They are who we thought they were.
The American Conservative Union asked FedEx for a check for $2 million to $3 million in return for the group’s endorsement in a bitter legislative dispute, then flipped and sided with UPS after FedEx refused to pay.For the $2 million plus, ACU offered a range of services that included: ‘Producing op-eds and articles written by ACU’s Chairman David Keene and/or other members of the ACU’s board of directors. (Note that Mr. Keene writes a weekly column that appears in The Hill.)’
The conservative group’s remarkable demand — black-and-white proof of the longtime Washington practice known as ‘pay for play’ — was contained in a private letter to FedEx , which was provided to POLITICO.
The letter exposes the practice by some political interest groups of taking stands not for reasons of pure principle, as their members and supporters might assume, but also in part because a sponsor is paying big money.
Look, they just take the notion of the “marketplace of ideas” very, very literally.
Virtually certain there are more than a handful of ostensibly progressive think tank/institutions who do likewise if the price is right. Not about ideology so much as a certain lack of scruples combined with naked greed and opportunism (which sadly knows no particular party ID).
The failure of progressives to thus far successfully exploit K Street in order to level the playing field disappoints me…the sums involved are an order of magnitude smaller than what was raised to put Obama and Clinton in contention in 2008, it can’t be that hard to put together a collective PAC and a fundraising effort to get Patton Boggs or DLA Piper or Akin Gump on retainer to lobby for repealing DADT or DOMA, or passing EFCA.
Teh Kruggmeister adds:
I heard that one time an anonymous person sent in a video which compared George Bush, Jr. to Hitler to Moveon.org, and it stayed up on their website for almost a day.
Corruption in politics? Shocker.
We’ve long been critical of Jay Tea here, but at least he’s been working to get on the wingnut welfare gravy train. I know Commentary is a long way from the big time, but if someone wants to pay me to write an article detailing how Joe the Plumber is an innocent American hero or that Sarah Palin deserves the benefit of the doubt or detailing how someone’s kitchen counters prove that health care reform is unnecessary, I’ll definitely consider it.
Of course, I see that Jay Tea is no longer listed as a contributor on the Commentary website. I think I heard somewhere that he was fired..
mike in dc: Virtually certain there are more than a handful of ostensibly progressive think tank/institutions who do likewise if the price is right. Not about ideology so much as a certain lack of scruples combined with naked greed and opportunism (which sadly knows no particular party ID).
Why is it always this pattern? First, point out that the other side does it, too, as if that excuses the behavior that was actually being discussed. And only at then end make a backhanded acknowledgment that it isn’t just the other side who does this. (And usually that second part simply doesn’t happen.)
Why can’t you start with the acknowledgment that “Yeah, that isn’t right. They shouldn’t do that.”?
mike in dc: Virtually certain there are more than a handful of ostensibly progressive think tank/institutions who do likewise if the price is right.
…
The failure of progressives to thus far successfully exploit K Street in order to level the playing field disappoints me
Seriously, this boils down to
– Look, over there, the Left side is crooked, too!!
– Why can’t the Left be as crooked as the Right?
without any real condemnation of the Right.
Virtually certain there are more than a handful of ostensibly progressive think tank/institutions who do likewise if the price is right.
Sounds like you’re sitting on a real scoop! Do tell!
Agreed, Sean, it’s too common on pretty much every blog I read. Although, to be fair, statements such as “They are who we thought they were” do bait that reaction.
So, it kind of begs the question; How much did UPS give them?
That isn’t right. They shouldn’t do that.
Hey, economic activity is economic activity to the Friedmanites, right?
Sheesh, look at this. Looks like everyone’s doing it.
Big Dem cash dump on eve of climate vote
Three House Democratic leaders who were whipping members on the climate change bill gave tens of thousands in campaign cash to party moderates around the time of the 219-212 vote on June 26, according to Federal Election Commission records….
Sean: Of course it’s horrible misconduct which goes without saying. I was just pointing out that it’s not something strictly isolated to one party. Not a matter of saying both parties are morally equivalent (they’re not), just keeping it real (we Dems have our McAuliffes, our Breaux, our DLC, etc.–selling out metaphorically rather than literally most of the time, but still…)
Spending big money on legitimate lobbying efforts to match what big pharma, big oil, etc. do isn’t a sign of corruption, it’s a sign of intelligence and pragmatism. Lobbying will be around for a long long time and it’s the one field that you can’t elect people into…you have to buy into it in order to really be effective at it. Progressives have the resources to compete, we just haven’t really focused on it up to this point.
I’m probably somewhat to the left of you, by the way.
mike in dc:
You are right. The DLC is a pox on our house(meaning Democrats). Brookings is too, really. They are too corporate friendly.
Mike: Yeah, I thought you might be (left leaning) but honestly just couldn’t remember specifically. So I didn’t want to jump to an unwarranted “you’re a right-winger reacting with “look over there” like they always do” overly harsh diatribe. But did want to note the way it initially struck me.
I don’t disagree by any means that both sides have their moral shortcomings and hypocrisies. As for lobbying, it’s one of those things that strikes me as better sounding in theory than it works out in practice. But, yeah, if it’s how the game is currently played the left haven’t been doing it as effectively as the right. (Although, given how lobbying works sometimes, that’s like saying the left isn’t as effective a murderer as the right. Not sure it’s really something you WANT to excel at.)
“Parthenon” snarks, “Hey, economic activity is economic activity to the Friedmanites, right?”
In other words, we know what the right wing is, it just comes down to a matter of price.
Friedmanites always sell out to the highest bidder.
Selling out is the entirety of the right wing’s “philosophy”.
