Democrat ethics reform is as "phony as a two-dollar bill"
Why should they report their earmarks? They're the NEW MAJORITY!
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Democrats — Comments (29) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Senate Democrats have, of course, promised lobbying reform and ethics. They are gearing now, after the 4th of July recess, to try to pick up the pieces of their last try. That's the one that Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, a strong backer of language requiring members to identify their earmarks and certify that the spending will not benefit them financially, made difficult for the Dems to accept.
[H]e is insisting that the House have no opportunity to alter it [this requirement] in conference, a demand the Democratic leadership calls a smokescreen for an attempt to derail the entire ethics reform project.
Why ever would such language – which speaks directly to disclosure, integrity, and Congressional oversight of Congress – give House Dems fits? We could Nancy herself. What about you, Harry Reid? Any comment from famed Nazi Hunter Dick Durbin? What about the man who actually runs the Senate Democrats, Chuckie Schumer, and his partner in pork?
A waste of time. "Oversight" is their smokescreen.
Read More…
What Senator DeMint is doing is blocking the creation of a conference committee to draft the final language of the bill. He is concerned that the earmarks language will be castrated.
The earmark provision is a change in Senate rules, which DeMint argues shouldn’t be part of any conference committee with the House.
“The House has no reason to tinker with Senate rules,” said Wesley Denton, DeMint's spokesman. “The only reason to want to put them in conference is because they intend to change them.”
Harry Reid, as phony as a three-dollar bill, argues, through mouthpiece Jim Manley, that DeMint's assertion is as "phony as a two-dollar bill."
Politco.com's Jeanne Cummings, whom I think I saw on C-SPAN over the weekend, tells us more:
[I]t’s clear many senators are unhappy with a separate proposed requirement that lobbyists disclose how much money they bundle in campaign donations for incumbents and candidates.
Oh, it is, is it? Why would that be? Lobbyists don't like it because it will affect their fundraising. One assumes the Senators might be concerned that the money could be followed. And because it will, of course, affect their fundraising.
Given the Abramoff scandal, publicly opposing those new bundling rules could prompt a costly political backlash for any senator.
So “it’s a pretty good bet there are members on both sides of the aisle who are thrilled” at DeMint’s decision to block creation of a conference committee to hammer out final language for the reform, said Meredith McGehee, an official at the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan group pushing for lobbying reform.
DeMint says he supports the lobbying reform provisions in the package. But he isn’t likely to budge until he gets a promise from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that the new Senate rules on earmarks won’t be watered down or deleted from the final bill.
Call your Senators and demand that they support Jim DeMint and his language on earmarks disclosure. Tell them not to send their bill to conference unless or until such language is guaranteed for the Senate.
Anything less from them would be, to paraphrase Jim Manley, as phony as a three-dollar bill.
[See also this story from January.]
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | Democrats Tee Off With Strippers — Comments (10) »
Democrat ethics reform is as "phony as a two-dollar bill" 29 Comments (0 topical, 29 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
There is a metal recycle shop in Houston who advertises that they will pay you in $2 bills if you'd like. :-)
Mr. Kilmer is referring to a "fiat" two dollar bill, i.e. a currency note that promises a value of two dollars based on absolutely nothing... no certain and set measure of value (such as say gold or silver)... only the government's "good" promise. So that being the case the Dems promise of ethic reforms are phony just like the government's two dollar bill.... no real value or substance.
Jack
The World's Ruined
He could have used a one-dollar bill. All U.S. currency is fiat currency, so none of it has any more substance than the government's say so. So, all paper money is equally as "phony" under this standard as the stated two-dollar bill.
Maybe we should just edit the headline and picture and not get into the metaphysics of money.
There's plenty of folks who would trade two dollar bills for it here in NY.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
He says $2 bill for a reason...
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
Aide to Reid Manley is cleverly saying the allegations and fears by Sen. DeMint are real. He says they are as phony as a 2 dollar bill, and as many posters have noted 2 dollar bills are not phoney.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
Although, I was just defending a loyal Redstater.
That being said, I'm still confused...
