Obey's Op-Ed
So Dave Obey's writing for the Capital Times (they usually write on his behalf, so it's time to return the favor we guess). In his op-ed, he says Democrats are all that's good about America - you know, apple pie, peace, justice and our very way of life. He even took credit for rolling back student interest rates (though he took a sick day instead of voting on it).
What he spent a large part of the op-ed on was changes to ethics rules. We at Obey Out believe that the rules weren't the problem. The Members of Congress who got in trouble were all breaking the rules that were already in place. Changing the rules doesn't change the Members who will break any rules.
We have no problem with allowing a lobbyist to buy a staffer or a Member a reasonably priced lunch, and in Washington DC, a $30 to $50 limit on food would do just that. Now, they can't even buy them a cup of coffee. It's kind of stupid to think that the people we elect can't be trusted not to be bought off by a steak or two. Is that what our nation has come to?
We at Obey Out would prefer a system where lobbyists must report within 7 days all expenditures made (within a reasonably set limit), and for whos benefit, and that the information be available on a publicly searchable database. That step would prohibit Members from over-indulging because no one would want to be at the top of that list.
Anyway, our favorite phrases from the op-ed were:
the rules restrict lobbyists from organizing, financing or participating in member travel and prohibit member travel
"the rules ban "dead of night" special interest provisions"
We have already documented that not only did Dave Obey have no problem taking lobbyist funded junkets, but he also had no problem making "dead of night" deals over a glass of merlot.
Oh well, Obey's not above conveniently ignoring the facts anyway and neither are the newspapers who love him.
What he spent a large part of the op-ed on was changes to ethics rules. We at Obey Out believe that the rules weren't the problem. The Members of Congress who got in trouble were all breaking the rules that were already in place. Changing the rules doesn't change the Members who will break any rules.
We have no problem with allowing a lobbyist to buy a staffer or a Member a reasonably priced lunch, and in Washington DC, a $30 to $50 limit on food would do just that. Now, they can't even buy them a cup of coffee. It's kind of stupid to think that the people we elect can't be trusted not to be bought off by a steak or two. Is that what our nation has come to?
We at Obey Out would prefer a system where lobbyists must report within 7 days all expenditures made (within a reasonably set limit), and for whos benefit, and that the information be available on a publicly searchable database. That step would prohibit Members from over-indulging because no one would want to be at the top of that list.
Anyway, our favorite phrases from the op-ed were:
the rules restrict lobbyists from organizing, financing or participating in member travel and prohibit member travel
"the rules ban "dead of night" special interest provisions"
We have already documented that not only did Dave Obey have no problem taking lobbyist funded junkets, but he also had no problem making "dead of night" deals over a glass of merlot.
Oh well, Obey's not above conveniently ignoring the facts anyway and neither are the newspapers who love him.
posted by ObeyOut2006 at 3:14 PM
19 Comments:
An excellent source of information on the ethics issue is found at http://www.cleanupwashington.org/, a non-partisan watchdog group that pins the tail on both sides of the political coin, which includes pointing out that both Murtha and Hoyer rank high in special interest money!
I suggest Obey Out submit The "Obey's Op-Ed" post to them for inclusion in their Watchdog Blog... it would pass muster with the experts in evaluating congressional ethical standards, wouldn't it?
The Senate has agreed with the House on a bill that:
1. Bans gifts from lobbyists and organizations that hire lobbyists
(reasonable)
2. Prohibits organizations that employ lobbyists from arranging or paying for congressional travel, with the following exceptions:
* One day trips
* Travel paid for by 501(c)(3), subject to pre-approval by the ethics committee
* Travel paid for by universities.
(reasonable)
3. Requires Members to pay full charter rates for flying on private corporate jets, for officially connected and campaign trips.
(reasonable)
4. Discloses all fundraising activity, including bundling, by lobbyists.
(very reasonable)
5. Prohibits lobbyists from hosting events that "honor" members of Congress, even at party conventions.
(very reasonable)
6. Extends revolving door prohibition from one year to two – and include "lobbying activity" in that two-year cooling off period.
