• If only there was a word for this type of behavior…
• What is a Man?
• Hope for the Future
• A Dedication
• Atlas Blogged
• US Automakers: Rising to the Challenger?
• Global Warming and Eating Storm Crows
• Yet Another Republican Not Voting for McCain
• ReadableLaws
• Music Genome Project
• Another Great Goal
• Rick Nash, Simply Amazing
• Sports Quotables This Week
• A New Law or Smarter Parents?
• Professional Grade Football

• February 2008
• January 2008
• November 2007
• October 2007
• September 2007
• August 2007
• July 2007
• June 2007
• May 2007
• April 2007
• March 2007
• February 2007
• January 2007
• December 2006
• November 2006
• October 2006
• September 2006
• August 2006
• July 2006
• June 2006
• May 2006
• April 2006
• March 2006
• February 2006
• January 2006
• December 2005
• November 2005
• October 2005
• September 2005
• August 2005
• July 2005
• June 2005

« Google's Subpoena | Main | Roe V Wade doesn't matter »

Congress, Corruption, and a Solution

The GOP is taking a beating on this corruption issue. And rightly so - they betrayed the trust of... um... whoever it was in this country that used to trust Congress. Everybody is on their case, including themselves. The candidates for House Majority Leader have weighed in on the issue, and are trying to distance themselves from Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff (see Congress for Sale at QandO). That's awfully hard for most representatives to do, because they are personal friends and relatives and coworkers of the lobbyists. Some members of Congress are married to lobbyists. How is the public supposed to see that relationship?

NPR's Andrea Seabrook notes the Abramoff scandal is just part of a "wider, deeper scandal in Congress":

Those high-profile relationships between big-money lobbyists and congressional leaders have trained public hawkeyes on other instances of quid pro quo -- or the appearance thereof...
The snowball effect has begun. All kinds of relationships members have with lobbyists are under pressure now in ways they have not been since the Republicans seized control of Congress in 1994. Back then, after 40 years of Democratic dominance in the House, one of the GOP's big issues was integrity in office. After a dozen years in power, they find themselves defending their own record on the same issue.

In other words, the problem isn't because of the party in power. The problem is the power itself.

I direct you to an excellent article on the topic by James Ridgeway of the Village Voice:

The proposals for the reform of lobbying announced last week by both parties are window dressing for this year's midterm elections. The measures have nothing to do with reform and should have the overall effect of making people only more angry at the corruption on Capitol Hill.

Absolutely. Ridgeway then goes on to point out the problem with earmarks - the power of a single representative to engage in quid pro quo. Without the power to earmark, it would be useless for a lobbyist to pocket a lone representative on an issue, or a small group. And it wouldn't make sense to stuff their coffers, because they couldn't deliver anything by themselves.

If you are unfamiliar with earmarks, there is a lot of good literature popping up out there. Try listening to this NPR story. But sit down for it unless you are a union member or a card carrying communist. And remember that if you shout at your computer, the people in the audio file cannot actually hear you.

John Fund noted in the WSJ that earmarks

...are often last-minute additions to conference reports that were never considered in the original bills passed by either the House or Senate. They can thus avoid competitive bidding, performance standards or even disclosure of the direct recipient.

To me, it is unbelievable that representatives are defending this. In the United States of America, that is. These guys sound like the villains in an after school special, but it's real.
Fund:

Sens. Tom Coburn and John McCain now plan to challenge every hidden earmark. "If we aren't told who is asking for it, who benefits and its justification, we'll move to strike it," Mr. Coburn told me. He expects many earmarks to be quietly withdrawn rather than face such scrutiny.

Jon Henke at Q and O refers to this as "Sunlight!", but he is right when he says

that's just a stop-gap measure. If the Coburn/McCain challenge works, we ought to institutionalize the sunlight. Yes, I'm referring again to Line Item Budgeting.

Something has to be done. If the right solution is not enacted, the wrong one will be. For example, Ridgeway's article concludes that

The only serious recourse for reform would be a constitutional amendment banning private money from elections and making them completely publicly financed.

That sounds like a proposal that would actually get a lot of support. Be warned.

See Representative Ron Paul's take here: