Just a reminder, Andrew Hurst, running in VA 11th CD against Tom Davis is accepting no PAC money.

I completely agree.  Now is the time to show that this won't be business as usual.  Tell these "fair-weather" friends to hit the damn road.

Also, frankly, it would tend to demoralize the troops (the Dem base) to get into bed with K Street. This would be a really fundamentally stupid idea in an election that is probably going to be all about getting out your base. I don't see the upside to this other than money- and what's money going to do for you if you dont have the peo on the ground willing to vote for you?

Another vote for showing K street the door.  Amusingly enough, Delay's K street project may provide an additional reason for our representatives to say no.  As a Democratic lawmaker, do you really think it's a wise idea to take money from K street, which has been packed ideologically by republicans?  Especially when information on an embarrassing donation might "leak" at an unfortunate time during your next election?  

The Republicans made K street their own, let them have it.

... it would be good politics. You don't need the K Street money RIGHT NOW to win. If you win without it, when they come grovelling to you after you can say "haha you have no leverage! Now stop funding Club for Growth/CATO or you're out in the cold."

Negotiate from a position of strength, make them BEG YOU to take their money.

Perhaps force the telcos to support net neutrality?

I completely disagree.  The cold wind from K St. hurts the Democratic party in many, many ways.  Yes, some candidates should not take money and yes we don't want to become beholden to them (we won't).

But, we want and need to get back in at least partial control of K St. institutions. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they won't continue to exist.  Thanks to Delay key players like the RIAA, the Chamber, and others have gone over to the dark side and that hurts and doesn't help us.

I know that many would like to change the corporate power structure of this country but -- until that happens -- it is in all of our interest (anyone who wants progressive legislation to happen) to make sure K St goes back to being as bipartisan as possible.

Great idea!

However I think we will see hell freeze over first.  The dems won't be able to resist.

Agreed. K Street has no principles, and they're showing it now. Besides, what happened to the public good? These folks are mostly fat-cat corporate lobbyists taht will screw us, the people, and the Democratic party if that's what it takes to keep their lucrative lobbying contracts.

They're playing the game. We should change the rules.

It's the system, stupid! For far too long we've blamed individuals for being corrupt. And they are, but it's institutional corruption of the system that's the real problem.

Of course Democrats will almost immediately start selling us out if they are elected. That's a given. What is needed in America is a long-term grass-roots lobbying effort to ban corporate money from politics. Don't get surprised or upset, just organize and fight it!

It's not the politicians, it's us. It's our democracy and our repsonsibility to hold politicians' feet to the fire between elections and make campaign finance reform a key issue.

Of course, it starts with electing a majority of Democrats since the Republicans' won't even take our calls and are totally hostile to everything we want. But, then we have to keep ratcheting up the pressure on every Democratic official to stop the money train.

And when some of them sell us out, and they will, we have to focus intense scrutiny on them -- just as we did with Senator "Bridge-to-Nowhere."

And if we take back Congress in 2006, Phase II of the endless war on bribery and influence peddling will begin in earnest. But it can't even begin until we win.

As Jesse Unruh said, "If you can't take their money, drink their booze, eat the food, screw their wives and still say no to them, you don't belong in the business."  Or, rather to ad my collorary: K Street money, unlike the netroots, is a fixed amount, more or less.  So the more money from K Street that goes to Dems, the less goes to the GOP.  In addition, you never know when you'll need these guys.

One point:  we're a long way from governing.  We might take the House, but that puts us in a position to carry on guerilla warfare, not to govern.  

When we talk about freezing out the K street lobbyists are we also talking about the lobbyists who work for unions and environmental and women's groups?  

How about Senator Snerd from Iowalaska where the leading industry is cornpone manufacturing?  Does he refuse to take money from the Cornpone Association?  Does he refuse to meet with their lobbyists?

I think this is a very simplistic answer to a complicated issue.  Are all lobbyist bad because this is what they do for a living?  Are all PACs bad?  Remember there are plenty of progressive groups that have both lobbyists and PACs.  Unions, for one, come to mind.  Throwing these generic terms around paints everyone with the same brush.

Should Dems turn money away from businesses with whom they agree?  How about Dems who have fought for net neutrality and get offered PAC money from Google and Yahoo?  Should they say no to it?  Is this selling out?  There are a lot of areas of gray here.

I think the current campaign finance system is legalized bribery and needs to be radically changed.  However, I am also realistic enough to know that you have to play the game with system that exists.

I do have a problem with Dems who take money from businesses with whom they disagree (oil cos for example) just because they are about to assume power.  I don't have a problem with Dems who take from businesses with whom they agree.  Being a business is not inherently bad.  Dems should use some descretion from whom they take money.

You know that sick fuck from Thailand? The one that wanted the sex-change operation when he wasn't confessing to killing the five-yer-old beauty queen in Colorado? That guy?

If he sent me a $10 contribution, I'd sent it back, but I'd have to bite my lip hard to do it.

To turn down money and then walk into a brawl with THIS Republican Party? To be called a terrorist-loving, flag-burning baby killer and not be able to answer back?

No me.

However, if the Democrats said "no" to lobbyists today and win without them -- which, again, is a real possibility -- then the party will have a mandate to govern in the way it sees fit.

Excuse me, but unless I just woke up in a vastly different world, campaigns still run on cold, hard CASH. You can claim a mandate to govern in the way you see fit, but you still have to get your ass out there and campaign to get elected (or re-elected).

Until there is public financing of campaigns, lobby and PAC money is necessary for Democrats to retain office. Period! Unless you know of a secret ATM that donors refill on a nightly basis, that cold hard cash flowing out of K Street is a fact of life.

I'm in agreement with MNPundit and Scientician - operate from a position of strength, get those lobbyists working for you rather than the other way around. Be judicious and thoughtful - trying to save Northwestern forests? Tell the lumber lobbyists that until the industry uses better harvesting techniques and embraces genuine reforestation, they can expect little from you.

And then cash the check anyway. Or not. Only your fundraising manager and your conscience can be your guide. But know that those dollars are itching to be spent, and they can be spent on you or your opponent.

But "for the good of the party," don't cut off a  foot when you are trying to run a race.

-GFO

About as much chance of happening as the "just say no to drugs" campaign in the 80s.

The Democratic Party cannot afford to reject contributions from K Street. Do you know why the Republicans are such strong closers? Because when our candidates run out of money 2 weeks before the election, their candidates still have millions of dollars. They then proceed to unleash the full fury of their warchests and swamp us as the election draws to a close. We need to stay competitive in the fundraising race. We need K Street money.

Open Secrets summarizes contributions by industry going back to the 1990 cycle.

Defense is pretty typical, as I recall: split around 2:1 GOP since 1996, equally in 1990, 59% and 54% in 1994 and 1992.

Lobbyists' contributions - some may be surprised to learn - have been altogether more skewed in favor of the Dems: around 3:1 for 90-94, equally 96-04, dipping to 42:57 GOP for the 06 cycle so far.

So the idea that Dems have foresworn lobbyists' contributions in the past seems to be bunk.

Moreover, I'd be fairly sure that Dems, if they win, will want a K Street Project of their own (their own Tony Coelho invented the concept, after all!).

It's really the equivalent of the old-style machine patronage: the Dems have a bunch of bright guys and gals who need moolah and contacts to get on in the party. Lobbyists (and their clients) have moolah, and want to do favors (not to mention have back channels to their legislators).

I'd not knock it: as others have said, the root corrupting factor in US politics is the shedload of cash it requires to get elected: and since there's no feasible way of changing that (not in this universe), we'd better not let the best be the enemy of the good.

Because there ain't no best available.