The K Street project was really the beginning of the end for the GOP, IMHO. Installing all those DeLay staffers, using lobbying contributions to build party front groups or just line pockets, a la Abramoff/Norquist etc. My question is whether business interests still think they have too much to gain from continued GOP control or whether they are beginning to smell a change that would give more power back to the Dems. After all, even if the GOP keeps the House and Senate, margins are going to be razor-thin. Maybe 5 seats in the House, 2 in the Senate. In that climate they will need to peel off Dem votes or lose. So will the trade associations and corporations start being bipartisan again? And after a few exposures like Tyco, perhaps a few companies will get tired of being shaken down by the GOP?

I agree this is very important, but it needs to be boiled down to a simple narrative, rather than everyone being well versed in the details:

â€As the GOP ascended to power, they started insisting that companies give only to them, and in return they would pass business-friendly legislation. They did, and the GOP obliged. This was done on a scale far beyond what the Democrats ever did. Now we are neck-deep in debt and it turns pout many of those Congressmen and their aides and allies were simply on the take. Several have bene indicted for corruption and more surely will be. You have to go back to the Harding or Grant Administrations to see corruption like this.â€

Point well taken, Mimikatz. This needs to be an easy story.

I’ve fantasized that the business capitulation to GOP will end up making it a lot easier for Dems to limit corporate influence in politics, if and when we start to wield power again. After all, we’re going to have to do it without the big donors. Some big donors (by no means all) think HoHo is bad for their business and they’re not giving. Well, guess what? We might succeed anyway. And if we do, we’ll even have a window of time to re-regulate money in politics, before the Dems get so craven that they’ll never buy in.

It’s mostly fantasy, but it’s a nice thought.

My more moderate hope is that Sumner Redstone will live to regret his very public break from the Dems to support Bush last year. The Telecommunication Act of 1996 happened because Dems (including my own well-loved Dingell) were disproportionately funded by telecoms and media companies. But that’s changing along with Sumner’s voting habits.

And to me, being from Texas, probably the worst example of the K Street project is that of one Drew Maloney.

Maloney is not in trouble at the moment, but here is who he is. He is a former chief of staff with Tom deLay. Keep that in mind.

Now, every state gets 2 Senators to lobby on behalf of the state’s interest. Texas has something called the â€Office of State/Federal Relationsâ€. I do not know if other states have such an office. The OSFR is overseen by the Gov, the Lt. Gov and the Speaker of the House – all Republicans.

Drew Maloney was twice awarded a $180,000 6 month contract to lobby on behalf of the state of Texas in DC (2 such contracts were awarded, the other went to a former Kay Bailey person). Note also that Maloney’s renewal for this sweetheart contract happened at about the same time as Tom deLay paid a visit to Perry and Craddick on redistricting.

So, what does this mean or â€so what†– it means a few possible things:

1) The Texas Republican leadership considers their 2 Senators, Kay Bailey and John Cornyn, to be incapable of meeting their duty to get all that Texas needs to get out of Washington – I like the idea of a public debate on their competence, but not a likely outcome;

2) An alternative, The Texas Republican leadership feels so safe with their power that they can toss a $360,000 bone to a deLay man for services redundant/similar to the duties of a Senator (ie, lobby and represent the interests of the State of Texas);

3) Or, Tom deLay has such a grip on Texas politics that he can squeeze this out of the State Republican party when clearly our 2 esteemed Senators should be able to handle the job; and last

4) This is a terrible precedent for the K Street project. Should other states develop similar programs, think about what might happen – the states with the most cash get: a) the best lobbyists, and b) the lobbyists of the party in power. State’s with liberal Senators are diminished in stature and the Senate as an institution becomes a farce.

So, with that in mind, I would consider it a great favor, and you in the blue states would be doing yourselves a favor, if we got the open source research going and see what we could dig up about Drew Maloney.

Is he tied to Abrimoff? What other bad things has he done (his lobbying firm touts him as being ahead of the curve on interviewing Lewinsky and managing the impeachment).

C’mon – what else were you doing today?

Thanks,
Tug

This is an issue that is almost taylor made for Democrats as a 2006 national campaign theme — major lobby reform. There are a number of good goverment groups that have well worked over proposals, so I’ll only mention a few. But it really is the next step following on from Campaign Finance Reform and McCain-Feingold.

One recommendation is to significantly limit the percentage of campaign expenses that can be met with funds raised outside a district or in the case of the Senate, a state. Another (used in many states) is to prohibit all fund raising activity when the Congress is in Session. Yet another is to require committee members significantly limit the contributions they can accept from interests that are the subject of committee work, breaking the connection between legislation and contributions. All of these are ideas that create distance between legislative activity and political finance — and of course in addition to this, the whole â€influence industry†needs to be much more the subject of political reporting. In this, it could well be that progressive blogs may be able to do what the MSM has not done — namely focus on the relationships.

Yes, most states do have hired lobbies in DC, many deal with fairly non-controversial matters, such as grants for transip projects, education and health grants. Many of these are highly technical matters that normally Senate Staff are not equipted to handle. But State Voters and the legislators they elect certainly should be aware of the possibility such public lobby funds can be misused.

The Democrats should focus on the corruption that comes from one-party government—â€Keep Washington Honest, vote Democratic†would be a good slogan.

I think the Dems really have to emphasize that when voters go to the polls, they are voting not just for a particular representative, but giving control of the legislative agenda to the leadership of that reps party. Exploit the fact that the GOP leadership is now on the far-right in districts with a lot of â€moderate†voters, and emphasize that a voter for a GOP congresscritter is a vote for more fat-cat tax cuts, etc….

I’ll say here what I’ve said elsewhere: to limit the persuasive influence of big campaign contributions, make ALL contributions anonymous, under pain of imprisonment.

It would be illegal to let a Congressman or Senator know that you had given his campaign money. If you told him so, he’s have to say, â€Oh, I’m terribly sorry you told me that. It’s illegal to tell me that. I’m going to have to report you to the US Attorney.â€

Maybe you could still have fundraising dinners, but you couldn’t charge more than the actual cost of the meal! Donors could come and get a personal message from the candidate, but no money could actually change hands in any way that would make the source of the contribution identifiable.

Consequence: people, corporations, unions, would only give to those candidates who they trust to do what is â€right†after election, as there would be no other incentive to give.

So, first, do fund raising letters like this usually start going out the year before? Regardless, good for the DSCC for starting early.

EARLY? You must be joking. The RNC and all its sub-ops NEVER stop sending fund-raising letters. The money-making machine never stops churning with them. I throw away tons–TONS–of RNC, or RNC-related mail sent via the USPS. Note: we can throw away third class mail if the addressee doesn’t live there anymore. It doesn’t get forwarded without a special request for that.

Another thing: The Republicans here in Texas ALREADY have their candidates lined up for the next election, for nearly every race, congressional down to dog catcher. No race is beneath them. They’ll put a Republican into any office, given half a chance. And they’ve never stopped raising money to run the campaigns.

So the Dem party is only kinda-sorta making an effort to get their funding and candidates together with less than a year to go before the election? When the Republicans have their candidates firmed up, AND have been raising money since the LAST election? And we wonder why the Dems lose?

I’ve watched this happen for years now. You’d think we’d learn something by now.

On the bright side, I do think Howard Dean has a clue about this, but it takes a long time to build as efficient an organization as the Republican party. And it is efficient, like it or not.