Say Anything Blog

Hhhmmm....when is he going to start cleaning out the real dirt in the party, Senators married to Lobbyists?

Its on both sides of the aisle but three particularly slimy ones come to mind:

Byron Dorgan’s wife, Lobbyist for Big Insurance - American Council of Life Insurers

Kent Contad’s wife, Lobbyist for Major League Baseball- (clearly not a very good one, given MLBs recent problems), became a lobbyist AFTER her husband became a Senator - how convenient!

Harry Reid - 3 sons, and 1 son-in-law all registered as lobbyists, both in Nevada and lobbying the federal government.

The problem with lobbyists’ money or any other causes of corruption is that the government is too big. 

With the government trying to micromanage nearly every facet of the country the stakes are huge and everybody has to fight to see that they don’t get screwed.

I read that Microsoft had ONE lobbyist before they were attacked by the Clinton inJustice Department.  Now they have a veritable army in Washington to protect their interests.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

But if they filter it through a friend or a spouse, or they’re not lobbying for companies with government contracts…

So a spouse of a lobbyist can not make a donation to the campaign of their choice without it being a smoke screen for money laundering?

Give me a break.  This is just your paranoid mind babbling.  Provide some evidence of the amounts of significant donations that are made from these people that are meant to influence policy.  You can’t and you won’t.

Bullcrap H.

Corporations and foreign governments cannot donate money to political campaigns but they get around it.

What they do is hire lobbyists for huge money.  The lobbyist hires a bunch of people at inflated salaries and expect them and their spouses to donate to Congressmen in order to buy access.

I can’t imagine a sleazier system.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

So a spouse of a lobbyist can not make a donation to the campaign of their choice without it being a smoke screen for money laundering?

This would probably depend on just whose money it was in the first place.  If the non-working spouse of a lobbyist makes a $10,000 donation in her name but from a joint checking account even “ewe” (thanks, Mickey!) would have a difficult time obfuscating the obvious appearance of impropriety.

Similarly, if the lobbyist’s administrative assistant just “happened” to make a $5,000 donation that matched the bonus she just received, the odor would be way stronger than mere sheep dip.

As for “influencing policy” I’ve been working on just such a post on Obama’s less than stellar past.  Stay tuned.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Public financing of elections.

Much like John McCain’s stupid Campaign Finance “Reform” act showed the money will still be there. 

The solution is to limit the size of government and the need to buy off the government will disappear. 

The way to limit the size of government is for people to quit supporting people trying to expand government.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Public financing of elections.

Hawk,

Leaving aside the First Amendment questions for a moment, which taxes would you advocate raising and by how much, in order to pay for your “public financing of elections”?  A poll tax, perhaps?

Or would you instead try to sneak it through as some monstrous earmark?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Publicly financed elections:

1 penny a day per tax payer specifically set aside for elections.

Do the math.

Yes the first amendment issues must be resolved.

Excuse me, you were saying?

1 penny a day per tax payer specifically set aside for elections.

Isn’t that pretty much the same sort of egregious self-delusion that got us into the Social Security mess?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Isn’t that pretty much the same sort of egregious self-delusion that got us into the Social Security mess?

Well, there’s always the typical gop approach:

Excuse me, you were saying?

WTF are you talking about.  The Republicans were ready to reform the social security system and the Democrats blocked it so that when we need to fix it it’ll be too late.

Moron.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Yes the first amendment issues must be resolved.

How exactly would you propose that be done?  Change the 1st amendment to say that people have free speech...except when it comes to supporting their favorite political candidate with cash?

That’s not in keeping with a free society.

The real campaign reform we need is not a restriction on donating money but rather more transparency, and a restriction on politicians only receiving money from people they can actually represent (ND Senators can’t receive money from NY billionaires, for instance).

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

As long as money is important in elections and can influence legislators, people will find a way to contribute.  As you all know, prohibition never works especially where money is concerned. e.g. drug prohibition.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

AND; if I want to spend my money and buy an ad saying to vote against Obama and McCain I have every right to do so.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

The Republicans were ready to reform the social security system…

Wrong. The Bushies tried to destroy Social Security and the Democrats saved it.

At least have the balls to admit you hate Social Security and want to kill it.

If the DNC wants to get the “dirty money” out of politics, it’ll stop taking money from the public sector union that I’m forced to give $1000/year to.

Aside from drug lords and communist spies, that’s the dirties money in politics.

Wrong. The Bushies tried to destroy Social Security and the Democrats saved it.

Another lie, the social security system is a ponzi fraud.  It will soon be broke.

My kids are going to get absolutely ripped off supporting the people that are being lied to by the Democrats including yourself.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Wrong. The Bushies tried to destroy Social Security and the Democrats saved it.

