NationStates Jolt Archive

Compared to what members of Congress are accepting from corporations and special interest groups? The Center for Public Integrity released a study (http://www.publicintegrity.org/powertrips/report.aspx?aid=799) that shows Members accepting $50 million in travel from these groups. Among the findings:
Republican and Democratic Members and their aides took at least 23,000 trips paid for by outside interests
-- 2,300 of the trips cost more than $5,000
-- 500 cost $10,000 or more...and 16 cost at least $25,000.
Among the goodies:
-- $500 a night hotel rooms....not exactly Motel 6.
-- $25,000 corporate jet rides
-- 200 trips to Paris, 150 to Hawaii and 140 to Italy.
I'll be the first to admit that a corporation doesn't spend its money without expecting something in return. I wonder what they got?

They got what they always get--corporate welfare. But with Abramoff, there's an open bribery element involved, so your attempt to equate this stuff with the Abramoff scandal is a little slimy. Oh, that and the fact that you presented it as though it was a case of equal corporate sucking up from both parties is also a little bogus (http://www.publicintegrity.org/powertrips/report.aspx?aid=248).
Offices Taking More Than $350,000 in Travel
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas)
Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio)
Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas)
Rep. J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.)
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Michael Oxley (R-Ohio)
Rep. W.J. Tauzin (R-La.)*
Rep. William Thomas (R-Calif.)
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)
Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska)

Offices Taking More Than 200 Trips
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas)
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio)
Rep. Larry Combest (R-Texas)*
Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas)
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
Rep. J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.)
Rep. Michael Oxley (R-Ohio)
Rep. W.J. Tauzin (R-La.)*
Rep. William Thomas (R-Calif.)
Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska)

* No longer in Congress
Most Expensive Privately Sponsored Trips
Traveler* Destination Sponsor Reported cost
1. Rep. Thomas Bliley Jr. (R-Va.) London Brown & Williamson Tobacco $31,171
2. Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) Kazakhstan Jewish Congress of Kazakhstan $29,951
3. Rep. Ben Chandler (D-Ky.) Australia Australian government, American Australian Assn. $29,177
4. Robert Cochran** Australia General Atomics $28,446
5. Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) Australia Australian government; American Australian Assn. $28,236
6. Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) Great Britain National Center for Public Policy & Research $28,106
7. Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) Germany International Management and Development Inst. $28,100
8. Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) South Korea Korea-U.S. Exchange Council $28,000
9. Rep. William Thomas (R-Calif.) Beaver Creek, Colo. American Enterprise Institute; Vail Valley Foundation [correction] $27,962
10. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) Israel, South Korea Korea-U.S. Exchange Council $27,960

* Reported cost includes expenses of spouse or child
** Chief of staff for Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif.
I bolded the ones with D after their names--figured it would be easier that way since they're so in the minority. This is a prime example of how power corrupts--there are so few D's on that list because they have so little to offer in terms of Washington power. The Republicans are face down in the trough, though.

Money should be eliminated from politics. Once you are an elected official, you have no possessions. You are now owned by the people you represent. Necessities will be provided for you, and you will make a salary based upon the average salary of every person living in America (yeah, it might be low, but maybe the bitches will actually do something about it). Lobbying should be banned, as it does not represent your constituents, but a small number of people only interested in themselves. You want your congresspeople to vote a certain way? Write letters and call them like everyone else.

Money should be eliminated from politics. Once you are an elected official, you have no possessions. You are now owned by the people you represent. Necessities will be provided for you, and you will make a salary based upon the average salary of every person living in America (yeah, it might be low, but maybe the bitches will actually do something about it). Lobbying should be banned, as it does not represent your constituents, but a small number of people only interested in themselves. You want your congresspeople to vote a certain way? Write letters and call them like everyone else.
A quicker and more effective way to go about it would be to strip personhood from corporations and make it illegal for them to contribute in any way to the political process. Politics is for people, not for amoral moneymaking machines. Sure, the rich would still have an overwhelming advantage, but that's never going to change. Getting corporate money out of it altogether would be a good way to give the working folk a fighting shot.

They got what they always get--corporate welfare. But with Abramoff, there's an open bribery element involved, so your attempt to equate this stuff with the Abramoff scandal is a little slimy. Oh, that and the fact that you presented it as though it was a case of equal corporate sucking up from both parties
I don't see a lot of difference, except that what was done in this case is legal. The process is still the same. I offer you something of value and you repay me with favorable legislation. Plus, I don't especially care who was on that list, as long as my Congressman and Senators don't appear. And they didn't. I'm more upset that the whole quid pro quo thing is so massive and so legal.

The proportion of D's to R's will probably change after the next election and the D's will get their chance to behave just as badly.

I don't have as much of a problem with lobbying done by corporations and SIGs, but not this way. This just looks corrupt and undoubtedly is corrupt. Lobbying is critical to the education of Congress. (Read Deep Kimchi's sig and have a chuckle.) Bribery isn't. I can't think of any good reason to allow this much money to be directed toward Congress.

I don't see a lot of difference, except that what was done in this case is legal. The process is still the same. I offer you something of value and you repay me with favorable legislation. Plus, I don't especially care who was on that list, as long as my Congressman and Senators don't appear. And they didn't. I'm more upset that the whole quid pro quo thing is so massive and so legal.

The proportion of D's to R's will probably change after the next election and the D's will get their chance to behave just as badly.

