Have the Dems learned from the Republicans only too well? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ubertuber · 02-24-2007, 01:04 PM

Washington Post: Democrats Offer Up Chairmen for Donors

Quote:

Full article text click to show

Eager to shore up their fragile House and Senate majorities, congressional Democrats have enlisted their committee chairmen in an early blitz to bring millions of dollars into the party's coffers, culminating in a late-March event featuring House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and 10 of the powerful panel chairs...

"Financial services companies are inclined to give to me because I'm chairman of the committee important to their interests," said Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, who will headline a breakfast Wednesday at a D.C. hotel, for which donations range from $1,000 to $15,000 for the Democratic National Committee...Asked whether banking interests feel obligated to give to Democrats when he asks them for contributions, Frank answered: "Obligated? No. Incentivized? Yes." Frank said, however, that those donating "understand, and others do, too, that there are no guarantees of my doing what they want, or even my being pleasant."

Financial interests will have several opportunities in the coming weeks to make contributions and attend events that will put them close to lawmakers important to their industries.

But it was in part a Republican lobbying scandal -- GOP lobbyist Abramoff's defrauding of Indian tribal clients and the subsequent investigation into his efforts to influence lawmakers with lavish gifts -- that gave Democrats their opening to regain control of Congress. Democrats took over in January after a campaign that accused Republicans of fostering a "culture of corruption" in Washington and "selling access" to lawmakers. Abramoff has been convicted of fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy and is in federal prison.

Now, with the tables turned, Democrats are courting Abramoff's most famous clientele -- Indian tribes.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's upcoming fundraiser was planned to coincide with a meeting in Washington of the National Congress of American Indians. It is being hosted by a law firm that lobbies for tribal casinos and the National Indian Gaming Association's political action committee. [/hide]

The association represents more than 100 tribes with casinos or gambling operations, including those Abramoff was paid to represent. Last year, former Abramoff clients such as the Saginaw Chippewa, Agua Caliente and Mississippi Choctaw gave money to fund the PAC...
Democratic fundraisers said they were still trying to organize a second donor event that could involve a few of the tribes that were entangled with Abramoff...

Democrats reject any parallels to the Abramoff saga. "Abramoff was involved in a pervasive culture of corruption," said Matthew Miller, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "Native Americans have every right to participate in the political process just like Americans across the country do."

Government-watchdog groups are chagrined but not surprised by the rush of high-level Democratic fundraising. "Coming so close on the heels of winning last year's election based on changing the so-called culture of corruption in Washington, it's unseemly, but it's completely predictable," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "Democrats, like the Republicans before them, need the cash to maintain their majority status, and when you are in the majority it is much easier to collect the money."

First things first... I know the Republicans did it too. And I know that the article says that the Republicans are still trying to chase some high profile donors (unhide the text to get that part). However, I'm posting this because I'm shocked to see such a blatant display of the very behavior that the Dems and their partisans have lambasted the Republicans for over the last few years. I mean, come on - they're going after Abramoff's old clients!

Further, this bit:

Quote:

Originally Posted by WA PO article

Asked whether banking interests feel obligated to give to Democrats when he asks them for contributions, Frank answered: "Obligated? No. Incentivized? Yes." Frank said, however, that those donating "understand, and others do, too, that there are no guarantees of my doing what they want, or even my being pleasant."

This scares me. Either Frank is so stupid he believes this, or he thinks that we are so stupid that we'll believe it.

I've been quite fed up with the brazen disrespect the Republicans have shown the electorate for the last 4 years. This makes it look as though the Democrats have learned from their opponents a little too well...

EDIT: I guess I'm looking for someone (host?) to tell me how the Democrats aren't just more of the same. Why aren't there more people agitating for 3rd (4th, etc.) parties or true change from these two?

dksuddeth · 02-24-2007, 01:54 PM

the best government money can buy. gotta love that free amerika

host · 02-24-2007, 03:34 PM

The answer to the thread title question, is NO !

uber....please understand that John Solomon, author of your OP article is not a news reporter. He is a partisan, "hit man", formerly working for the AP, and recently hired by the Washington Post to bring "balance" to news coverage dominated by real events of the day. Virtually all national political scandals, since 2001, that have resulted in indictments have been exclusively involving republicans. The OP article, and John Solomon, are an attempt to "balance", the facts notwithstanding....

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012601571.html
Accurate, but Not the Whole Story

By Deborah Howell
Sunday, January 28, 2007; Page B06

Accurate stories can be misleading. Two recent Page 1 stories -- one on the Fairfax County libraries and the other on the sale of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards's Georgetown house -- brought complaints that there was less there than met the reader's eye.

The Edwards story, by John Solomon and Lois Romano, was controversial even in the Post newsroom and was attacked by Edwards, his staff, liberal-leaning blogs and about 50 readers.....

......I kept waiting to read about the connection between the Klaassens and Edwards that would make this sale unseemly; it wasn't there. Edwards spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri said Edwards "has never met or spoken with them; nor have they contributed to his campaign."

