Jack Abramoff and Whatsisname
Ethics reforms put in place since the influence-peddling scandal surrounding high-rolling lobbyist Jack Abramoff haven’t cleaned up the system “at all,” a now-free Abramoff says.
Abramoff served three and a half years in prison for conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion before his release last December. In an interview…he said the reforms imposed after his guilty plea have little effect while campaign finance remains untouched.
“You can’t take a congressman to lunch for $25 and buy him a hamburger or a steak or something like that,” he said. “But you can take him to a fund-raising lunch and not only buy him that steak, but give him $25,000 extra and call it a fund-raiser — and have all the same access and all the same interactions with that congressman…”
The high-flying Republican lobbyist pleaded guilty to a raft of federal corruption charges in 2006 and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors investigating Washington influence-peddling. He admitted illegally showering gifts on officials who provided favors for his clients in a probe that led to convictions or guilty pleas for 20 lobbyists and public officials — including Ohio GOP congressman Bob Ney and Stephen Griles, the Bush administration’s deputy interior secretary.
Abramoff was the champion of gaming a system designed by corrupt corporate ideologues – agreed to nowadays by Democrats, Republicans and the Supreme Court. You can always count on the consistency of American politicians.
Good Morning,
Today I get to vote and to do my best to keep my home and yard a little cleaner by voting. We live on planet earth and god has asked each of us to do our part to keep his garden clean and secure.
Including keeping the trash out of Congress.
Throw out all the non-representative trash out of Washington.
We need government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE.
Right now, we only have a bunch of wannabe 1%ers trying to make sure that the 99% pay for the billions they shovel at the 1% while raking off their own millions.
They can all burn in Effigy, which should be a suburb of Buffalo in upstate New York.
Political system fell into the shitter big time when Karl Rove proved that sheeple do indeed respond to Swift Boat tactics.
As a consequence, his new business, Karl Rove & Company, an Austin-based feather and tarring firm that uses the UNLIMITED money corporations provide to buy elections.
I think it becomes qualitatively worse with the advent of Newt the Toot – in 1994 – when limits on lobbyists were lifted.
The genesis of this phenomenon in the current generation was Judge Bork. Newt stepped it up a notch and Rove has just taken it to new levels. Apparently President Obama is no better. His campaign promise of no lobbyists has turned out to be a campaign lie…
Nice sweep under the rug of the issue.
The fact is, in order to operate in the polluted political environment created by the pukes, you have to fight fire with fire.
Lobbying is only a problem because politicians control so much money.
Remove the incentive, remove the money.
Too late to remove the money. Your pal, George W, installed a Supreme Court that ruled to allow UNLIMITED money to flow from corporations to elect politicians.
Not only that, it can be done ANONYMOUSLY. Too late to bitch and moan about money.
Did I mention it’s UNLIMITED money?
One thing you didn’t mention is the court ruling applied to unions too. But since they support the Dims they must be OK.
Are you saying Dems are supposed to like an insipid ruling because unions might benefit from it too? That doesn’t make any sense.
The ruling was terrible.
Period.
It’s not good for anybody.
No, but if the unions had lost the ability to bribe, you know there would have bee Hell to pay.
I agree it is bad. But you have to ask yourself– why would corporations wish to bribe?
I wasn’t talking about lobbying money. I’m talking about the federal budget. If the pOliticians didn’t control so much mOney, the lobbyists wouldn’t have incentive to pay that money.
If you like a big government, you have to deal with the evils that come with it.
Don’t apologize now. You voted in a moron that allows corporations to buy legislation with unlimited money.
The question now is how are you going to explain that to your children down the road?
Typical.
Lobbyists: a necessary evil. However, as I have advocated before, they CAN be controlled. Lobbyists are only allowed to interact with members of Congress, their staff or relatives, in audio/video-monitored “prison”-style visiting areas. Offering ANY incentive to vote for the lobbyist’s client is punishable by a life sentence without parole. Accepting ANY incentive to vote for the lobbyist’s client is punishable by death.
I know, I know. Too liberal???
Our politicians are equipped with the morals of gutter cats.