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
I included this 'graph:
Harry Reid, as phony as a three-dollar bill, argues, through mouthpiece Jim Manley, that DeMint's assertion is as "phony as a two-dollar bill."
The mistake was Manley's. I was having fun with it but trying not to make it the focus of the story.
wink, wink... nudge, nudge. Too quick for the camera shutter.
Fine post Mr. Kilmer!
Jack
The World's Ruined
Until we have public funding of campaigns (or at least a much greater degree of public funding) we'll continue to have this "Animal Farm" dynamic. If I can use two farm-related analogies in one comment, it's the fox guarding the hen house. There is one philosophy, one religion, shared by all members of Congress: incumbency. And as long as the current system generally favors re-election of incumbents, neither party is in any hurry to change it, posturing notwithstanding.
What do have against the first amendment?
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
What in G-d's name are you talking about?? Tell me how public funding AS AN OPTION for candidates infringes on the First Amendment? We have OPTIONAL matching funds now, by the way.
It is very simple concept, money = expression. If I freely donate my hard earned cash to a candidate. I am freely speaking in favor of their respective candidacy. Under your system I, and other citizens will be deprived of the ability to communicate our support to any given candidate.
My ability to purchase/produce and display signs in support of my favored candidate will have to be prohibited under your scheme otherwise the private donations of individuals will result in a “fundraising advantage” for one a candidate, or worse make that candidate beholden to a special intrest. My ability to throw a diner party in favor or any other gathering in which support for a candidate is given will also have to be baned, or else a candidate might become indebted to the organizer(s) of said gathering. Under your scheme the citizens of the republic will also be prohibited from purchasing air time, buying/making t-shirts, purchasing space/building bilboards, etc. in favor if a candidate because these actions will give a candidate a “fundraising advantage.”
Additionally, you did not utilize the word optional in your earlier comments. You also railed against the “current system,” which more than implies that you were advocating the creation of non-optional system in your precious comments (since our current system includes optional “public financing”). My earlier response is approptriate to the contrext of forced “public financing.”
P.S. Our current federal system of optional “public finacing” is a sad joke upon the industrius taxpayers of this country. A joke that allowed Pat Buchanan and a whole lot of other also rans to steal the hard earned income of taxpayers.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Nice irrelevant rant. OPTIONAL, my friend, OPTIONAL. My guess is that no where in the country, nor under any proposed system, is private fundraising prohibited for any candidate who chooses to opt out of the public finance system and forego public funds. If so, I would strongly oppose it, but I doubt that's the case. Such a system wouldn't have a prayer of surviving a constitutional challenge. Please find me an example of such a system or such a proposal. And it's incredibly presumptuous of you to say that simply because I bemoan our current system and think public funding (or a greater degree of it) would be an improvement, I must be advocating prohibiting private fundraising.
stop this "Animal Farm" dynamic. Public funding, at best, will be neutral between canidates or, at worst, will be even more heavily weighted in favor of incumbents.
Simple. Those in office have a fundraising advantage because they have the power to affect the fortunes of the special interests (unions, particular industries or corporations, etc.). So first of all, these interests have a reason to be "friendly" to incumbents due to their current power. Second, in the House, gerrymandering of districts already means an incumbent has a pretty good chance of re-election, so these interests are smart to get behind someone who is likey to still be there after the election. Third, generally speaking, the folks who have won elections (i.e., incumbents) have shown the ability to attract substantial campaign cash from big contributors, so they are adept at using the current system.
So basically we have a system in which big campaign contributors (via bundlers, PACs, etc.) have an extremely disproportionate impact on who can mount a viable campaign, who wins, what decisions they make while in office, and then their re-election prospects.
It's true that an incumbent generally has an advantage in terms of getting media attention, and also has the franking privilege, but on balance, public funding would generally help challengers by mitigating the fundraising advantage of incumbents.
Having said all that, the main point and justification of public funding in NOT to reduce incumbency. It is to get our elected officials to more truly represent the interests of the people, to bring us closer to de facto "one man, one vote", and to save money for taxpayers and consumers. Incumbency is the reward politicians get for maintaining the current system. It is a symptom, not the cause of the problem. The cause is the current system of mostly private campaign fundraising.