Supporters of the right wing are working the oldest professional in the world.
“mike in dc”, I understand what you’re saying.
It’s {cough} pragmatic. It’s also obscene.
You’re saying that we have to buy back our government and we have to bid more for our government than the corporate-predators that have billions to spend.
It’s effective(ly obscene).
The right wing has no problem with selling out (see: Republican McCain, Lobbyists) but it seems about as antithetical to liberalism as anything I can think of.
The problem with buying back our government (instead of, you know, doing that whole democratic voting thing) is that the advantage will always be to the ultra-wealthy.
That’s a steeper challenge than most people understand. See the L-Curve for the distribution of wealth:
http://LCurve.org
And it’s not just individual billionaires, it’s the coordination of vast wealth:
http://TheyRule.net
And increasingly everyone else is getting short-changed.
These are part of the pragmatic realities that challenge a progressive movement in a system where money talks loudest.
And if the the right wing activist Supreme Court Justices have their way, corporate money will rule US all.
Competing economically with the rich would be foolhardy, but in the case of lobbying, we’re talking about millions or tens of millions, not billions. It’s actually doable for progressives to build up fundraising and put, say, an extra 50 million into lobbying for EFCA or against DOMA, because it doesn’t matter if corporations have 500 million to spend on lobbying, because there’s a point of diminishing return on investment–5000 lobbyists really aren’t significantly better than 500.
I absolutely understand what you’re saying, “mike in dc”, and certainly there’s a point of diminishing returns in trying to buy the government.
But “an extra 50 million into lobbying for EFCA or against DOMA” is going to be trumped by the $100 million that the right wing Chamber of Commerce has already pledged to defeat progressive legislation.
I’m actually more encouraged by reading that there has been investments in http://TalkingPointsMemo.com and http://HuffingtonPost.com
I’m more hopeful that progressives can compete in commercial radio and commercial TV.
I understand that you are taking a very practical approach.
And I’m not against the effective, legal use of money.
I’d just rather see $50 million spent on convincing the voters of the politicians than see that money spent on the politicians.
I’d also like to see that the money spent on politicians is more transparent ( http://OpenSecrets.org ) and better publicized (through the media: Internet, Radio, TV, Print…).
News Ref: You’re saying that we have to buy back our government and we have to bid more for our government than the corporate-predators that have billions to spend.
It’s effective(ly obscene).
I’m reminded of an interview I saw with a Senator once (and I really wish I could remember who it was so this wasn’t so hearsay-ish) defending the latest increase in Senatorial salary and/or other perks (honoraria, etc).
His point was that if the compensation isn’t high enough then elected officials will accept money from outside sources (trips, speaking fees, etc.) to supplement their income, and would then be influenced by whoever is providing that money.
In other words (and this is not interpretation he wanted, but it seemed very clear to me that it was in fact what he was saying) Congress was up for the highest bidder. And if the best price wasn’t paid by the taxpayer, then, well, too bad.
Shameful.
Dick Durbin: Banks “Frankly Own The Place”
sigh.
I actually support paying Congress decent salaries/benefits/health-care.
(and in part for the obscene reason that I don’t want my Congressperson to be poor enough to be ({cough} easily {cough}) bought off. If they’re still going to prostitute their services I at least don’t want them to say it was to afford rent or an operation.)
News REf: I actually support paying Congress decent salaries/benefits/health-care.
I actually would like to see each member of Congress/Senate paid the median income for their district/state. If they want to make more, they should raise the overall income for the folks they represent.
Sean: Here in New Hampshire, our state legislators (400 Representatives, 24 Senators) make $100/year. No typo: one hundred bucks, plus mileage. It works out pretty well for us, but I think I can live with your proposal.
Crusty: thanks for your concern. A few corrections, though:
1) I didn’t seek them out, the magazine recruited me. But I admit I didn’t take much persuading.
B) They’re revamping the contributors page. I was slow in sending in a photo, and I still don’t know if they accepted the one I sent in.
III) I had a major computer meltdown over the past few days, and haven’t been able to do anything online. It’s been painful.
On the topic at hand, though… this is despicable and they might as well close up shop. Stick a fork in ‘em, they’re done.
Kind of like TruthOut and their re-hiring Jason Leopold… but worse.
J.
I actually like Sean’s proposal quite a bit, similar to those laws in some places where the CEO can’t make more than a 200-to-one (roughly) ratio over the company’s lowest paid schlub. One hundred dollars/year is way too low, it’s prohibitive for all but the rich, retirees or stay-at-home parents.
Political office should NOT be either something only the rich can afford to do, nor something one becomes rich doing. Hence my knee-jerk view (meaning haven’t worked out all the details but I see nothing at all wrong with the concept) that salary for politicians should be directly related to average salary for their constituents.
I also like the idea that one’s net worth should not increase while running for or in office. From day you declare your candidacy to some period of time after you drop out/lose/leave office, can’t increase beyond COLA or some such.
I want people in office who are there out of a desire for public service, not out of desire to wield power or get rich.
“Sean D. Martin”: “I actually would like to see each member of Congress/Senate paid the median income for their district/state. If they want to make more, they should raise the overall income for the folks they represent.”
Genuinely intriguing thought.
But my concerns remain: Unless the revolving door is welded shut, poorly paid Congresscritters can walk out the door of Congress and get their delayed, corrupt corporate payoffs.
See: Republican Billy Tauzin.
Republican Tauzin’s big payoff didn’t happen until he’d “retired” from Congress at which point he got a HUGE payoff from the drug industry that he’d just handed MASSIVE profits through corporatist legislation.
It was a classic Republican sell out of the American citizenry to private corporations.