Jim McGovern-- Leading By Example In The War Against Congressional Corruption

Jim McGovern (D-MA) is one of the most progressive members of Congress. His D+9 central Massachusetts district-- which includes Worcester, Northampton, Amherst and Uxbridge-- gave Trump just 36.8% of its vote. Last year McGovern beat Republican Tracy Lovvorn two to one-- 191,332 (67.2%) to 93,391 (32.8%). In the 2 decades between 1998 and 2018, the Republicans had only fielded candidates against him in 2004 (28%) and 2010 (39.2%). He has a safe seat and his 96.7 ProgressivePunch lifetime crucial vote score is in the top 10 in Congress. He's the only committee chair in the top 10-- and it's one of the House's most important committees, the traffic cop of Congress, the Rules Committee.

He doesn't need much money and he doesn't spend inordinate amounts of time raising it. Last cycle he raised $1,170,272 compared to his opponent's $37,826. Much of it went to pay dues and help other Democrats rather than to actual campaigning. This is what he raised in other years, along with how much of that came from business-oriented PACs:

• 2018- $1,170,272/$392,173
• 2016- $928,775/$320,382
• 2014- $874,483/$251,800
• 2012- $1,068,822/$280,439
• 2010- $1,839,052/$327,541
• 2008- $1,085,779/$208,745
• 2006- $755,594/$116,994
• 2004- $924,147/$95,579
• 2002- $628,350/$89,822
• 2000- $848,573/$119,497

Nearly every year his biggest sector, by far, was labor unions. Finance was usually a distant second, followed by lawyers and lobbyists, although sometimes #2 would be lawyers and lobbyists followed by Finance.

Saturday, McGovern wrote an e-mail to his constituents telling them that he is making "a commitment... I will no longer accept corporate PAC money for my campaign." He wrote that "It's no secret that the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United championed corporate PACs, lobbyists, and special interests. Making American voices simply an afterthought for many politicians. Winning an election is an expensive undertaking. One that has begun to sideline emerging leaders in favor of the better-connected or the easily-bought." That's his colleagues he's talking about-- and certainly party leaders like the notoriously corrupt Steny Hoyer and Jim Clyburn, as well as Pelosi and the crook in the district next door, bribe taking chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, Richard Neal.

We see this in the Republican majority's refusal to act on climate change or gun violence-- their allegiance is to the corporations holding a check over their heads, not their constituents.

The new Democratic majority in the House has introduced a voting rights and campaign reform bill to suppress the influence of big money in politics and ensure public officials are working in the interest of their communities. It will be a privilege to bring these items to the floor for debate as Chair of the House Rules Committee. But I can do more. Beyond supporting the legislation, I seek to lead by example. That means changing how I run my campaign.

I will no longer accept corporate PAC money for my campaign.

There are 48 other Congress members who have made the same commitment, including Elizabeth Warren, Ayanna Pressley, and Lori Trahan. "Industry experts" will certainly warn us, after all, "the first rule of running for office is that you don't leave money on the table." But we're turning the tables.

...I trust that Americans prefer campaigns that are by the people, for the people.

In the video he released on Saturday, he tears into Congress and the way the system works. "Too much attention is given to raising money from big, well-connected corporate special interests. People ask me all the time, 'Why is it that you pass a tax bill where the benefits go to the wealthy and big corporate interests but are indifferent to the plight of the middle class or to those struggling to get into the middle class.' We're told by every scientist in the world that Climate Change is real and yet Congress continues to pass legislation that favors the fossil fuel industry. The reason why, I believe, is there is big corporate special interest money that is funding campaigns, that is steering our policy."

You might expect that from feisty freshmen like AOC or Rashida Tlaib... but that kind of franks and critique from a top committee chair... very rare.

I've been worrying lately because so many of the freshman members who campaigned promising they wouldn't accept corporate PAC money are already sneaking around the pledge and finding ways to get their mitts on the money after all. Very sleazy, very disappointing. It's up too their constituents but I sure hope their careers are short.


Just after the election, Roll Call reported that "lobbyists for business interests say they’re implementing workarounds to get to know the 32 incoming freshman Democratic House members who have sworn off corporate political action committee dollars. Instead of PAC dollars, corporate interests plan to rely on individual personal donations from their executives, lobbyists and other consultants, instead of the collective contributions from corporate PACs. In addition, lobbyists will be sure to attend meet-and-greets happening over the coming days and weeks with the new members." Look how-- on example-- Katie Hill has handled this:

Notice the sneaky little sleight of hand?

Some lobbyists said they also would rely on policy partnerships with think tanks, grassroots activist organizations and charities-- as well as shopping op-eds focused on specific lawmakers-- for entree to the newly-elected members of Congress.

Which House members take the most corporate PAC money-- in other words the most corrupt members of Congress? These are the 15 who should be raided and carted off the prison tonight and hopefully never seen again in public:

• Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)- $3,292,958
• Kevin Brady (R-TX)- $3,067,952
• Greg Walden (R-OR)- $2,950,166
• Richard Neal (D-MA)- $2,501,791
• Steve Stivers (R-OH)- $2,232,198
• Steny Hoyer (D-MD)- $2,163,715
• Steve Scalise (R-LA)- $2,104,749
• Patrick McHenry (R-NC)- $2,009,656
• Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)- $1,857,014
• Rodney Davis (R-IL)- $1,819,579
• Ron Kind (New Dem-WI)- $1,683,793
• Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO)- $1,682,228
• Frank Pallone (D-NJ)- $1,637,066
• Tom Reed (R-NJ)- $1,617,845
• John Shimkus (R-IL)- $1,599,087

I believe McGovern. Gillibrand? She's one of the most consistently dishonest and corrupt members of the U.S. Senate. Nothing she says that impacts her own flagrant careersm is even remotely sincere and nothing she says is truthful or reliable. She's taken $9,950,951 from the Finance Sector since she was first elected to Congress. Only 4 current senators have taken more, although most senators have been in office far longer than she has. She also boasts that she will not take any money from lobbyists. But first she gobbled up $1,008,944 from lobbyists-- one of just 19 who have accepted over a million dollars from the most corrupt source of money in politics.

Corporate Corruption-- Hydroelectric Power Generation

Wednesday Ryan pushed through Cathy McMorris Rodger's Hydropower Policy Modernization Act (H.R. 3043) with a 257-166 vote. Although 3 Republicans voted against the devastating bill-- Andy Harris (MD), Walter Jones (NC) and Tom Cole (OK)-- 26 Blue Dogs, New Dems and others from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party backed Ryan. They were mostly the usual shithead suspects, like Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL), Lou Correa (Blue Dog-CA), Gene Green (TX), Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA), Don Norcross (NJ), Vicente Gonzalez (Blue Dog-TX), Scott Peters (New Dem-CA), Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL) and Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR), although this was a good one for anyone looking for some quick bribe money, which attracted slimy Dems who just don't give a damn.

The Kootenai Environmental Alliance explained why this bill should have been defeated, calling it "a devastating assault on our nation’s rivers and the people and wildlife that depend upon them. Its passage would end 95 years of balance in hydropower licensing, tipping the scales against taxpayers and in favor of huge utilities." There you go-- the sweet spot where Republicans and Blue Dogs and New Dems meet for a smooch.

Hydropower licenses are issued for up to 50 years. Many hydropower facilities that are coming up for relicensing now were first constructed before virtually all modern environmental laws were in place. It is during relicensing proceedings that the public gets the opportunity to ensure that dam owners make the necessary changes to comply with modern laws. The opportunity to mitigate for the damage to the environment, while still providing reliable electricity, only arises once in a generation or two.

