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.

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.

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 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.

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.)

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.

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…).

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.

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.

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.

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.)

I’m probably somewhat to the left of you, by the way.

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….