The story was interesting, but it was more of an item for the Reliable Source or In the Loop -- and not worth Page 1. It seemed like a "gotcha" without the gotcha.

The story also lacked needed financial context. It noted that Edwards bought the house for $3.8 million in 2002 and sold it last month for $5.2 million after it was on and off the market for 18 months.

But the story didn't pin down that the house, in the 3300 block of P Street, had at least $1 million in renovations, said several sources. The asking price originally was $6.5 million and had been lowered twice, according to Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, the region's multiple listing service.....

Link to recent Solomon, "news" article that WaPo Ombudswoman Howell, described above:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011802077.html

Link to first page of comments about Solomon's "John Edwards hit piece", referred to above:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...R2007011802077

Quote:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008656.php
(June 06, 2006 -- 11:51 AM EDT)

Remember last week we reported extensively on AP reporter John Solomon's reporting on Sen. Harry Reid. Well, apparently, that's exactly the sort of excellence the editors at the AP are shooting for.

Here's the text of an internal email sent out to AP staff announcing the award Solomon got for the pieces in question ...

.....AP Director of Media Relations confirmed to TPMmuckraker's Paul Kiel that the email "was sent to all AP staff as part of AP's weekly recognition of staff reporters."

Speaks for itself.

Quote:

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/20...php&frame=true

AP's John Solomon - One More for the Road
By Paul Kiel - June 1, 2006, 6:42 PM

AP reporter John Solomon seems to think that the best defense is yet more bamboozlement.....

Link to more than 20 comments and examples of JOhn Solomon's baseless, "gotcha" "journalism":
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/20...php&frame=true

....and at the bottom of the WaPo web page which displays the OP article, was this reaction:
(I can't think of a better one, off the cuff. If you disagree, tell us where the critic has the facts wrong, and tell us how democrats, in the current playing field that was controlled by republicans exclusively since 2001, and in the house since 1996, can raise money in a climate that is still dominated by republican corporate executives and the lobbyists who they finance, if they don't, for the time being, at least....closely follow legal republican practices?)

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...R2007022301978

There are a number of huge problems regarding this article. Other than Melanie Sloan from CREW saying that this is unseemly but fully predictable in light of the need for both parties to raise money there are no quotes of anyone having a problem with this. The reason is simple. As long as there is no such thing as public financing of elections, this type of activity will always happen. Where is the news here? There is none. Raising money through access to policitians is how our system operates, so why any feigned outrage? The Republican culture of corruption dealt with trading legislation for specific personal favors and bribes. The K street project was slimey but not illegal. There is no evidence that the dems are doing anything evenly closely remote to those activities. If Birnbaum and Solomon were honest the tone of the article would have been more of a piece advocating public financing of elections and not a gotcha piece. But the tone of the article, especially the repeated references to the tribes that Abramoff conned is pathetic. Just because the jerk screwed them out of their money doesnt mean those tribes do not have the right to participate in the access the system the way it is currently setup. Bringing up their association without any evidence that anything is out of the ordinary dooms this article to becoming another waste of newsprint. Gives us news and logical analysis, not innuendo and implied accusations with no basis in fact. Pathetic.

By joe_potosky | Feb 24, 2007 1:01:26 PM

ubertuber · 02-24-2007, 03:52 PM

host: Thanks for the info. I'll read through it.

I guess my question will be... Is there something wrong with the information he wrote in the article? In the end, I'm more concerned about what was reported than who reported it.

I'll read your links. But I guess it seems (from this article, past news, and my own personal experience around campaigns) that the Dems are eager to jump into special interests' pockets just as the Republicans were happy to be there. Isn't it inherent in the structure and nature of these big parties?

Elphaba · 02-24-2007, 04:56 PM

Uber, reading the articles, particularly the last one, really does answer your question. Because we don't have public financing of elections, both parties must raise funds in one way or another and there are laws in place concerning how this can be done. The author of this particular opinion piece was attempting to raise flags of alarm over a legal practice.

The illegal activities uncovered in the 109th congress weren't just a bit "unseemly." Money laundering through charitable fronts to circumvent campaign finance laws, or receiving a yacht in exchange for favorable legislation are a far cry from hosting a fund raising luncheon.

Individual members of bother parties are capable of being corrupted, particularly so of the majority party. I'm counting on Sloan and other watch dog groups to keep the Dems honest.

As an aside, does anyone know why Jefferson, with $90K in his freezer, has yet to charged for what looks to be an obvious bribe? Something's not right with that one, imo.

host · 02-24-2007, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

host: Thanks for the info. I'll read through it.

I guess my question will be... Is there something wrong with the information he wrote in the article? In the end, I'm more concerned about what was reported than who reported it.

I'll read your links. But I guess it seems (from this article, past news, and my own personal experience around campaigns) that the Dems are eager to jump into special interests' pockets just as the Republicans were happy to be there. Isn't it inherent in the structure and nature of these big parties?