(very reasonable)
7. Prohibits spouses of Members of Congress from lobbying, unless they were registered lobbyists prior to the Member's election or they were a lobbyist prior to one year of marrying the Member.
(reasonable)
8. Members cannot request earmarks that benefit the Member's immediate family.
(very, VERY reasonable)
9. Extensive earmark disclosure, for federal agencies as well as earmarks to private parties.
(VERY, VERY reasonable)
10. Earmarks must be posted on the Members' web page.
(reasonable)
11. Disclosure of stealth coalition lobbying.
(very reasonable)
12. Point of order removal for any earmarks not previously agreed to in the conference committee.
(considering the way things have been going, VERY VERY VERY reasonable)
13. Quarterly, electronic reporting of lobbying activity.
(reasonable)
The difference between no gifts and $50.00 lunches would seem to be that you and I or anyone else in our district would never have the opportunity to buy a congressman a lunch and urge them to vote a certain way about an issue. Why should anyone else be given special treatment?
Another related item on the Wisconsin delegation is at JS Online is at:
http://www.jsonline.com/watch/?watch=22&date=1/16/2007&pagenumber=3 :
Washington - Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner is one of Capitol Hill's frequent fliers with respect to trips paid for by private groups.
But the Menomonee Falls Republican said he abruptly left a $7,700 trip to South Korea last month after becoming "deeply upset" about a funding source.
Details of the trip, and Sensenbrenner's reimbursement, first appeared at PoliticalMoneyLine.com, which examines congressional travel. The group said Sensenbrenner has accepted more than $200,000 in private travel money in the last six years, the highest in Congress.
See previous comments about Obey missing the student loan vote. (The bill had 211 cosponsors, including Obey. The vote was 356 to 71 (83%).
Jim Sensenbrenner and Paul Ryan voted against this tax relief measure for middle class Americans.)
It's iteresting to note that at this point in time (1/23) Obey Out ranks #466 nationwide in the blogtopsites ranking.... right between:
#465 DAILY TIMERICK "Daily limericks on national politics and news. Written by a former circus clown and radio show host."
and
#467 DISREPUTABLE LAZY ALIENS "The Antidote to an Excess of Right Thinking."
?
Why couldn't you or I buy Obey lunch back home? Oh yeah, because Obey never actually comes home.
And, lobbyists can still buy Obey lunch if they arrange a fundraiser with him.
Which would you rather have, just a lunch OR a lunch with a fat campaign check attached to it? Which do you think puts more pressure on a congressman to vote a certain way?
"And, lobbyists can still buy Obey lunch if they arrange a fundraiser with him." I'm not sure what this means. Clarify?
If we are now debating a fundraiser's ability to buy an elected official lunch, the bill just passed by the house is VERY significant.
Consider this:
Right now there are 35,000 lobbyists in Washington - 68 for EVERY member of congress. The top 10 lobbying firms reported a combined lobbying income of less than $2 million in 1989, a figure that exploded to $200 million for the top 10 lobbying firms in 2002, and close to $250 million by 2004.
I think we agree that lobbyists have had WAY too much influence in D.C. recently, and it is the hidden money that accounts for most of this power, not buying a congressman lunch. Right?
The most important part of the reform measure addresses this, in that ALL fundraising activity, including "bundling, must be disclosed.
Bundling is the pillar of the modern election campaign: currently invisible in campaign finance disclosures, it allows a single lobbyist the ability to deliver an envelope of checks he or she has collected through organized networks – each one in compliance with the federal limit –to a candidate for his campaign.
It is one of the most valuable favors a lobbyist can provide a lawmaker and a major reason why incumbents so easily surpass their challengers in fundraising and so rarely lose their seats. Agreed?
It has become so valuable that its use is now marketed as part of a campaign: President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign, for example, rewarded its fundraisers with names like “Pioneers,” each of whom bundled at least $100,000, or “Rangers,” who bundled at least $200,000 apiece.
Simply put, without the hidden cover of bundling, lobbyists will not be able to raise the huge sums of money that have made them so powerful in the last 10 years.
Despite a few issues, the reform bill looks good. Personally I'd rather argue about the impacts of a $50 lunch rather than ten's of thousands of dollars of hidden donations that have driven politics for the last decade.
Disclosing the fact that you raise $100,000 for a presidential candidate will not stop you from doing it. I agree that full disclosure is the best campaign finance reform, but it doesn't change the fact that crooked politicians will be crooked no matter what rules you put in place. Ensuring a member of congress can only receive lunch from a lobbyist when campaign contributions are involved just seems dumb to me.
"...crooked politicians will be crooked no matter what rules you put in place"? This explains nothing. Please specify which politicians you are referring to and specific incidents of specific laws being broken. It is easy to sling mud, but less easy to control it's flight....
The major flaw with your argument is that EVERY congressman and senator operates under the SAME rules, and likewise receives the SAME types of contributions, regardless of party affiliation. I would suggest you explore how campaign finance laws and lobbying has changed since 1994, and especially in 2004.
Personally, I would like to see NO contributions allowed from ANYONE. Period. Federal financed elections, with a set amount ANY candidate can spend on an election. Even the field for everyone and take the damn lobbyists of ALL kinds out of the picture. Does that sound stupid too?
I think you misunderstood my point. I'm not slinging mud, I'm saying that no amount of rules/laws will keep people with no regard for the law from breaking them.
Duke Cunningham broke several laws and is in prison.
Bob Ney broke several laws and is going to prison.
Jim Trafficant broke laws and went to prison.
William Jefferson will eventually go to prison after being caught on tape accepting a $100,000 bribe.
Again, not mud slinging, just saying these people are crooks and the rules/laws in place did not stop them from being crooks. While I agree with many of the disclosure requirements in those rules, overall, more rules does not equal more ethical politicians.
My previous point was that lobbyists don't care if they have to disclose that they raised $100,000 for a Presidential candidate, in fact, they are quite proud of it. As for bundling, there are already campaign finance laws that govern how bundled contributions have to be handled and reported. What most of Bush's Pioneers did was hand a coded contributions card to someone who committed to give so they could send it in directly, or give the code to be entered online so that the contribution was counted to their total. That is not bundling. But, that's how most of that money was raised.
As for public financing of elections, it's not necessarily stupid, but it is an unconstitutional violation of my free speech. I should not under force of law be required to contribute my tax dollars to a candidate I do not support. When it comes to campaign finance reform, I support full and complete disclosure of all funds over $200 received within 48 hours of receipt. That way, when Dave Obey has a big fundraiser in DC, then another, then another, the people back home will see the source of his contributions and maybe wake up to the fact that he is completely beholden to the liberal special interests in Washington.
Sounds like a good idea. As long as ALL politicians at ALL levels are required to do the same..... Of course, these are hypotheticals, it won't happen so what's the beef?
If I were a betting man, I would bet that 7:38 is an Obey-staffer. I've heard Obey use the same words to describe the same idea. I'm not going to be one of those morons who demands that he reveal his identity; it just makes me chuckle to hear the same words used over again.
This is bullshit: Check out this "report" by Obey paid for with our tax dollars. It's basically a government funded op/ed:
http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/109thCongressBudgetReport.pdf
Now, if you can't use a Congressional office as a campaign base, why aren't there rules against using the House Appropriations Committee website for partisan campaigning? This is partisan campaigning. I must admit this is the first time I have been to this website, and even if this is what the Republicans did as well, it doesn't change my position.
MR OBEY, IF YOU WANT TO PUBLISH AN OP/ED GO TO THE NEWSPAPERS IN YOUR DISTRICT AND ASK THEM TO DO SO. DONT FORCE THE TAXPAYERS OF THE 7TH (AND THE REST OF THE NATION) TO PAY FOR IT.
It got cut off, so we'll try again.
http://appropriations.house.gov/
pdf/
109thCongressBudgetReport.pdf
I read this as the Crap Times (which last I checked is NOT in the 7th district) simply using there time honored non-journalistic approach to journalism: rather than actively attempting to provide GOOD coverage, they just cut whatever they find elsewhere and run it.
I was just on Dave's website. I can't find a staff listing anywhere. It would be nice to know who is making comments on Obeyout....Ellis, put a staff listing on the website.
Grand assumption on your part... but as usual, wrong.
It is, however, extremely sad and disheartening when anyone with a thought or idea that is not previously stamped and approved by the political thought police that wants to run our party in the 7th district is accused of being communist, a Democrat or a Jew.
Talk about parallels from history ...
...and the fact that no one here is willing to defend free speech from within our party proves one of four possibilities:
1. This forum is simply obscure, ignored and forgettable.
2. You speak for no one but yourself and a half-dozen other anonymous, closeted and secretive south shore out-of-touch party members whose direction will continue to label us as a bunch of ridiculous losers in every congressional race in the foreseeable future.
3. The entire Republican party in the 7th district agrees with you.
4. You are a bunch of propaganda Nazi’s in disguise and will spout venom regardless of the subject matter and ignore any attempt at rational discussion in order to justify your existence.
I can not see any other possibility.
So be it.
7:54,
Thought Police????? This is a Conservative blog. Anyone who has done any reading on the blog knows this. You are welcome to make non-conservative comments, but I am not going to apologize because you feel that everyone is picking on you when you do.
Please get a clue or stop whining.
(preferably both)
Oh my. Who's whining? And who's asking for an apology?
Being conservative used to stand for fiscal responsibility and restraint in government, a belief in an ethically run system, working for the common good of ALL Americans, civil discourse in politics and common sense.
My point is that there is little of this here, nor has there been in our party and party leadership in recent times. Despite the anger exhibited at the other party, WHO do we really have to blame?
Pointing fingers at Obey and calling the kettle black really does nothing for us: if the intent is for this to be a "conservative blog", what's the purpose? To keep those with the same viewpoint rabid, angry and in-line? Looking at the statistics of this site, that amounts to about 9 - 10 people at most.
It might be useful for you to start by sharing your definition of "conservative". Somehow (from looking at all of the posts here) I think it revolves around gay marriage, abortion, gun laws, intelligent design and the inherent evil of the other party. These issues have been very successful at bonding us to the extreme religious right, but have likewise started a landslide of disenfranchisement from the true base of our party.
Just as the Dems have fractured (the Green Party) because of extremists, I foresee us doing the same IF we do not start telling our leadership to move away from the ledge, concentrate on repairing our image and begin working to recover those people who are increasingly slipping away to become independents.
Do you judge this to be misguided, obstinate or naive? If you judge me wrong in my interpretation, please share it and explain why.
I don't know who the rabble-rouser is, but in some ways he makes some unfortunate sense. Complaining about how things are now being run, how our party is being cut out of votes or even about how Obey raises money would be valid points if we had previously complained about how our party did the exact same things. We really do sound like we're whining. Is this really all we are now about? Is this how we expect to win in 2008?
This blog is called Obey Out. It's purpose, to see Dave Obey thrown out of office.
It's purpose is not to be an apologist for or a critic of the national Republican party.
I support Obey Out's efforts to point out Obey's hypocrisy and leftist views. Obey's values are out of step with this district and I for one am glad someone is willing to criticize him.
Sure, there's an Obey defender who posts here (and can be a bit longwinded), but that's his right as a U.S. citizen. It's also our right to respond to his comments and to keep the focus on the fact that 37 years is too long for a mean-spirited liberal to represent us.
Post a Comment
<< Home