The problem with republics is the same as with monarchies. After a while, the noble intentions at the start are as dead as the noble individuals which founded the kingdom or the republic. (The methods of creation for either are equally bloody.)
If we want a representative government, we’ll have to create it.
The first thing we do is change from an elected to a selected form of government.
Pick names out an eligible citizen pool and they’re stuck with doing the job for one, and only one, four year term.
There is no such thing as a career in politics. (The only thing worse than getting stuck with somebody who didn’t want the job is getting stuck with some idiot who did.)
Eligibility requirements are:
• were you born here or are you a naturalized citizen?
• are you a permanent resident in a village, town or city within our borders?
• are you above the age of 25?
• are you healthy enough? (you don’t suffer from any clinical health issue(s) or mental impairment(s) which would prevent you from fulfilling your duties?)
• have you never served on the government before?
• have you never been found guilty of a violent crime?
• have you never been found to be clinically insane?
Answer yes to all of these questions, you’re eligible for selection.
Don’t want to be bothered?
Go live elsewhere!
That would get rid of all PACs, K Street lobbyists, a lot of graft, waste and expense that WE’RE all paying for.
Lobbyist influence and power is inversely proportional to the skill and brains of the politician in question.
Lobbyists influence is directly proportional to the greed of the slime bag he’s buying.
All professional politicians are whores.
Just end politicians elections and go for selection from an eligible list and we’ll be done with all of this shit.
Pod the flaw of your logic is the intelligence of the average person.
1. The majority of the population is functionally illiterate.
2. The majority is easily distracted by shiny objects.
3. The majority could be bought cheaper then the average politician.
4. The majority is out for what they can get and fuck the other guy.
Hell it would appear that politicians are average folk after all.
Your concept would simply make it easier for the lobbyist to control the population even further.
You have no idea how things work and really want to screw this country over.
This would increase PACs and K street lobbyists power 100 fold. Since you would have idiots running this country having no idea what they’re doing.
This country was founded by people of power and money. The King of England screwed with them and they rebelled.
USA now in post-imperial oligarchy-gangster-surveillance-police state phase. The constitution which made the US the best nation in the world is slowly being phased out in favor of cybernetic-technological management.
I saw the whole interview. Probably on the net somewhere–worth the look. He was honest and direct about everything—except maybe about how he thought he was doing gods work all along until he got arrested. Ha, ha. I suppose that could be honest for a religious douche bag.
Yes, our system is corrupt==bought and paid for by money. Its done in the open. We all can see it. Just look. Just LOOK!
It would not be hard to separate lobbying from giving money. Lobbying–ie informing and educating the politicians is one function. Raising money is a different function. There would still be lying and cheating and winking and nodding but it would still be an impediment to doing it out in the open. Think of it like taking a shit. Isn’t it better that this is done in private?
I’ll restate was was said above: the lobbyist HAVE NO POWER. Its all about the corrupt greed of our politicians. Think that whenever you hear our media talk about “the power” of lobbyists. Think that whenever ANY politician makes a statement. They all accept lobbyist money. They are all corrupt.
And its all done in public—right in front of our faces. Supreme Court approved and everything. Next the Circus. Then the deluge.
Yea, verily.
I love how the lefties like eideard get their panties in a bunch when you don’t refer to obama as PRESIDENT obama, but you can call FORMER PRESIDENT Bush ‘Whatsisname’. Oh, and i figure you meant ‘WhatsHisName’ but Eideard was probably blinded by Bush’s greatness….
President Obama is spelled with a capital O.
Please make note of that
#16–Mad Indeed==can you list a couple of BushtheRetards greatest accomplishments?
We will all wait.
How about the PEPFAR program? Even you and Dallas should find something good in that blowhard.
Lobbying is a constitutional right.
I used to agree with McConnell that politicians aren’t going to be bought by a lunch or a beer, but I’m finding the current Abramoff persuasive, ban it all. More importantly get rid of the congressional junkets.
Even more important, reduce the power of government, so you reduce the impact of lobbying. If there is an 800 billion dollar stimulus package, of course people are going to try and get a piece of that. Look at all those green jobs companies that got hundreds of millions by giving a few donations.
Bingo.
So here is a crook pushing a book and we should believe him?
Best left totally ignored. A book only an asshole will buy.
Totally agree. I felt dirty enough watching the movie! And I don’t think he profited from that.
ReadyKilowatt “Term limits. Again, would require amending the constitution.”
I’m not a Constitutional lawyer (or even an unconstitutional one) but I think you’re wrong. You only amend if you want the change to be permanent and immutable. You could pass an ordinary bit of legislation to limit terms. So, a decade later, if it turns out that three terms in the House and two in the Senate was too much? Easy enough to change. An Amendment, not so much.
#26—Oh My, dear animby===I’ve had 4 beers and I question my sobriety after reading what I took to be your post…………re read…..nope, just as silly as before.
So, you think the constitution can be amended by a law because the law can be changed easier/more quickly than an amendment? THEN WHY HAVE A CONSTITUTION?????
Ha, ha. I don’t think I’m the only one drinking tonight.
Animby=====say it ain’t so?
>You could pass an ordinary bit of legislation to limit terms.
Umm, no you can’t. Only Clarence Thomas was willing to support the idea that a state can put term limits on its Senators and Congressmen
Have a look at the 60 minutes interview of him on the subject. (14min clip)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CHiicN0Kg10
he’s almost laughing throughout all of it.
-most likely well compensated for taking the fall.
-s
Why does he wear suits that are three sizes to big?
Bobbo & FormatSux :
I don’t know what you two read but it certainly wasn’t what I wrote.
Ready suggested it would be necessary to amend the Constitution to limit terms. I believe it is NOT necessary to amend, you could simply pass a law. Once in the Constitution it is very difficult to change. So why put it there? Most laws are extra-constitutional. The Constitution outlines fundamentals, federal law codifies and specifies. Sober up, Bobbo, and we’ll revisit this, if necessary, when your alcoholic haze clears.
PS – how can you get so off on only four beers? You drink imported 15% Belgian stuff?
FormatSux? I can’t even reply to your comment since it has nothing at all to do with what I wrote. I said nothing about a state passing a limiting law. I’m sure it’s just a problem with Dvorak’s ROTTEN NEW FORMAT for this blog.
#33–Animby==my not too subtle point was that even when drunk, I make more sense than you do. What is any “constitution”? === Its the SUPREME LAW of the land. Why can’t Little Rock maintain segregated schools by local easy to change State Law?===because it violates the Constitution. Why can’t Alabama outlaw abortion?==because it violates the Constitution. Why can’t Washington DC pass reasonable gun/carry restrictions?==because it violates the Constitution. Why can’t police do a sweep of Zuccotti Park and remove the Protesters?===because it violates the Constitution.
Laws passed by Congress can only be consistent with the Constitution–NOT VIOLATIVE OF IT.
Gee Whiz Animby–what are you doing, trying out for Jay Leno’s Sidewalk Interviews? Which Ocean is on the West Coast of the USA? Which is colder: ice water or hot coffee?
Is there an MRI anywhere near you? Tell the tech you need to calibrate it and see if that dark area is growing.
PS–It strikes me you might be thinking that the “non-violative” part of the Constitution is only the Bill of Rights? All my examples above come from the BoR===but the rest of the Constitution has the same important.
Remember the 15 conversations we have had decrying the Commerce Clause? Thats the Constitution too—no state laws affective Interstate Commerce allowed as it is reserved to the Feds UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
My drinking was only a very polite way to give you an out. Instead, you locked the door and nailed your open toed sandals to the floor.
Poor Animby. Jungle Rot.
Bobbo. How dare you attack me – incorrectly in a beer goggle haze. You are indeed F’d up. Both you and FormatSux are equating state and local laws wiht my suggestion of passing a law. I said NOTHING about states doing anything. You bring up the Commerce Clause. Okay, let’s go from there: WHERE, exactly, does it say ANYTHING in the commerce clause about health care? Nowhere, Dodo. They passed a law citing the Commerce Clause as AUTHORITY but they didn’t amend the durned Constitution! Are you so over the legal driving limit you can’t understand that simple concept? Or have you simply fallen back into your idiotic ways of challenging anything and everything, no matter how dumb it makes you look?