Isn't this a way of reporting exactly the same thing reported by Solomon and Birnbaum, in the article you posted, but without all of the partisan innuendo?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/us...rssnyt&emc=rss

...and....consider which political party holds the fundraising advantage:

Quote:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2901784&page=1
08 Campaign Cash Race Claims First Casualty
By JOHN HENDREN

Feb. 24, 2007

....Vilsack, who bowed out Friday, had a key home state and a popular anti-war message. The Democrat drew hearty applause when he told Jay Leno on an appearance on "The Tonight Show" that if elected, "We're going to bring our troops home."

"The reality, however, is that this process has become, to a great extent, about money — a lot of money," Vilsack said in announcing his withdrawal from the race. "So it is money, and only money, that is the reason that we are leaving today."

He raised more than $1 million last year. But Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., raised $1.5 million in a single day in Hollywood last week and former Republican Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney brought in $6.5 million in one day last month.

"Money's first and foremost, and the name of the game," said Stuart Rothenberg of The Rothenberg Political Report.

In 1952, the last time there was no incumbent in the race, Dwight Eisenhower won after spending $6.6 million in the general election. Political analysts estimate that by the time it's over this time, the Republican and Democratic nominees will have spent $500 million a piece.

"We're really entering a perfect storm in terms of presidential fundraising that is setting the stage for the most money raised and spent in American history," Commissioner Michael Toner of the Federal Election Commission told ABC News.

With outside spending from political parties, labor unions and special interest groups, Rothenberg and others expect the 2008 race for the White House to cost $2 billion to $3 billion dollars.

It remains largely a mystery how much candidates have raised this year. They don't have to disclose those amounts until the first campaign finance report is due on April 15.....

Considering Romney's one day fundraising achievment....compared to Obama, I wonder what the advantage a leading republican contender has, when it comes to raising corporate political donations:

Quote:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm
Quinnipiac University Poll. Feb. 13-19, 2007. N=578 Republican voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.1.

"If the 2008 Republican primary for president were being held today, and the candidates were [see below], for whom would you vote?"

_____ ______ %
Rudy Giuliani 40

John McCain 18

Newt Gingrich 10

Mitt Romney 7

Duncan Hunter 2

Mike Huckabee 2....

Unsure 15

dc_dux · 02-24-2007, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Uber, reading the articles, particularly the last one, really does answer your question. Because we don't have public financing of elections, both parties must raise funds in one way or another and there are laws in place concerning how this can be done. The author of this particular opinion piece was attempting to raise flags of alarm over a legal practice.

The illegal activities uncovered in the 109th congress weren't just a bit "unseemly." Money laundering through charitable fronts to circumvent campaign finance laws, or receiving a yacht in exchange for favorable legislation are a far cry from hosting a fund raising luncheon.

Individual members of bother parties are capable of being corrupted, particularly so of the majority party. I'm counting on Sloan and other watch dog groups to keep the Dems honest.

As an aside, does anyone know why Jefferson, with $90K in his freezer, has yet to charged for what looks to be an obvious bribe? Something's not right with that one, imo.

I agree completely that there is a big difference between fund-raising events within the current ethics and campaign finance laws that both parties use regularly (however distateful and unseemly) and the excesses of corruption, bribery, and vote buying/influence peddling. The inferences in the politically motivated Solomon article are just that..with no foundation of any wroing-doing (at least, yet)

As Sloan/CREW noted, the recently passed Senate bi-partisan (90-8) ethics and lobbying bill, the first in 10 years, will help (if the House will pass a similar bill and Bush will sign)..but much more is needed, including real campaign finance reform.

As to Jefferson, I think the case is currently bogged down in a Constitutional issue working through the courts. The evidence against him was pretty strong. However, the Justice Dept. also raided his Congressional office to obtain more evidence. This had never been done in the history of Congress and Jefferson raised a possible "separtation of powers" issue. Even former Repub Speaker Hastert agreed with him:

"The actions of the Justice Department in seeking and executing this warrant raise important Constitutional issues that go well beyond the specifics of this case. Insofar as I am aware, since the founding of our Republic 219 years ago, the Justice Department has never found it necessary to do what it did Saturday night, crossing this Separation of Powers line, in order to successfully prosecute corruption by Members of Congress. Nothing I have learned in the last 48 hours leads me to believe that there was any necessity to change the precedent established over those 219 years.

The circuit court ruled against Jefferson, but it now has to work through the Appeals Court and most likely, the Supreme Court. I personally think Jefferson's argument is pretty weak, but still needs to be ejudicated.

It certainly could also appear to some to be politically motivated that Atty Gen Alberto Gonzales felt compelled to authorize a seach of Jefferson's office, for the first time in the history of Congress, but felt no such need in the investigations of Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, or Tom Delay.

In the end, Jefferson will likely pay for his crime because the other evidence against him is convincing (ncluding a videotape of taking a bribe and the testimony of a former staff member who pled guilty, not to mention the money in the freezer).

loquitur · 02-28-2007, 09:56 AM

The scandal is what's legal, to quote the old wag. The problem with campaign finance reform generally is that it doesn't work and probably can't, at least not without violating the first amendment. I'm not sure what the answer is - it's certainly not good that our representatives (in both parties) spend a huge amount of each day on the phone, metaphorically rattling their tin cups. I haven't been able to think of a good alternative, though I have tried. And no, outlawing everyone's freedom of speech except what's approved by the regulators is not an alternative (and that's what public financing would need to have in order to be remotely effective).