We have had “public funding schemes” at in both state and federal elections in the past, and they were/are not the panacea that you describe.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Straw man alert. I didn't say public funding was a "panacea". I'm saying it would be a substantial improvement. As for specific systems that have been tried, if you want to discuss such systems and their results, go ahead, but be specific about what the systems were, what the results were, and what your sources of information are. And hopefully come up with more than one or two cases (that would be better than nothing, but it would be better to get some info regarding such initiatives overall or info on several cases).
everyone else are.
"Special interest" is merely a perjorative term for those whose politics and/or ideas we disagree with. When you use the term "interests of the people," who decides what interests are interests of the people.
I believe that public funding will not result in more responsive government but in more irresponsible legislators. Having to seek support requires politicians to deal with the various interests of people.
It is not a perfect system but government funding of elections would be worse. Every time I see that phrase "one man, one vote," I add the African correlation "one time." After all, the problem with government funding of elections is government funding of elections. What standards and/or criteria will the government official follow in determining who can be a candidate? We could end up with the system currently used in China and Iran - only officially permitted candidates.
Re: ""Special interest" is merely a perjorative term for those whose politics and/or ideas we disagree with. When you use the term "interests of the people," who decides what interests are interests of the people."
Let's not be silly or throw out talking points without substance. You know what I mean by "special interests". Yes, some large campaign contributors (bundlers, PACs, etc.) represent large segments of people and some are funded at a grassroots level, but even those use campaign contributions to gain DISPROPORTIONATE influence over the outcome of elections and the decisions of office holders, and many special interests represent only very narrow segments (e.g., a particular industry or corporation), and their influence is wildly disproportionate and is at the expense of the vast majority of Americans. Are we clear on that?
Re: "I believe that public funding will not result in more responsive government but in more irresponsible legislators. Having to seek support requires politicians to deal with the various interests of people."
No, having to rely on large campaign contributors corrupts legislators (and presidential candidates). Reducing or eliminating the need for large contributors would leave one imperative: to convince constituents that their interests are being represented, to do so on a level playing field rather than with a fundraising advantage and ability to purchase more TV time (etc.), and to do it in a competition in which neither candidate has a need to skew positions to those special interests.
Re: "It is not a perfect system but government funding of elections would be worse. Every time I see that phrase "one man, one vote," I add the African correlation "one time." After all, the problem with government funding of elections is government funding of elections. What standards and/or criteria will the government official follow in determining who can be a candidate? We could end up with the system currently used in China and Iran - only officially permitted candidates."
Whoa, hyperbole alert! We could simply offer the same multiple of public funds to private funds to all candidates (e.g. $10 public funds for every $1 raised privately, up to the limit for anyone who wishes to participate in the system and receive these public funds), or some evidence of minimal support could be required (e.g., petition signatures). In any case, participation in the system would be voluntary. It should just be made so attractive that no serious candidate would want to opt out of it (the limit would be set high enough that no candidate would benefit from opting out).
Got any more talking points or wild assumptions?
in your basic premise that election funding is a fantastic bargain / boondoggle and the general taxpayer should be reaping those rewards.
There is another element that you havn't touched upon which is that 30 years ago significant portions of the Democrat funding came from union interests. However, unions in general and unions in the private sector in particular have been declining in membership / influence. What this means is that most of the Democrat funding today comes from largely the same corporate sponsors as the Republican party.
Obviously, being pro business I would have little problem with that except for two reasons: One, that the corporate structure is globalizing at a frenetic pace. How can the interests of Coca Cola be synonymous with the interests of the American people when most of their profits come from non US sales (we don't let overtly foreign interests "invest" in our election system, but we sure as hell have the door wide open for covertly letting interests with questionable national allegiance get involed). And two, a small part of me thinks that when you have two parties getting their money and hence "legislative priorities" from the same general pool the debate is stiffled and we might end up with fewer ideas being bandied around in the political spheres. Fewer ideas leads to less creativity and potential atrophying.
Isn't the phrase "phony as a three-dollar bill?" Two-dollar bills are quite real, if somewhat rare.