Posts Tagged ‘U.S. Senate’

Jack Abramoff’s Guide To Buying Congressmen

Disgraced Washington, DC superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, released from jail in June, has a few suggestions for lobbying reform. He should know. Most of this stuff is primarily applicable to the US, but in the Netherlands too, the donation system is vague and the revolving door (the practice of former public officials getting high-paid jobs at companies they used to regulate) is unfortunately a very prominent aspect of political life. As witnessed by certain ministers of Transportation becoming directors of major airline companies.

From an interview with Abramoff:

Disgraced ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff is out of jail. He was released in June. He now works as an accountant at a kosher pizza parlor. And he needs a literary agent. “I was actually thinking of writing a book,” he told “60 Minutes.” “The Idiot’s Guide to Buying a Congressman.”

In the interview, Abramoff gives away some of the tricks of his former trade. The big one? Dangle a job, he told Lesley Stahl. “When we would become friendly with an office and they were important to us, and the chief of staff was a competent person, I would say or my staff would say to him or her at some point, ‘You know, when you’re done working on the Hill, we’d very much like you to consider coming to work for us.’ Now the moment I said that to them or any of our staff said that to ’em, that was it. We owned them. And what does that mean? Every request from our office, every request of our clients, everything that we want, they’re gonna do. And not only that, they’re gonna think of things we can’t think of to do.”

Abramoff had softer methods, too. “I spent over a million dollars a year on tickets to sporting events and concerts and whatnot at all the venues,” he says. “I had two people on my staff whose virtual full-time job was booking tickets. We were Ticketmaster for these guys.”

Once the key staffers or legislators were bought, the trick was getting clients what they wanted without attracting attention. “So what we did was we crafted language that was so obscure, so confusing, so uninformative, but so precise.” The following line of text, for instance, quietly won Abramoff’s Native American clients a casino license: “Public law 100-89 is amended by striking section 207 (101 stat. 668, 672).”

From his book on tips for lobbying reform:

Ban donations from lobbyists and those who receive public funds. “Instead of limiting the size of every American’s political contribution, we need to entirely eliminate any contribution by those lobbying the government, participating in a federal contract, or otherwise financially benefiting from public funds. If you get money or perks from elected officials — be ‘you’ a company, a union, an association, a law firm, or an individual — you shouldn’t be permitted to give them so much as one dollar.

(…)

No gifts. “Not only should lobbyists be banned from contributing to officials’ organizations and campaign funds, they should be banned from gift-giving as well.

(…)

Stop the revolving door altogether. “Next, the lure of post-public service lobbying employment needs to be eliminated. The revolving door is one of the greatest sources of corruption in government. If you choose to serve in Congress or on a congressional staff, you should be barred for life from working for any company, organization, or association which lobbies the federal government. That may seem harsh — and it is. But there’s a reason. Congressmen know better than anyone how to get around a ban on lobbying. They ‘consult.’ What’s the difference? If you lobby, you officially try to persuade a representative or staff. If you consult, you call the representative to say hello and ask that representative to meet with you new partner at the law firm. You don’t lobby. Your partner lobbies. Does anyone believe the representative doesn’t get that joke?”

Tags: Camiel Eurlings, Congress, Congressmen, corruption, donations, gifts, House of Representatives, Jack Abramoff, legislation, lobbying, lobbyists, political system, regulation, revolving door, tickets, U.S. Senate, Washington DC
Category U.S. politics |

The Pledge to America

Matthew Yglesias analyzes the “Pledge to America” – sort of the election program of the Republicans this fall, based on the “Contract with America” with which the Republicans under the leadership of Newt Gingrich swept the 1994 elections – for what it is: a lot of ideology, and a lot of interest group politics.

Yglesias:

I haven’t had time to read and process the whole thing, but from what I can glean this morning it does in fact reflect the core elements of today’s conservative agenda—whining about the deficit, deficit-increasing tax cuts, additional whining about the deficit, and deficit-increasing promises to repeal the Affordable Care Act. But there’s also lots of good stuff in their for the business lobbyist community in terms of making it much harder to regulate anyone or prevent any kind of misconduct.

Perhaps the most telling thing about where the modern conservative movement is now, however, is their pledge on spending which says that “with common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels.” Of course once you except Social Security, Medicare, and defense from cuts you’re talking about not touching the government’s three largest programs. So notwithstanding all the rhetorical flourishes throughout the document about small government, liberty, etc. that try to paint a portrait of broadly conflicting philosophical visions about the size and scope of the federal government you actually see a rather narrower difference of priorities. Are they pledging to cut spending while leaving intact programs that support the poorest Americans? No. Are they pledging to cut spending while leaving intact the most effective programs? No.