Jefferson may yet be charged, but the matter has to work its way through the system. Until then he's not technically guilty of anything, though certainly Speaker Pelosi should use her judgment about what sorts of committee assignments he gets. So far she put him on Homeland Security, which isn't the greatest idea for someone who appears to have been willing to sell his vote for money.

dc_dux · 02-28-2007, 12:51 PM

Quote:

I haven't been able to think of a good alternative, though I have tried. And no, outlawing everyone's freedom of speech except what's approved by the regulators is not an alternative (and that's what public financing would need to have in order to be remotely effective).

Public financing is working reasonably well in a handfull of states. It is volutary and generally works by requiring candidates to raise a threshold amount of small contributions in order to qualify for public financing. Being voluntary, I dont see how it impacts freedom of speech.

If the other candidate chooses to finance privately, the publically financed candidate would receive an equal amount of public funds. In many cases, it also takes the advantage away from incumbents, which is a good thing. What they dont address is the impact of the 527 organizations.

dksuddeth · 02-28-2007, 01:34 PM

the best method of circumventing money in politics is for the average american to voluntarily educate themselves. For the moment, all most americans do is one issue voting, straight ticket voting, or paying scant attention to a few tv ads during their off work hours and voting.....or not half the time.

We get the government we deserve

loquitur · 02-28-2007, 07:02 PM

dc_dux, it depends how you define "working reasonably well." There's a supposedly well-regarded public financing scheme in NYC, where I live. It operates, basically, as an incumbency protection device with ancillary provisions designed to benefit the Democratic party and its constituencies. NYC is, of course, an intensely Democratic city, so it figures that the laws here would operate that way. Is that "working reasonably well?" Only if you think the most important purpose of campaign finance regulation is to elect Democrats.

Most campaign finance regulation is drawn up with a view to protecting incumbents. Incumbents are the ones who write the rules, after all.

dc_dux · 02-28-2007, 07:30 PM

Loquitor...it seems to be working pretty well in Ariz and Maine, two states with the most experience with public financing:

Quote:

In Maine, where Clean Elections has been in place for all state races since 2000, at least 84 percent of the legislature will be represented by people who won using public funding.

In the House, 11 of the 12 incumbents who lost their bid for reelection were defeated by Clean Elections candidates. Four of the losing incumbents were privately financed.

***

Using a public funding system has been an option for Arizona state candidates since 2000. This year 42 percent of the candidates serving in the new legislature, and six out of eight elected statewide officers, ran using the system.

http://www.publicampaign.org/pressro...e-office-seats

The impact on challengers vs incumbents is not as clear, although the Maine experience might seem to suggest that it is helpful in leveling the playing field.

In any case, it does take lobbyist money out of politics, at least on a small scale.

loquitur · 03-01-2007, 06:30 AM

I'm not so sure. At the state level we don't see the equivalent of 527s, for example. Are they regulated too? How much lobbyist money is there is AZ or Maine to begin with? These aren't states with big govts. Again, using NY as the example (mainly because it's the state I know best), public financing has not eliminated lobbying at all, it just redirects it. And I can assure you that the govt in NY is far, far larger than in ME or AZ, and that the sums at stake dwarf anything in ME or AZ.

Part of the problem is that the stakes are so high at the national level that there is always pressure for the money to go somewhere. As a good libertarian, my prescription would be to get the govt out of a lot of the things it's into - the less involved govt is in the economy, the less need there is to influence it. Activist government breeds corruption. (which isn't to say corruption wouldn't otherwise exist, only that it would have fewer opportunities to take root).

And who is a "lobbyist?" Are teachers unions "lobbies"? How about wetlands preservationists? University research organizations? so-called antipoverty groups? And do in-kind contributions of time and labor (which certainly have value) count too? How you answer those questions will reveal whether the objective of your proposed campaign finance reform is to "take money out of politics" or instead to "take money out of politics from people I don't approve of."

(oh, the "you" in that last post is a generalized "you", not addressed to any particular individual person. I don't do personal attacks.)

dc_dux · 03-01-2007, 07:44 AM

We'll just have to disagree.

I think the Ariz/Maine campaign finance laws are good models for taking the money out of campaigns.....acknowleding that there is a distinction between campaign finance reform and lobbying reform.

Public funding for campaigns minimizes or elimates direct funding to candidates from any private source. It doesnt necessarily impact the influence of lobbyists, particularly those with deep pockets.

The fact that an initiative in California based on the Ariz model was defeated overwhelmingly (with high price ads from both public and private sector organizations that contribute to campaigns) is an indication that such efforts have a long way to go.