Social Security is going to implode even without any help from Republicans.

At least admit that the program is an utter failure that needs to be scrapped.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

At least admit that the program is an utter failure that needs to be scrapped.

Social Security is an insurance policy that has served generations of Americans in time of need.

Is it perfect? No. Does the system need some adjustment? Yes.

But you folks want to go all “we had to destroy the village in order to save it” on Social Security---and believe me, that dog don’t hunt outside of the right wing echo chamber. Too many voters have parents on Social Security.

Social Security is an insurance policy that has served generations of Americans in time of need.

It’s a lie.  There won’t be enough working people to pay for all of the boomers who retire. 

How shameful. 

But you folks want to go all “we had to destroy the village in order to save it”

Another lie by you.  People getting Social Security now and people soon to retire would have been taken care of.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Social Security is an insurance policy that has served generations of Americans in time of need.

Wrong.  It is a redistributionist welfare pyramid scheme that has sucked billions out of the private sector, and that will require, like all welfare pyramid schemes, ever-increasing amounts of confiscation to appear solvent.  It has been a disaster since its inception, and only serves to buy votes for the corrupt politicians that feed off of it.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Wrong. The Bushies tried to destroy Social Security and the Democrats saved it.

Jack,

Not much on arithmetic, are you?

Actually, for myself I don’t much care one way or another.  But I would like to see my step-kids and their kids, and their kids too have a retirement system that is functional and fully funded.  Nothing the Democrats have offered, including Obama’s idiotic “donut” plan, comes even close too accomplishing that.

To say that its okay to take my money simply because y’all want it and I have it is immoral and obscene.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

politicians only receiving money from people they can actually represent

Doesn’t that have the same free speech issues that you complain about.

I think the Supreme Court got it wrong when the called cash speech.

Social Security is an insurance policy that has served generations of Americans in time of need.

Anyone that relies soley on SS for their retirement is stupid.  With IRAs and 401Ks available for almost every worker, there is every opportunity to sock away some of your income for retirement.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

I think the Supreme Court got it wrong when the called cash speech.

Hawk,

Are you suggesting that “action incident to free speech” isn’t speech?

There are any number of adult establishments in the Atlanta area where a man can go, sit down, enjoy an adult beverage and enjoy watching variously attractive women take off their clothes.  The women get to do this and the men get to stuff currency in the “ladies’” garters in appreciation of their efforts all as an exercise of their respective “free speech” rights.  And if a man is sufficiently smitten, and sufficiently loaded, in both senses of the word, there is no limit to the amount of money he can stuff into those garters.

But if he wants to express his support for the political point of view and partisan efforts of a candidate for public office, surely a far more pertinent and protected exercise of his “free speech” rights, he is legally sanctioned from giving more than the legislature and the courts say he can?

That, Sir, is bullshit, plain and simple!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

There are any number of adult establishments in the Atlanta area where a man can go, sit down, enjoy an adult beverage and enjoy watching variously attractive women take off their clothes.

You know this how?  Next time I’m in Atlanta (or if I am ever in Atlanta besides the airport) I’ve got to have you show me around.

Isn’t it amusing that the lefties like Hawk and McCain are unconcerned about limiting free speech for strippers but are all ready to find ways to limit free speech in political discourse. 

Frightening.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Whistler,

My point exactly!  I can stuff hundred dollar bills into assorted garters all night long… or until the ATM runs dry… and that’s categorized as “free speech.” But if it comes down to supporting a political ideal and a candidate for office, which is unquestionably what the Founders had in mind anyway, all of a sudden my “free” speech options are restricted by the government?

As I said… that’s bullshit!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

You didn’t respond to the first part of my comment.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

You mean the part about how do I know this?

Just lots of practice, I guess.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

I hope you’re wearing the proper eye protection.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

But if he wants to express his support for the political point of view and partisan efforts of a candidate for public office, surely a far more pertinent and protected exercise of his “free speech” rights, he is legally sanctioned from giving more than the legislature and the courts say he can?

Than why can’t a lobbyist give all the money he wants to any congressman.  All he is doing is talking to him.

We legally limit all types of cash transactions.

If money is speech than why are there limits on campaign contributions?

I’m old enough to have already seen more than I would have cared to.  I’m selective about where I spend my assets...including my attention.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

If money is speech than why are there limits on campaign contributions?

Hawk,

You’ve been out of law school longer than to try that sort of rhetorical nonsense.  Especially since you are the one here who apparently supports the limitations.

Actually, it isn’t that “money is speech,” but that the act of contributing is an expression of support.  The court got it wrong on McCain-Feingold, a mistake I seriously doubt the current Roberts court would make given the chance.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”