H.R. 3043 attempts to streamline the hydropower licensing process by centralizing power and allowing FERC to set an aggressive licensing schedule that all federal and state agencies must adhere to throughout the licensing process. There are no requirements that FERC or the licensee provide the agencies with the information they deem necessary to quickly and competently exercise their Clean Water Act or Endangered Species Act authority.  This creates a dynamic where, unless every step of the process proceeds seamlessly, agencies are faced with the impossible decision to either exercise their authority without necessary information (which exposes them to legal liability) or to fail to meet the schedule. This change will constrain federal, state, and tribal agencies use of their independent authorities and rush decision making, potentially making it more difficult to protect water quality, recover threatened and endangered species, and manage tribal-trust resources and public lands.

Other provisions of H.R. 3043, such as the changes to the Trial Type Hearing process for alternative conditions, the requirement that federal natural resource agencies conduct costly, wasteful and time consuming review of matters outside of their scope of expertise and jurisdiction, and the requirement that scientific decisions be made only by political appointees in Washington, DC are all examples of how H.R. 3043 tilts the balance toward the interests of power companies.

The balance the Federal Power Act currently strikes between power and non-power values has existed for almost a century. Current law protects the public’s right to enjoy its rivers, a right which can and should be compatible with responsible electricity production. However, H.R. 3043 upends that balance. Simply put, the bill is a massive giveaway to special interests at the expense of healthy rivers and the fish, wildlife, and people that depend upon them. If H.R. 3043 passes, power company profits will go to the head of the line, ahead of every other user.

Iraq-- A Religious Civil War That Started In 680

Democratic House leadership has basically joined Republican House leadership in back Obama's plans for "limited" military involvement in Iraq's religious civil war-- which started on October 10, 680, not 1680, 680 at the Battle of Karbala, when the Sunnis and the Shia began exterminating each other. Obama can't possible think he's going to heal that breach-- even if silly-dillies like Lindsey Graham, Kelly Ayotte and John McCain do. How sad it is to see Democratic House leaders-- many of whom would be flying into fits of rage if Obama's plans were the plans of a Republican-- backing military intervention just for naked partisan reasons. Most sickening of all, of course, is to watch Pelosi-- who rose to the top of leadership by breaking with warmonger Dick Gephardt when he backed Bush's illegal war against Iraq-- going along with the usual suspects and zombies like Hoyer and Clyburn. Yesterday, after a meeting at the White House, Pelosi parroted the Administration line: “I do not believe the President needs any further legislative authority to pursue the particular options for increased security assistance discussed today. I am pleased by the president’s efforts to secure strong Congressional support, and I look forward to additional consultation.” Clyburn backed her up: “I’m a great believer in drones, and I think that this situation cries out for it." That's exactly what Maliki was asking for yesterday-- and for the last month.

Progressives are on another page altogether. Barbara Lee is one of the Members who speaks for the Democrats who oppose war. A few days ago she let her supporters know she plans to offer legislation to repeal the Iraq era authorization to go to war that it still in effect. "The latest spate of violence in Iraq has the President and many members of Congress again contemplating military action. We've been through this before and the American people have spoken-- to stop endless war, at some point we must stand down. To this end, I’m offering amendments to the defense spending bill this week to repeal the authorization for military action in Iraq and the 2001 blank check for war. We’re going to get our vote!

The support from top Democrats provides Obama with cover and flexibility as he weighs his approach to the escalating violence in Iraq, but it also sets the leaders apart from many rank-and-file members who are vehemently against the use of military force less than three years after the last U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq.

Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) warned Wednesday that even a limited military engagement could lead to a much greater commitment down the road.

“I worry about us getting sucked into another endless war,” he said.

“There has to be something between doing nothing and dropping bombs,” added McGovern, a leading voice against the original Iraq War. “Everybody seems to be rushing toward the military solution. We ought to be thinking long and hard about ... other ways to do this that would actually have a lasting impact.”

Sen. Joe Manchin, a centrist Democrat from West Virginia, echoed that message Wednesday.

“If money or military might would change that part of the world ... we would have done it by now,” he told CNN. “Enough is enough.”

Many Democrats say they’re not opposed to a military response, per se, but they also don’t want to prop up a government under al-Maliki “that’s just rotten,” in the words of McGovern.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, argued Obama should withhold any military help “until such time as either Maliki’s gone or Maliki’s policies change dramatically.”