Having worked as a lobbyist for one of the big 7 Public Interest Groups (ie no deep pockets) for more than 10 years, I can say that lobbying reform is an entirely different animal and has its own unique set of issues that distinguish 501c lobbying arms of organizations (like the NRA, AARP, Planned Parenthood, National Wildlife Federation, etc) from the 527 organizations (Swift Boat Vets, MoveOn.org, etc).

powerclown · 03-01-2007, 07:48 AM

Operationally speaking, I can discern no appreciable differences between any of the major political parties in Washington. The only differences are with regard to the standard stump issues such as health care, foreign policy, social services and the like. All parties scramble and fight and cajole and gift and favor and promise and wine and dine to fill their own war chests. Money is the lifeblood of the body politic. Why should campaign finance be reformed, when the cost of advertising rises steadily year after year? Do the Dems get better rates on advertsing than the Repubs? Do they somehow need to be less uh...efficient in their fundraising activities? One look at how Hilary nearly ripped Obama's throat out over recent fundraising issues in California nicely illuminates the issue I should think.

The less money one raises, the less exposure one receives, the less chance for election. These games about "scandals" such as Abramoff and Jefferson are nothing more than one party trying to outmaneuver the other - morally, politically or financially. Meanwhile, its business as usual. Why are people surpised when Washington acts like Washington? The naive outrage over Democratic methods of fundraising as being somehow purer and more righteous than Republican methods of fundraising...ALGore went all the way to a Buddhist Temple across the world in Tibet to scrounge over $100,000 in contributions for his campaign for goodness sake. But no, it was the Republicans who invented the game. Sheeeeesh.

The incredulity is laughably partisan.

loquitur · 03-01-2007, 10:48 AM

There is a case to be made that ability to attract money operates as a gatekeeping function for a national candidate, meaning that it's necessary but not sufficient. To illustrate my point: if I run for president in a publicly financed system, there is nothing to stop me from dipping my hand into the public's pocket and running for president. The taxpayers would be obligated to finance my quixotic dream (or egomaniacal quest, as you might choose to see it), no matter how insane it might be for me to think I would remotely be qualified to be president. Or Senator, or Congressman.

But if I'm required to actually convince people to part with their hard-earned money to support my candidacy, then at the very least I have passed through an evaluative process by a skeptical audience and passed. So Tom Vilsack drops out of contention but Hillary Clinton does not. Why? Hillary can persuade people she would be a credible candidate and deserves their support/money. Tom Vilsack would not be.

To some extent, the discussion about "taking money out of politics" is a kabuki dance that masks other concerns. Money isn't significant in itself. It's a tool, it's a lubricant, it's a mechanism for storing value or expressing value. In that sense it's no different from any other method of expression or commitment. It's certainly nothing to get supersitious about, and I believe all these restrictions are basically corollaries of a superstitious approach to money.

My own view is that there should be a system of incentives rather than rules, and information enhancement rather than prohibitions. Federal judges are almost uniquely trusted to do their jobs precisely because of their incentive structure: they can never be disciplined for their rulings because they have pay protection and life tenure. I'm not recommending that for Congress or the President, obviously, but what I'm suggesting is that their incentive structure be aligned to make them independent of those who seek to make legislators dependent on them. Singapore, for example, pays certain high ranking government officials salaries comparable to high-ranking corporate executives, which is a fairly effective antidote to corruption. Of course it has downsides, too.

dc_dux · 03-01-2007, 11:54 AM

Quote:

There is a case to be made that ability to attract money operates as a gatekeeping function for a national candidate, meaning that it's necessary but not sufficient. To illustrate my point: if I run for president in a publicly financed system, there is nothing to stop me from dipping my hand into the public's pocket and running for president. The taxpayers would be obligated to finance my quixotic dream (or egomaniacal quest, as you might choose to see it), no matter how insane it might be for me to think I would remotely be qualified to be president. Or Senator, or Congressman.
But if I'm required to actually convince people to part with their hard-earned money to support my candidacy, then at the very least I have passed through an evaluative process by a skeptical audience and passed....

Loquitor... I think if you were to look at the Ariz and Maine laws, among others, you will see that there are provisions to ensure that public funding is made available to candidates that can demonstrate a level of viability and not those with a "quixotic dream or egomaniacal quest". The provisions generally require of having to reach a threshold of a specific number of contributions from small donors (varies by state) in order to receive federal funding.

The proposed federal bill (will be re-introduced this year, with little likelihood of any action) has similar "eligibility" requirements for candidate for the House of Rep.

loquitur · 03-01-2007, 11:58 AM

Like Dennis Kucinich? Alan Keyes? Ralph Nader? Those guys' candidacies were only slightly less outlandish than mine, and more than, say, Pat Paulsen's.

dc_dux · 03-01-2007, 12:01 PM

Outlandish is relative and partisan, but I get your point...you're not a fan of public financing.

loquitur · 03-01-2007, 12:22 PM

Actually, dc_dux, I'm not a fan of making anything "public" that doesn't have to be. I don't have a great deal of faith in politicians or bureaucrats - not because they are evil but because they are human, and humans do strange things when they have power and the wrong kinds of incentives.

flstf · 03-01-2007, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

The incredulity is laughably partisan.