Instead it’s a plan that says we’ll cut spending on children, the poor, and the next generation’s infrastructure in order to ensure that taxes can be cut on the rich while protecting our own base constituencies—old people, defense contractors, veterans—from the scythe. But by the same logic of “cut spending but not on people who vote Republican” do we really think the authors of this document would pare back other, smaller initiatives that help favored constituencies? Are Customs and Border Patrol and the rest of federal law enforcement going to be cut? Farm subsidies? Timber subsidies? Rural telecom subsidies? We already know that Senate Republicans when given a chance to cut taxes on small businesses and pay for it by reducing oil and gas subsidies chose to mount a filibuster.

Paul Krugman also adds his two cents:

On Thursday, House Republicans released their “Pledge to America,” supposedly outlining their policy agenda. In essence, what they say is, “Deficits are a terrible thing. Let’s make them much bigger.” The document repeatedly condemns federal debt — 16 times, by my count. But the main substantive policy proposal is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, which independent estimates say would add about $3.7 trillion to the debt over the next decade — about $700 billion more than the Obama administration’s tax proposals.

True, the document talks about the need to cut spending. But as far as I can see, there’s only one specific cut proposed — canceling the rest of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which Republicans claim (implausibly) would save $16 billion. That’s less than half of 1 percent of the budget cost of those tax cuts. As for the rest, everything must be cut, in ways not specified — “except for common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops.” In other words, Social Security, Medicare and the defense budget are off-limits.

So what’s left? Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has done the math. As he points out, the only way to balance the budget by 2020, while simultaneously (a) making the Bush tax cuts permanent and (b) protecting all the programs Republicans say they won’t cut, is to completely abolish the rest of the federal government: “No more national parks, no more Small Business Administration loans, no more export subsidies, no more N.I.H. No more Medicaid (one-third of its budget pays for long-term care for our parents and others with disabilities). No more child health or child nutrition programs. No more highway construction. No more homeland security. Oh, and no more Congress.”

Tags: A Pledge to America, Congress, Contract with America, House of Representatives, November 2010 elections, Republican Party, U.S. Senate
Category U.S. politics |

The Electoral Chances Of The Tea Party

A thoughtful analysis by statistician Nate Silver, on his 538 blog, of the electoral chances of Tea Party candidates and the Republican Party at large in the House and Senate elections this November. 

Silver gives at once an assessment of the institutional strength of the Tea Party movement, and analyzes the effects of the rise to prominence of Tea Party candidates on Republican Party chances along five dimensions: the likely outcome of specific races, impact on voter enthusiasm, voter perceptions of the GOP, conservative policy objectives and the idea of “big-tent” Republicanism.

The crucial variable is this, however: the Tea Party remains extremely unpopular among large segments of the broader public. How this plays out in the next elections, and those to come, is the big question.

Silver:

Whatever the outcome of the Nov. 2 elections, you can be certain that commentators around the country will be fixated on the impact of the Tea Party movement.

(…)

At the nucleus of the Tea Party is disquiet over the direction of the country, and antipathy toward what is seen to be profligate levels of spending and governmental involvement in the economy. The Tea Party, however, has little formal organizational infrastructure. Some groups -– like FreedomWorks, the Tea Party Express, and the Tea Party Patriots –- claim to speak for it, as do some individuals like Glenn Beck and Jim DeMint. But they do not always agree on things as basic as which candidates to endorse. FreedomWorks, for instance, declined to endorse Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, fearing she was unelectable, while many of the other groups did.

Nor does the Tea Party have any official platform. And there seems to be little interest among members of the Tea Party at forming a political party proper; instead, most of its stakeholders are seeking to reinvent the Republican Party’s brand.

Any effort to assess the impact of Tea Party needs to keep this context in mind. Moreover, there are several distinct dimensions along which the Tea Party might be evaluated -– and they lead to some relatively complex conclusions about its effects.

Dimension 1: Tea Party’s impact on specific races
This first dimension -– how a Tea Party candidate has affected Republican chances of winning a particular Congressional or gubernatorial seat — has probably been the most widely examined, perhaps because it is relatively tangible. We can evaluate, for instance, the impact of Tea Party candidates on specific United States Senate races.

(…)

Other than in Delaware, then, the immediate impact of Tea Party candidates upon electoral outcomes is therefore somewhat more ambiguous than you might think (although it has probably been harmful to the Republicans on balance). Delaware, however, counts for a lot, having significantly reduced Republican chances of taking over the Senate.