“Just because ISIS is bad doesn’t mean that Maliki is good,” Sherman said.

Rep. Xavier Becerra (Calif.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, warned that any U.S. intervention would be fruitless without diplomatic concessions from the warring Iraqi factions.

“I don’t know if there’s any utility in involving ourselves in what is quickly descending into civil war, unless the leaders in Iraq are willing to say that they want to be a [unified] country,” Becerra said. “I’m not sure where the White House is preparing to go. ... [But] you have to prove to me that the Iraqis are willing to step up and say that Shia will protect Sunni, Sunni will protect Shia, and the Kurds will do the same.”

Marianne Williamson's congressional campaign may be over, but for her, civic engagement goes way beyond running for office. Writing for Iowa yesterday, she sent me a guest post written from a very different perspective from the debate we're hearing Inside the Beltway. It might make you think of the missed opportunity stay-at-home voters in CA-33 missed out on 2 weeks ago.

WAR, IRAQ, ENLIGHTENMENT
By Marianne Williamson

Sometimes, it’s when all hope is seemingly lost that the greatest breakthroughs occur in life. Whatever forces us to recognize the limit to what we can do by ourselves, opens the mind to consider the possibility that there might be another way. When everything is all messed up, we’ve played all our cards, and we don’t have a clue what to do now-- that often becomes a magic moment. Commonly called “bottoming out,” it’s the point when we realize that our way isn’t working-- and then miraculously, things start working.'

Nations can bottom out, just like individuals. And the situation in Iraq is just such a moment. You know the government is running out of cards to play when they’re thinking that maybe Iran can help. Or when the media’s idea of great coverage is to call and ask the people who got us into Iraq for any great ideas they might have now that it’s all exploded in our faces. To say we’re grasping for straws is an understatement. Looking at the power of ISIL leads to horrifying possibilities that make the most varied sets of people, from the most disparate places and viewpoints, all ultimately come to the same conclusion: “We really, really have a problem here.”

So what now?

From a spiritual perspective, the first thing we all do is to admit that the situation is not solvable by the mortal mind alone. That admission is both death to the ego and birth of the wiser self. It puts us into a different place of consciousness, a more humble attitude that doesn’t make us dumber-- it makes us smarter. It moves us beyond that small number of brain cells that we’re currently using, taking the evolutionary leap that is the challenge of humanity at this moment-- to realize that the human species will not survive unless we evolve beyond our material, mechanistic, Newtonian notion of how the universe operates. Our task is to embrace the primacy of consciousness as both the reality and the power that it is. There is more to the mind than the intellect, and the intellect alone can’t solve every problem. This is not bad news, by the way; it's good.

Next, we move, en masse, into the level of consciousness that is the deeper Reality underlying all things, a self-organizing and self-correcting matrix of energy (some call it God, some do not) that is the natural intelligence of the universe. It is the mysterious guidance by which embryos turn into babies, acorns turn into oak trees and buds turn into blossoms. Our self-will only interferes with this intelligence; our lack of love obstructs it; prayer and meditation release it to work on our behalf.

As we can see from simply looking at a flower, nature knows how to organize itself. And this same force would organize human affairs if we would allow it to. This allowance occurs whenever we place our minds in correct alignment with the laws of the universe-- through prayer, meditation, forgiveness and compassion. Until we do this, we will continue to manifest a world that destroys rather than heals itself. Iraq is a perfect example.

Participating in the creation of collective field of prayer and meditation is something that each of us can do to help end the cycle of violence in the Middle East. Taking the mind to its natural state of alignment with the Truth at the center of things, these activities of the mind act like a magnet to attract the healing potential inherent in the universe. In the words of Martin Luther King, internal changes in the direction of non-violence are “materially passive but spiritually active.” There are, in that field of collective meditative/prayerful consciousness, infinite possibilities that the conscious mind can simply not formulate.