Your comments on how both major parties finance elections seems so obvious that I am surprised there are so many willing to choose one over the other. At least in regards to this issue.

dc_dux · 03-01-2007, 03:30 PM

loquitor...the irony, IMO, is that public financing could very well be the best means for a libertarian like Ron Paul to make a dent in the Republican primary or as a viable third party candidate.

loquitur · 03-01-2007, 07:03 PM

perhaps. but my guess is that a guy like Paul would rather go down swinging than sully himself with govt money. How does that quote go? "what good does it do to gain the world if you lose your soul?"

host · 01-14-2008, 09:25 PM

Compare the description of Mr. Solomon in post #3 to today's "news":

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...402688_pf.html
Washington Times Names Post Reporter Its Top Editor

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 15, 2008; C01

The Washington Times reached into its chief rival's newsroom for a new executive editor yesterday, naming Washington Post national reporter John Solomon to succeed Wesley Pruden at the paper's helm.

Solomon was an unexpected choice to take over what Pruden, who has run the Times for 16 years, has long described as a conservative newspaper. But Solomon, 41, who spent two decades at the Associated Press and is not known as an ideological journalist, said he doesn't view the paper in those terms.

"I'm still going to do the same style of journalism," he said. "It's going to be about being fair and balanced and accurate and precise. . . . There needs to be a bright line between the journalism on the news pages and the commentary that appears on the editorial and opinion pages."

Thomas McDevitt, the paper's publisher, said Solomon has a great "nose" for stories and that "we wanted to find a working journalist with some area of expertise that was related to our strategic vision -- enterprise and investigative reporting." He called Solomon a "virtuoso" who could beef up the paper's online offerings and "a leader who can motivate the talent in our newsroom. If we want to play in the big leagues, we've got to do some things differently."

"Of course," McDevitt added, "there has to be a cultural fit."

Erik Wemple, editor of Washington City Paper, said that "having a guy like this who not only comes from a fiercely independent newspaper, but has a fiercely independent reputation himself, is refreshing. This is one of the first real, solid moves the Washington Times has made in a long time."

Solomon said Times executives have promised him there will be "no political interference" and that he is "very comfortable" with the fact that the paper is financially supported by members of the Unification Church. He said that during the interview process he met with Hyun Jin "Preston" Moon, the son of church founder Sun Myung Moon and the chairman of parent company News World Communications.

Solomon is a gregarious, slightly rumpled journalist with a dogged reporting style. In November, he collaborated with CBS's "60 Minutes" on an investigation into a discredited FBI forensic tool that raised questions about the conviction of hundreds of defendants.

At the AP, Solomon served as assistant Washington bureau chief for a half-dozen years. He presents a sharp contrast with Pruden, who ran the Times while also writing a pugnaciously conservative column, which will continue despite his stepping down from a full-time role. Last week Pruden described Hillary Clinton as "everybody's candidate for bitch-in-chief."

Managing Editor Francis Coombs, who was passed over for the job, told his staff that he was resigning.

In a statement, Pruden said the Times has been "the fearless alternative to The Post and the mainstream media -- rowdy, independent, politically incorrect by design -- and I've been assured that won't change" under Solomon. Asked if he sees the paper as a right-leaning alternative to the establishment media, Solomon said: "The Times has prided itself on trying to find stories others have missed."

The Times has a daily circulation of 100,000, compared with 691,000 for The Post, and 40,000 on Sunday, compared with 945,000 for its bigger rival. But the Times helps drive the national agenda, particularly among conservatives, through its Web site, national edition and editorial and commentary pages.

Solomon said that being first or second in print circulation "doesn't matter" because in the digital age "people want to interact with the news and learn more than you can fit into a 30-inch hole in a story."

The Times has been a feisty competitor to The Post but has occasionally been accused of pursuing an agenda. In 1999 Pruden defended a front-page piece headlined "Media Abuzz With Rumors That Clinton Fathered Boy," based on a false rumor, by saying that journalists and political insiders were talking about the allegation.

Solomon's reporting for The Post, where he worked for one year, has drawn both praise and criticism. He has written about Bill Clinton earning nearly $40 million in speaking fees over six years, members of Congress devising new ways to secure funding for home-state projects, and an internal audit finding possible violations by the FBI while it sought information in national security cases.

After he co-authored a front-page story on Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards having consulted for a hedge fund, The Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell, wrote that "the facts are eminently worth reporting, but the tone of the story implied that consulting for a hedge fund . . . is incompatible with caring about the less fortunate."

Solomon also co-authored a report that the previously undisclosed buyers of Edwards's Georgetown house were under federal investigation. Howell wrote that "it seemed like a 'gotcha' without the gotcha," since the former senator said he never spoke to the buyers.

Solomon, who starts his new job Jan. 28, described his time at The Post as an "extraordinary experience, but this opportunity was too good, for my family and for me professionally, to turn down."

Wapo's Howard Kurtz wrote this about John Solomon:

Quote:

Solomon was an unexpected choice....is not known as an ideological journalist, said he doesn't view the paper in those terms....

