"Democrats, Corruption & the Difference Between Two Washingtons"

By David Sirota

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/ind ex.cfm?mode=entry&entry=F8A66FF3-E0C 3-F084-DEB68EF1BE865205

Amen and hallelujah.

I've looked at the various earmark proposals in some detail and read the debate in the Congressional Record from yesterday.  I don't think there's a real reason to be upset with Reid, other than that in procedural terms the Dems kind of came off like Amateur Hour yesterday.

The fact is that Reid's earmark reform bill, and the Republican amendment which is based on Nancy Pelosi's House reform, both have their good points.  For example, without going into too much detail, the Republican version would have defined a much bigger class of earmarks.  In some cases, this is good - for instance, the Republicans argued that the very earmarks Duke Cunningham got busted for wouldn't be covered by Reid's definition.  On the other hand, the Democrats argued that it goes way overboard and that, for instance, standard disbursements for global AIDS fighting would get labelled as "earmarks" by the broad definition, resulting in a lot of waste and bureaucracy.

On the flip side, Reid's bill called for all earmarks to be publicized on the Internet 48 hours in advance of a vote.  That's pretty awesome and the Republican bill wouldn't have done this.  Also, Reid's bill not only counts expenditures as earmarks, it also counts targeted tax breaks as earmarks.  That's important because obviously, you can either give someone a million dollars in free money or a million-dollar tax break, and it costs us taxpayers the same amount either way.

And Reid was a little upset because his staff and the Republican staff had worked for a long time trying to come up with the definitions, and he felt like the Republicans were mucking it all up with a political stunt that would have messed up a lot of the carefully-crafted language, even though the overall result might have been better in some ways.  As things cooled down, it seems like a deal got worked out, and for all I know we ended up with the best of both worlds.

I know very few of us are interested in digging down into the details of these issues, but the bottom line is I think it's a big mistake to see this as a good vs. evil debate with Reid cast in the evil role.  It's just not that simple.

...that Reid has ended his opposition.

It would be like single payer healthcare for the usual suspects in that field, only it would affect every industry.

Matt is absolutely right that, whatever goo-goo reforms are passed, the money will find its way into the pols' hands because their need for cash is so great.

But the amount of paid media that would be targeted at a Federal clean elections bill that looked as if it might go somewhere would make Harry and Louise look small potatoes indeed.

Bear in mind that all of those whose votes would be needed to pass clean elections would have taken money that was - not clean - to get elected in the first place.

My understanding - from here, mostly - is that the only state with a history of notably dirty elections in which a clean elections law has been enacted is MA - and they voted to get rid of it after five years in 2003!

Thank goodness, Matt, that you are speaking out against knee-jerk "progressive" endorsement for procedural tinkering at the edges of the election process. This stuff ALWAYS screws the underdog, and that is us. Going all the way, clean elections, seems to actually work. We need to support nothing less.

Try to restrict campaign contributions and the SCOTUS makes it equivilent to free speech.  So, maybe for now, we can't restrict contributions.  But we sure as hell can restrict the taking of campaign contributions by members of either body and if we did, watch how fast every last one of them would line up for public financing.

It is a straight foreward conflict of interest to vote on any measure which would accrue to the benefit of anyone who has  provided a benefit of any kind, including campaign contributions, to the member who is voting...and that would include contributions by the member himself. And any member with such a conflict could easily be prohibited from voting, as a sanction..  That would include all members on all measures, basically.  And that should be the rule.  And if enacted as part of each body's own internal governing rules, it would be beyond the Supreme Court's power to intervene.  

We can do this. But only if the elected Democratic members stop playing games and stop crying crocadile tears. Of course the Republicans could reverse the rule if they took power again, but hard to do without wads of corporate and executive campaign contributions!

I agree with most of the post although public financing is not a cure all.  It makes things better and reduces the influence of lobbyist although they still manage to gain access through PACs and other methods.

THe important thing that public financing does is to open the process to those of modest means and those who can raise some money but not necessarily raise $25K per week.  In an age when more and more members of Congress are independently wealthy, giving access to elective office for those who aren't is where I really beleve public financing makes a difference.

I think the lobby reform proposals, while nice in nature, are largely PR BS which are unenforceable and will have little impact on the system.

I support the earmark proposals because I generally believe in open government and believe people have a right to know where their money is being spent.  I am not sure how much they will actually impact actions but letting people know who is asking for what earmark is a good idea.

No need for the slams on Common Cause and Public Citizen.  Both have been calling for public financing of campaigns a lot longer than you've been on the scene.

Putting aside what you think of the ethics/earmark reforms, pushing for them will not preclude working for public financing.  Ethics will be over next week - the push for public financing is already happening, with Durbin, with Common Cause and others.  Watch for it and help out.

I have to say poor form calling out Public Citizen and Common Cause as these decrepit 70's dinosaurs of activism.

When you go to the Common Cause web page, the first thing you see today is their support of net neutrality. The bulk of the info on their website seems to be on voting rights. Antiquated 70's ideas like expanding voting day and allowing same-day voter reg.

But, on both the PC and CC site, they fully embrace public financing of elections.

From Public Citizen's work on CFR:
Public Citizen has long been committed to bringing about comprehensive campaign finance reform. The best and most comprehensive reform is voluntary public financing of all federal elections where candidates have strong incentives to replace private money with public funding.

And then, from Common Cause:
Common Cause strongly supports public financing of elections.  It is a proven way to give voters more control over government, make politicians accountable to their voters rather than their campaign contributors, and level the playing field by giving all citizens a fair shot at getting elected.

Our most recent victories were in Connecticut (December 2005) and Albuquerque (October 2005). We are actively involved in campaigns in California, Maryland, New Mexico, and Tennessee.

So Matt, what the hell are you talking about? If you're going to trash groups, you better at least be right about it.