Dimension 2: Tea Party’s impact on voter enthusiasm
The contours of this election are unusual. While the Democratic Congress has become very unpopular, and the Democratic president somewhat so, views of the Republican Party remain highly negative, and have not improved appreciably from the damaged condition following George W. Bush’s two terms as president.

(…)

The Tea Party, however, has made some conservatives feel as though they have a real alternative -– something new and fresh and different — to Democratic governance. The impact of this is hard to evaluate, but it could easily outweigh the loss of a Senate seat or two in specific cases like Delaware.

Dimension 3: Tea Party and perceptions of Republican “extremism”
After several victories by Tea Party candidates, like Mr. Paul’s in Kentucky and Ms. Angle’s in Nevada, there has been something of a feeding frenzy on liberal blogs (and to some extent, political media outlets in general), which have sought to unearth whatever uncouth statements, or unorthodox policy positions, the candidate has in his or her background. This process is still underway with Ms. O’Donnell in Delaware. What liberals seem to be banking on is that candidates like these will pollute the Republican brand by being poor standard-bearers. Indeed, the White House is considering formalizing the strategy, according to reporting by The Times.

(…)

Dimension 5: The Tea Party and the Republican “big tent”
The Tea Party also presents longer-term risks to the Republicans. It’s one thing to mount primary challenges in states like Utah and Alaska, which can support (very) conservative Republicans. A party that cannot also support moderates like Mike Castle of Delaware, however, or Rick Lazio of New York –- states with long traditions of moderate Republicanism –- would seem to have limited upside in the majority.

(…)

The struggle between establishment and insurgent Republicans will not have been resolved –- instead, it will continue against the background of the battle for the Republican presidential nomination, which is almost certain to be combative.

(…)

But there is one fundamental Republican problem that the Tea Party has not resolved: the brand remains extremely unpopular among large segments of the public. In fact, the Tea Party is in some ways a reaction to this: particularly after Delaware, we should probably take the Tea Party at its word that stands in opposition to the Republican and Democratic establishments alike.

Tags: Christine O'Donnell, House of Representatives, Nate Silver, November 2010 elections, Republican Party, Tea Party movement, U.S. Senate
Category U.S. politics |

Can The Republicans Take Over The Senate?

It is very likely that the Republican Party will win back the House of Representatives in the next midterm elections, due November. It is thought less likely, however, that they will also gain a majority in the Senate, for which they will need to win 10 seats. Yet it’s not impossible.

Josh Kraushaar at Hotline On Call explains how:

Even though it’s shaping up to be one of the worst midterm environments for Democrats in decades, Republicans still aren’t being given much of a chance to retake control of the Senate. The bearishness is rooted in the reality that the GOP needs to win a net of 10 seats to retake the Senate — a significant hurdle that has only been achieved three times in the last 60 years. (Perhaps the bar should be set at nine, with Sen. Joe Lieberman, I/D-Conn., a possibility to caucus with Republicans if they’re within striking distance of a majority.)

But the reality on the ground is that nearly all of the competitive races are trending the Republicans’ way, and the Republicans have put enough seats in play to have a shot at maximum impact if they run the table. The Cook Political Report now lists 11 Democratic-held Senate seats as leaning Republican or pure toss-ups. Republicans are defending seven seats in competitive races, but the main GOP-held seats at risk are Florida (where Gov. Charlie Crist could win as an Independent and become a nominal Democratic vote) and, to a lesser extent, Kentucky and Missouri. In wave elections, toss-up seats traditionally break one way, in the direction of the party with momentum.

Several races not on our radar screen several months ago have turned into political barn burners.

Chris Good at The Atlantic has more:

Under perfect circumstances of Republicans winning most of the competitive races this cycle, it could happen. According to current polls, Republicans are poised to pick up seats in North Dakota, Indiana, Arkansas, and Delaware, where GOP candidates lead by double digits in polls. In New Hampshire, the Republican candidate leads by eight percentage points. Democrats are engaged in close races to defend seats in Washington, Nevada, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Colorado. If Republicans win all those races, it would net them 12 seats. Should Linda McMahon use her vast personal wealth to pull off an upset in Connecticut, Republicans would take over 13 Democratic-held seats.

Tags: House of Representatives, midterm elections 2010, Republican Party, U.S. Senate
Category U.S. politics |

Ex Porn Star Decides Against Run For U.S. Senate

In a not entirely unexpected move, Stormy Daniels, adult film actress and winner of the 2006, 2007 ánd 2009 F.A.M.E. Awards for Favorite Breasts, decided against running for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by philandering Republican David Vitter. She derided the undue influence of special interest money on the political process of today.