Consider that there is no "liberal" corporate news media in the US. It is a notion implanted to "herd" some of you in the direction of more "filtered", slanted information sources. It has been a wildly successful manipulation, because you're not even confused. You know mainstream US news media is "liberal", has a "liberal bias". Mission accomplished, thank you, Brent Bozell III !

It was absurd for WaPo to hire John Solomon as a "reporter" last year, after his record at the AP. It was absurd for the NY Times to hire William Kristol as a regular, Oped columnist, last month, and it is astounding to read the way Howard Kurtz leads into John Solomon's "career move", over to the Washington Times. But, it is "normal" for you to be of the opinion that the NY Times and Washington Post are "liberal".

02-24-2007, 01:54 PM	#2 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	the best government money can buy. gotta love that free amerika __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

02-24-2007, 03:52 PM	#4 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	host: Thanks for the info. I'll read through it. I guess my question will be... Is there something wrong with the information he wrote in the article? In the end, I'm more concerned about what was reported than who reported it. I'll read your links. But I guess it seems (from this article, past news, and my own personal experience around campaigns) that the Dems are eager to jump into special interests' pockets just as the Republicans were happy to be there. Isn't it inherent in the structure and nature of these big parties? __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

02-24-2007, 04:56 PM	#5 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Uber, reading the articles, particularly the last one, really does answer your question. Because we don't have public financing of elections, both parties must raise funds in one way or another and there are laws in place concerning how this can be done. The author of this particular opinion piece was attempting to raise flags of alarm over a legal practice. The illegal activities uncovered in the 109th congress weren't just a bit "unseemly." Money laundering through charitable fronts to circumvent campaign finance laws, or receiving a yacht in exchange for favorable legislation are a far cry from hosting a fund raising luncheon. Individual members of bother parties are capable of being corrupted, particularly so of the majority party. I'm counting on Sloan and other watch dog groups to keep the Dems honest. As an aside, does anyone know why Jefferson, with $90K in his freezer, has yet to charged for what looks to be an obvious bribe? Something's not right with that one, imo. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

02-28-2007, 01:34 PM	#10 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	the best method of circumventing money in politics is for the average american to voluntarily educate themselves. For the moment, all most americans do is one issue voting, straight ticket voting, or paying scant attention to a few tv ads during their off work hours and voting.....or not half the time. We get the government we deserve __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

03-01-2007, 06:30 AM	#13 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I'm not so sure. At the state level we don't see the equivalent of 527s, for example. Are they regulated too? How much lobbyist money is there is AZ or Maine to begin with? These aren't states with big govts. Again, using NY as the example (mainly because it's the state I know best), public financing has not eliminated lobbying at all, it just redirects it. And I can assure you that the govt in NY is far, far larger than in ME or AZ, and that the sums at stake dwarf anything in ME or AZ. Part of the problem is that the stakes are so high at the national level that there is always pressure for the money to go <i>somewhere</i>. As a good libertarian, my prescription would be to get the govt out of a lot of the things it's into - the less involved govt is in the economy, the less need there is to influence it. Activist government breeds corruption. (which isn't to say corruption wouldn't otherwise exist, only that it would have fewer opportunities to take root). And who is a "lobbyist?" Are teachers unions "lobbies"? How about wetlands preservationists? University research organizations? so-called antipoverty groups? And do in-kind contributions of time and labor (which certainly have value) count too? How you answer those questions will reveal whether the objective of your proposed campaign finance reform is to "take money out of politics" or instead to "take money out of politics from people I don't approve of." (oh, the "you" in that last post is a generalized "you", not addressed to any particular individual person. I don't do personal attacks.) Last edited by loquitur; 03-01-2007 at 07:34 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

02-28-2007, 09:56 AM	#8 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	The scandal is what's legal, to quote the old wag. The problem with campaign finance reform generally is that it doesn't work and probably can't, at least not without violating the first amendment. I'm not sure what the answer is - it's certainly not good that our representatives (in both parties) spend a huge amount of each day on the phone, metaphorically rattling their tin cups. I haven't been able to think of a good alternative, though I have tried. And no, outlawing everyone's freedom of speech except what's approved by the regulators is not an alternative (and that's what public financing would need to have in order to be remotely effective). Jefferson may yet be charged, but the matter has to work its way through the system. Until then he's not technically guilty of anything, though certainly Speaker Pelosi should use her judgment about what sorts of committee assignments he gets. So far she put him on Homeland Security, which isn't the greatest idea for someone who appears to have been willing to sell his vote for money.

02-28-2007, 07:02 PM	#11 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	dc_dux, it depends how you define "working reasonably well." There's a supposedly well-regarded public financing scheme in NYC, where I live. It operates, basically, as an incumbency protection device with ancillary provisions designed to benefit the Democratic party and its constituencies. NYC is, of course, an intensely Democratic city, so it figures that the laws here would operate that way. Is that "working reasonably well?" Only if you think the most important purpose of campaign finance regulation is to elect Democrats. Most campaign finance regulation is drawn up with a view to protecting incumbents. Incumbents are the ones who write the rules, after all.

