Will American Democracy Get Swept Away In A Flood Of Lobbyists' Bribes?

Duke Cunningham's "menu" put him in prison but it hasn't slowed down Bill Young or Richard Burr

Washington being a company town, it made sense for their newspaper of record to run another story on K Street yesterday, ostensibly on the malignant impact lobbyist contributions have on our government. And it is telling that they started the story off with a paragraph on the unending nightmare of congressional campaign fundraising, a paragraph that touches on one of the two or three historically most corrupt in Congress, the House Appropriations defense subcommittee. It was from this perch that Duke Cunningham, Jerry Lewis, and Duncan Hunter built their very profitable little financial empires. And though Cunningham when so far out of bounds that he's now in prison, his incarceration hasn't even slowed down the process one bit.

Congressmembers routinely claim that they are unaware-- unaware, I tell you-- of who gives what and if those who give what just happen to get a juicy earmark or two now and again... well, what a coincidence! And one thing that is bipartisan around Capitol Hill is both parties' determination to keep the money rolling in. A couple weeks ago, the House ethics committee exonerated half a dozen members of the defense subcommittee members of abusing "their offices by, in essence, selling earmarks to donors. In so doing, it drew heavily on promises... that their campaign fundraising operations had been carefully walled off from their earmarking decisions. Otherwise, their actions would violate laws and rules that bar any link between such donations and legislative acts."

In detailing how the lawmakers approached their earmarking, however, the ethics report and accompanying reports by the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) made clear that the wall between grants and donations in their offices was in many instances very thin. Key individuals in their offices played at least some role in both activities, starting with the lawmakers and typically including staff members responsible for reviewing and making preliminary earmark decisions.

..."This constant claim by members that there is no link is specious, because we can see the link," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a nonprofit group. Sloan referred to data showing that well-targeted defense industry donations are routinely followed by earmarks or other legislative benefits.

Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonprofit group that has criticized earmarks, has noted that 68 percent of the companies and universities that wanted earmarks and contributed to Senate defense appropriators this year got them, whereas 48 percent of those who did not make contributions got them. A similar outcome occurred in the House defense subcommittee, said Laura Peterson, a senior policy analyst at the group.

Lobbyist giving has gone sky-high since Obama was elected. Lobbyist firms are now the 8th biggest industry in terms of donations to federal campaigns-- their highest rank ever. So far this cycle, they've donated $13,124,062 ($172,578,990 since 1990 and they're the 18th biggest industry giver in that entire two decades). This year, predictably, since they control both houses of Congress, Democrats are the major recipients-- $6,690,884 to Democrats and $3,581,471 to Republicans, about 90% of that loot flowing to incumbents. Over the last two decades the balance is much closer between the two parties with Republicans getting the most money when they control the purse strings and Dems getting the most when they control them.

Among current House members, the biggest recipients, Jim Moran (D-VA) and Jerry Lewis (R-CA), are both Appropriations Committee honchos notorious for defense contractor earmarks from campaign contributors. This year, among the top 10 House recipients are congressmen known to have very slippery senses of ethics-- i.e., unindicted criminals-- who are running for higher office. The lobbyists have stepped up for their pals Roy Blunt (R-MO), one of Congress' most corrupt members ever, Kendrick Meek (D-FL), and Charlie Melancon (Blue Dog-LA). And the ranking member of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, Bill Young (R-FL), is widely known as one of Washington's worst whores who is always on the make for some quick bucks in return for "donations."

Over on the Senate side, of this year's 13 biggest recipients of lobbyist largesse, all but three are up for re-election (and an 11th and 12th, Byron Dorgan and Chris Dodd, were running for re-election when most of the money flowed their way):

Harry Reid (D-NV)-$330,428
Byron Dorgan (D-ND)- $187,477
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)- $182,870
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)- $172,985
Patty Murray (D-WA)- $170,692
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)- $141,699
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)- $141,116 (not up for re-election but the very sleazy chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee)
Chris Dodd (D-CT)- $136,883
Richard Burr (R-NC)- $130,699
Arlen Specter (R/D- PA)- $130,560
John Thune (R-SD)- $97,698
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)- $85,550
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)- $84,200

Of the 38 parties that raised money for Burr since January 2009, 33 of them were held in Washington, D.C., and featured 54 registered lobbyists and 21 PACs as hosts-- all representing interests with business before Congress. Meanwhile, the two all-time biggest recipients of lobbyist money, among current senators up for re-election are John McCain (R-AZ- $1,626,225) and Arlen Specter (R/D- PA- $1,183,269), two of the most corrupt members, along with Burr, of the history of the Senate. For the current fiscal year alone, members of both parties in both chambers secured 9,499 earmarks worth a total of $15.9 billion. Pelosi wants to ban the practice entirely and it looks like she's finally getting enough support from the Democratic caucus to move forward. The Senate, on the other hand... defines corruption and should he abolished entirely or made into an advisory body with no legislative powers at all.

Until the American people take campaign finance reform seriously and force Congress to stop taking bribes, which cost taxpayers millions of dollars a year in shady earmarks, we are doomed-- but in a very bipartisan way, so it must be fine-- to be plucked liked chickens. That's why Blue America has instituted a policy that no incumbent will be considered for endorsement unless he is a co-sponsor of the Fair Elections Now Act and no challenger will be endorsed unless they agree to become a co-sponsor on election. We have far fewer endorsees than ever before.