Election of the Senate and the House is detailed in Article One of the document, I believe. But the only term limits set are in the 22nd Amendment, added after Roosevelt decided he would be King. It’s too bad they didn’t set term limits for the rest of the gubbmint then, too. But the Congress was already populated by career politicians by that time and of course they weren’t going to cut their own throats. Just as they won’t now no matter how often the people they represent ask for term limits.
We have the best Government Corporate Money can buy !!! Get the Corporate Money out of politics and we might have a chance a Democracy, otherwise CORPORATE FASCISM WILL BE THE RULE OF LAW !!! Lady Liberty weeps !!!
40–Animby==3-4 shotgun blasts and not a single hit. Not a nip. Not a graze. The beast remains standing in front of you.
There really is no overlap of law and medicine is there.
Ha, ha.
ONLY because you don’t like it, but may take heed, actually, let’s mini parse:
xxxxxxxOH CRAP===DVORAK FIX THIS BLOG.
I’m not so anal that I’m going to page refresh 4-5 times just to educate those who have trained themselves into a cul de sac.
Animby==when you post that states should make laws regarding how to elect Senators, you are talking about states making laws.
When people don’t move from state to state because they don’t want to lose their health benefits, that impacts commerce. In fact, people moving is commerce as well. We both disagree with the over application of the CC, but that admits of its reality. When the cost of healthcare affects international competitiveness, that is an over application of the CC.
Do you confuse that with which you disagree with that which you don’t think is true? So many do. Bad logic that.
DVORACK: FIX THIS BLOG====AND VOTE ALL “NO NEW TAXES” POLITICIANS OUT OF OFFICE. BUT MOSTLY===FIX THIS BLOG.
There simply were no corporations, when the US Constitution was first drawn up. So there never was any provisions thought of to deal with their influence. And it might be argued that corporations were created for just that reason. So exploit the loopholes that didn’t deal with their actions. And of course, before any shortcomings in the law could be fixed, said corporations had already corrupted politicians minds against such reform.
The biggest business entity of the 18th century was the East India Company. Which handled most of the trade goods across the Atlantic. And unfortunately, imported slavery as “goods” to America. And yet England and the Dutch rarely seem to get blamed for that anymore. Just America. So slavery was the results of the very first pre-corporate large commercial entity. Controlled mainly by the royals of England. Whose interests superseded any rights, anyone else thought them had, or deserted. And that’s pretty much what modern day corporations are doing now. Getting their “vote” in Congress, everyday, between the elections.
You are mistaken about the long history of corporations. The concept goes back to ancient Rome and India, The church became a corporation in Medieval Europe. The first strictly commercial corporation was Stora Kopparberg, a mining company in Scotland in 1347. In our country fur companies from England exploited the fur trade and had to be consolidated to one company because of the fights for territories between companies. The British East India Company was given a 15 year monopoly in Africa and the East Indies on 12-31-1600 and was selling stocks by 1613. The Dutch East India was chartered in 1602. The corporation was integral in colonialism world wide.
A favorite old Tv show of mine is “It Takes A Thief”. A spy thriller of a sort. Where a highly skilled thief, ends up working for the US government, in some fictional dept called the SIA. Anyway, the idea was that a skilled thief/con-artist would do better at retrieving microfilm and such, from foreign powers, than regular government trained employees. Which is something of a joke today. As many of them are some of the biggest, most successful thieves ever. But of the domestic taxpayers’ money. Not of stolen goods, in the hands of foreign powers.
So apparently what Abramoff has come to represent, is the “it takes a thief, to know one” mentality of the media. And he’ll be idolized (rather than reviled) as an expert on how to fix the problems in government, he once exploited (and probably helped create). That’s a bit like hiring the fox, to guard the hen house against other foxes. Or hire ex-bank robbers to guard banks. What makes no sense at all, in the latter cases. Always seem to make acceptable sense in the former (fixing Congress) case. You’d be better off hire The Three Stooges to fix all the pluming leaks in the Congress building. Than to hire Abramoff to fix all the financial leakage in there.