning that it put the money of Joe Six-Pack depositors at risk. Such a gigantic boon to the banking lobby can hardly be classed as a populist victory.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/10/news-ireland.php

Most members of Congress and presidential candidates turn to corporations and their Washington-based lobbyists for political assistance, most often with fundraising. All the presidential candidates take money from special interests, including Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), who like Kerry has targeted corporations and lobbyists in his stump speeches. And Bush has far outpaced them all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64727-2004Jan30?language=printer

Granted, most of Edwards' corporate dollars came from big legal firms and the banking industry - which certainly isn't as horrid as some of those funding Republicans - the truth is that he did take corporate funding.

[1932]

13. So, which corporate PAC donated to either of them?

Edwards got money from individuals who are trial lawyers. If that's the nameless "special interest" to which the WP is referring, I say that that's a special interest that's looking after the interests of individuals and I'm OK with their support of Edwards.

As for blowing the hole in the '33 Act, I've read other articles by Doug Ireland in the LA Weekly, and I'm not impressed. I'd like to hear Edwards defense of that piece of legislation before I condemn him. Incidentally, I've seen quotes from bank interest lobbyists who said that Edwards never returned their calls and I know the National Association of Manufacturers hated Edwards, so I'm really suspicious of any claim that he sided with big business over individuals. It's just an absurd claim.

[1932]

16. ?

Being motivated by special interests isn't bad. The issue is WHICH special interests motivate you to act.

Arnold calls teachers, nurses, and firefighters special interests.

I agree. They are special interests. They're very special interests.

Which special interests motivated Kerry and Edwards? Which corporate PACs gave them money?

[1932]

8. Dupe

[OneBlueSky]

10. the Democrats should renounce ALL corporate and PAC . . .

contributions, and introduce legislation banning them outright . . . the way the country is feeling about Republicans right now, the Dems could fully fund their campaigns with contributions from individuals . . .

[ktlyon]

11. We must get corporate money out of campaigns

and gifts out of elected officials hands. We need the input of experts on subjects of legislation but they should keep their money and favors out of politics.

[MadHound]

15. There is only one way to get real reform

And that is to take money, especially campaign donations, out of the equation.

The only way to do this is to make ALL election campaigns funded by the public. From dogcatcher to President, each candidate would get X amount of money, X amount of free media space/time, and only have X months in which to conduct the election campaign.

Money could be provided through two revenue streams. The first is to make that voluntary election contribution mandatory, and to spread those monies throughout the electoral system. The second revenue stream is to tax the PACs and lobbyists, heavily.

Until we take the money out of elections, we will never have truly free or fair elections.