Stormy’s full statement, courtesy of Huffington Post, after the jump.

Tags: David Vitter, Louisiana, porn, Republican Party, Stormy Daniels, U.S. Senate
Category U.S. politics |

Ex Porn Star Might Run For U.S. Senate

Brilliant. Former porn actress Stormy Daniels, known from such features as “Frosty the Snow Ho”, “Space Nuts” and “Operation Desert Stormy”, sent out a press release today that she is officially joining the Republican Party. And rumour has it that she is considering a run for the U.S. Senate, in an attempt to unseat Louisiana GOP senator David Vitter. Well, she has my support.

From Dangerous Minds, Stormy’s statement:

“After months of careful deliberation and consult as to the true nature of my political affiliation I am ready today to declare that should I seek the office of US Senator from the great state of Louisiana that I will do so as a Republican.

“While this decision has not been an easy one, recent events regarding Republican National Committee fundraising at Voyeur, an LA based lesbian bondage themed nightclub finally tipped the scales.

“As I have said for well over a year, it is time that our government and our tax policy begin rewarding entrepreneurship and creativity again. It is time again to inspire positive risks and out-of-the-box thinking in the interest of growing a strong economy and a strong America.

“For me, this spirit can be summed up in the RNC’s investment of donor funds at Voyeur.

“As someone who has worked extensively in both the club and film side of the Adult Entertainment Industry, I know from experience that a mere $1900 outlay at a club with the reputation of Voyeur is a clear indication of a frugal investment with a keen eye toward maximum return.

“And I firmly believe that it is precisely this type of creative and calculated investing that we, as taxpaying Americans, should expect not only from our political parties but from our government. The American taxpayer deserves consistent conservatives who reject wasteful spending and unwarranted government intervention in the private sector.

“As is the case with so many of my fellow Louisianans, I have been a registered Democrat throughout my life. But now I cannot help but recognize that over time my libertarian values regarding both money and sex and the legal use of one for the other is now best espoused by the Republican Party.”

Tags: Louisiana, porn, Republican Party, Stormy Daniels, U.S. Senate
Category U.S. politics |

U.S. Government To Save Billions By Cutting Wasteful Senator Program

The Onion:

In an effort to reduce wasteful spending and eliminate non-vital federal services, the U.S. government announced plans this week to cut its long-standing senator program, a move it says will help save more than $300 billion each year.

According to officials, the decision to cut the national legislative body was reached during a budget review meeting on Tuesday. After hours of deliberation, it was agreed that the cost of financing U.S. senators far outweighed the benefits they provided.

“Now more than ever, we must eliminate needless spending wherever possible,” President Obama said at a press conference Wednesday. “When we sat down to go over our annual budget, we asked ourselves, where can we safely trim back? What programs can we do away with without negatively impacting the American people? Which bloated and ineffective institutions can we no longer justify having around?”

“The answer was obvious,” Obama added. “The U.S. Senate just needed to go.”

Established in 1789 as a means of overseeing the passage of bills into law, the once-promising senator program has reportedly failed to contribute to the governing of the nation in any significant way since 1964. Last year alone, approximately $450 billion was funneled into the legislative chamber, an amount deemed fiscally unsound considering how few citizens actually benefit in any way from its existence.

(…)

An analysis conducted last week revealed a number of troubling flaws within the long-running, heavily subsidized program, including a lack of consistent oversight, no clear objectives or goals, the persistent hiring of unqualified and selfishly motivated individuals, and a 100 percent redundancy rate among its employees.

Moreover, the study found that the U.S. government already funds a fully operational legislative body that appears to do the exact same job as the Senate, but which also provides a fair and proportional representation of the nation’s citizens and has rules in place to prevent one individual from holding the operations of the entire chamber hostage until he is guaranteed massive federal spending projects for his home state of Alabama.

Not only have U.S. Senators cost the country billions of dollars in misspent funds over the years, but Washington insiders claim they have also derailed a wide range of other government programs, from social welfare to job creation to environmental protection.

(…)

Still, a small pocket of the nation’s populace vehemently disagreed with Tuesday’s decision.

“This is outrageous,” said Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut-area resident and concerned citizen who makes more than $150,000 a year, enjoys full health care benefits, and lives comfortably in a large, non-foreclosed home. “The U.S. Senate has always looked out for my best interests. It’s always done right by me.”

Tags: The Onion, U.S. Senate
Category U.S. politics |