I don't have as much of a problem with lobbying done by corporations and SIGs, but not this way. This just looks corrupt and undoubtedly is corrupt. Lobbying is critical to the education of Congress. (Read Deep Kimchi's sig and have a chuckle.) Bribery isn't. I can't think of any good reason to allow this much money to be directed toward Congress.
Legality is the difference, and it's a major one because while I don't like the amount of money shuffled at Congress, the fact is that we do have rules about where that money can come from and who can give it, and deliberately breaking those laws--which are ridiculously lax--shows a complete disrespect for us as citizens. Congress tells us as citizens that we're supposed to follow the rules they set for us, and yet they refuse to follow them themselves--fuck that. Legality is a major difference. Sure, I'd love to get corporate money out of the system completely, but until then, I can at least insist that Congress follow the law as it is written.

Legality is the difference, and it's a major one because while I don't like the amount of money shuffled at Congress, the fact is that we do have rules about where that money can come from and who can give it, and deliberately breaking those laws--which are ridiculously lax--shows a complete disrespect for us as citizens. Congress tells us as citizens that we're supposed to follow the rules they set for us, and yet they refuse to follow them themselves--fuck that. Legality is a major difference. Sure, I'd love to get corporate money out of the system completely, but until then, I can at least insist that Congress follow the law as it is written.


The laws are ridiculously lax because the men who want to violate them are also the ones who write them.

Neither party has a great track record of either reforming things or following the law. To both it's a game of seeing what they can get away with.

Legality is the difference, and it's a major one because while I don't like the amount of money shuffled at Congress, the fact is that we do have rules about where that money can come from and who can give it, and deliberately breaking those laws--which are ridiculously lax--shows a complete disrespect for us as citizens. Congress tells us as citizens that we're supposed to follow the rules they set for us, and yet they refuse to follow them themselves--fuck that. Legality is a major difference. Sure, I'd love to get corporate money out of the system completely, but until then, I can at least insist that Congress follow the law as it is written.
Now, you've triggered my other gripe about Congress. They do seem to think they're Imperial. And that pisses me off more than almost anything else. How else could an immigration bill like the Senate travesty ever pass, if these goofs truly represented us? Or how else could we put up with Cindy McKinney's conduct? Reminds me of the bumper sticker .jpg I posted a week or so back. "Warrants -- too good for you, not good enough for us".

We need to throw all the bums out, but eveyone sees it the same way. They think, "It's not my guy, it's the other 434." I plead just as guilty.

Now, you've triggered my other gripe about Congress. They do seem to think they're Imperial. And that pisses me off more than almost anything else. How else could an immigration bill like the Senate travesty ever pass, if these goofs truly represented us? Or how else could we put up with Cindy McKinney's conduct? Reminds me of the bumper sticker .jpg I posted a week or so back. "Warrants -- too good for you, not good enough for us".

We need to throw all the bums out, but eveyone sees it the same way. They think, "It's not my guy, it's the other 434." I plead just as guilty.I have the fortunate circumstance of actually liking my Representative--Debbie Wasserman Schultz--so that's less of an issue for me, and while I wish Bill Nelson were progressive, I have to admit that I live in a purple state and just thank my lucky stars that he got Catherine Harris as an opponent. But you're right as a general rule--absolutely in most cases.

A quicker and more effective way to go about it would be to strip personhood from corporations and make it illegal for them to contribute in any way to the political process. Politics is for people, not for amoral moneymaking machines. Sure, the rich would still have an overwhelming advantage, but that's never going to change. Getting corporate money out of it altogether would be a good way to give the working folk a fighting shot.
Yep. I'm a capitalist through and through, but I do see where corporations abuse the public trust and they do it all behind the corporate shield law. The fact is that people, even rich people, are human beings who do not make decisions in an amoral context. Corporations are forced to because they are beholden to shareholders to show profit. If a board member of a corporation were to put a moral decision ahead of an economic one they would lose their job. Were you to strip the corporate shield law shareholders would have to consider the economic iompact of lawsuits to clean up toxic waste, for example, because the corporation would not be free to have a subsidiary go bankrupt rather than pay the cleanup costs.

Yep. I'm a capitalist through and through, but I do see where corporations abuse the public trust and they do it all behind the corporate shield law. The fact is that people, even rich people, are human beings who do not make decisions in an amoral context. Corporations are forced to because they are beholden to shareholders to show profit. If a board member of a corporation were to put a moral decision ahead of an economic one they would lose their job. Were you to strip the corporate shield law shareholders would have to consider the economic iompact of lawsuits to clean up toxic waste, for example, because the corporation would not be free to have a subsidiary go bankrupt rather than pay the cleanup costs.
It's that forced amoral activity that bothers me the most, because it gives the people making decisions an out for their immoral behavior--they're able to pawn it off on the corporation and say "it wasn't me," and that's heinous behavior.

I have the fortunate circumstance of actually liking my Representative--Debbie Wasserman Schultz--so that's less of an issue for me, and while I wish Bill Nelson were progressive, I have to admit that I live in a purple state and just thank my lucky stars that he got Catherine Harris as an opponent. But you're right as a general rule--absolutely in most cases.
I think I made my point poorly. I like my Representative, too. It's John "Fair Tax" Linder. But so does everyone else. DeLay's constituents loved him, as do McKinney's and Jefferson's. Maybe what we need to do is vote for the Congressmen in neighboring districts -- sort of a musical chairs thing.

I think I made my point poorly. I like my Representative, too. It's John "Fair Tax" Linder. But so does everyone else. DeLay's constituents loved him, as do McKinney's and Jefferson's. Maybe what we need to do is vote for the Congressmen in neighboring districts -- sort of a musical chairs thing.
Heh--I'd love to vote against Clay Shaw or Ileana Ros-Lehtinen or Lincoln Diaz-Balart. That would be so sweet.

Speaking of Jefferson, it's looking more and more like "Dollar Bill" won't be serving much longer. He's about to go to jail and I couldn't be happier. He's a perfect example of machine politics at its worst. When I lived in Louisiana under the governorship of Edwin Edwards, for example, we used to say that we had the best government money could buy, and we weren't far wrong.