03-01-2007, 07:44 AM	#14 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	We'll just have to disagree. I think the Ariz/Maine campaign finance laws are good models for taking the money out of campaigns.....acknowleding that there is a distinction between campaign finance reform and lobbying reform. Public funding for campaigns minimizes or elimates direct funding to candidates from any private source. It doesnt necessarily impact the influence of lobbyists, particularly those with deep pockets. The fact that an initiative in California based on the Ariz model was defeated overwhelmingly (with high price ads from both public and private sector organizations that contribute to campaigns) is an indication that such efforts have a long way to go. Having worked as a lobbyist for one of the big 7 Public Interest Groups (ie no deep pockets) for more than 10 years, I can say that lobbying reform is an entirely different animal and has its own unique set of issues that distinguish 501c lobbying arms of organizations (like the NRA, AARP, Planned Parenthood, National Wildlife Federation, etc) from the 527 organizations (Swift Boat Vets, MoveOn.org, etc). __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 03-01-2007 at 07:54 AM..

03-01-2007, 07:48 AM	#15 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Operationally speaking, I can discern no appreciable differences between any of the major political parties in Washington. The only differences are with regard to the standard stump issues such as health care, foreign policy, social services and the like. All parties scramble and fight and cajole and gift and favor and promise and wine and dine to fill their own war chests. Money is the lifeblood of the body politic. Why should campaign finance be reformed, when the cost of advertising rises steadily year after year? Do the Dems get better rates on advertsing than the Repubs? Do they somehow need to be less uh...efficient in their fundraising activities? One look at how Hilary nearly ripped Obama's throat out over recent fundraising issues in California nicely illuminates the issue I should think. The less money one raises, the less exposure one receives, the less chance for election. These games about "scandals" such as Abramoff and Jefferson are nothing more than one party trying to outmaneuver the other - morally, politically or financially. Meanwhile, its business as usual. Why are people surpised when Washington acts like Washington? The naive outrage over Democratic methods of fundraising as being somehow purer and more righteous than Republican methods of fundraising...ALGore went all the way to a Buddhist Temple across the world in Tibet to scrounge over $100,000 in contributions for his campaign for goodness sake. But no, it was the Republicans who invented the game. Sheeeeesh. The incredulity is laughably partisan.

03-01-2007, 10:48 AM	#16 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	There is a case to be made that ability to attract money operates as a gatekeeping function for a national candidate, meaning that it's necessary but not sufficient. To illustrate my point: if I run for president in a publicly financed system, there is nothing to stop me from dipping my hand into the public's pocket and running for president. The taxpayers would be obligated to finance my quixotic dream (or egomaniacal quest, as you might choose to see it), no matter how insane it might be for me to think I would remotely be qualified to be president. Or Senator, or Congressman. But if I'm required to actually convince people to part with their hard-earned money to support my candidacy, then at the very least I have passed through an evaluative process by a skeptical audience and passed. So Tom Vilsack drops out of contention but Hillary Clinton does not. Why? Hillary can persuade people she would be a credible candidate and deserves their support/money. Tom Vilsack would not be. To some extent, the discussion about "taking money out of politics" is a kabuki dance that masks other concerns. Money isn't significant in itself. It's a tool, it's a lubricant, it's a mechanism for storing value or expressing value. In that sense it's no different from any other method of expression or commitment. It's certainly nothing to get supersitious about, and I believe all these restrictions are basically corollaries of a superstitious approach to money. My own view is that there should be a system of incentives rather than rules, and information enhancement rather than prohibitions. Federal judges are almost uniquely trusted to do their jobs precisely because of their incentive structure: they can never be disciplined for their rulings because they have pay protection and life tenure. I'm not recommending that for Congress or the President, obviously, but what I'm suggesting is that their incentive structure be aligned to make them independent of those who seek to make legislators dependent on them. Singapore, for example, pays certain high ranking government officials salaries comparable to high-ranking corporate executives, which is a fairly effective antidote to corruption. Of course it has downsides, too.

03-01-2007, 11:58 AM	#18 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Like Dennis Kucinich? Alan Keyes? Ralph Nader? Those guys' candidacies were only slightly less outlandish than mine, and more than, say, Pat Paulsen's.

03-01-2007, 12:01 PM	#19 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Outlandish is relative and partisan, but I get your point...you're not a fan of public financing. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 03-01-2007 at 12:09 PM..

03-01-2007, 12:22 PM	#20 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Actually, dc_dux, I'm not a fan of making anything "public" that doesn't have to be. I don't have a great deal of faith in politicians or bureaucrats - not because they are evil but because they are human, and humans do strange things when they have power and the wrong kinds of incentives.

03-01-2007, 03:30 PM	#22 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	loquitor...the irony, IMO, is that public financing could very well be the best means for a libertarian like Ron Paul to make a dent in the Republican primary or as a viable third party candidate. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

03-01-2007, 07:03 PM	#23 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	perhaps. but my guess is that a guy like Paul would rather go down swinging than sully himself with govt money. How does that quote go? "what good does it do to gain the world if you lose your soul?"