What is the conceit that this time in history is calling us to surrender? It is the notion that the conscious, mortal, intellectual mind can be trusted to rule and organize all things. Given the state of affairs on the planet today, it is preposterous to think it can. As they would say in Alcoholics Anonymous, “Our best thinking got us here.”

A study published in the Yale Journal of Conflict Resolution in l985 reported on a group of advanced meditators from the Transcendental Meditation Movement who meditated in Jerusalem in l983 during the height of the Lebanese Civil War. During the summer of 1983, on each day in which there were large numbers of meditators, violence dropped and stayed low for an additional day or so and then went back to its previous levels. The final data revealed that whenever the group of meditators assembled, there was an average of a 76% reduction in war deaths.

Why is this so?

Because on a level of subtle energy, often referred to as the Unified Field Theory, all minds are joined as one. In the words of Candace Badgett, founder of the Women’s Institute at Maharishi University, “War is the result of the build up of stress and negativity in collective consciousness… And it’s consequences are the suffering and resentment that in turn perpetuate retaliation in the form of terrorism, conflict …..and more war.” Breaking this cycle of violence is now within the reach, and the power, of each of us. The more we all do our part to prepare the field, the more creative solutions will be available to world leaders seeking to effectuate external change.

Often in life, collectively and well as individually, we find ourselves confronted by more than problematic events; we find ourselves confronted by a resistant energetic force field that external change of itself does not fundamentally altar. And so it is with the scourge of war. War is not just an external event; it is a field of fear-based consciousness that needs to be addressed on internal as well as external levels. And that will take all of our efforts.

Here are five principles for spiritual activism:

l) Atone in your heart for your own warlike nature-- any thoughts or behavior of judgment or attack-- and seek to change your life where necessary.

2) Spend at least five minutes a day in prayer or meditation, knowing you are part of a global field of consciousness at work on the inner planes to bring about world peace.

3) Seek to organize your own community of like-minded individuals to join you in prayer or meditation groups for world peace.

4) If it applies, atone with others for the behavior of your country if it has in the past, or is now, participating in unjust military activity.

5) Practice mercy and compassion towards yourself and others, particularly resisting any temptation to monitor someone else’s journey rather than your own.

Just as science is seen not as a separate category of life, but rather the material alphabet that explains all external phenomena, so is consciousness the science of the inner life. The field of consciousness today is what the scientific revolution was for to late 19th and early 20th century, representing a similar advent of a new frontier. The question today is not how to convince others that these things are true. Enough of us now know they are. The issue now is how to harness the energy and power of this new understanding, so we can get on with the urgent task of saving our world from the clutches of war and delivering it to fields of unending peace. Visiting these fields within ourselves, we automatically become the source providers of their emergence in the outer world.

In the words of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, "In order to save the world, we must have a plan. But no plan will work unless we meditate."

It is time. It is possible. It is simply ours to do.

If that's too tough to wrap the brain around, DFA made it a lot simpler: "Once again," they wrote this week, "the headlines are full of awful stories coming out of Iraq-- and Republican hawks like Sen. Lindsey Graham are warning that we must bomb Iraq to avoid 'the next 9/11.' Of course, these are the same people who recklessly led us into a decade-long quagmire in Iraq. This current catastrophe would not be unraveling if President George W. Bush had not chosen to invade this divided country in 2003 on trumped-up intelligence.



Right now, President Obama is considering the possibility of launching airstrikes, in addition to other options.

Democracy for America released the following statement to the press on Monday. Will you sign on in support?

"President Obama was right to end the Iraq War in 2011, and it would be a tremendous mistake to restart it now. Democracy for America members support President Obama's decision not to put American boots on the ground and we urge the President and Congress to reject any increased U.S. military involvement, including airstrikes, in this growing, sectarian civil war."

At Democracy for America, we knew that invading and destabilizing Iraq was a huge mistake, and DFA members worked for years to end the war. We fought to elect President Obama because he promised to end the occupation of Iraq and bring our troops home. Once President Obama was in office, we made sure he kept his word.

As we've argued for years, this complex conflict cannot be fixed with the blunt object of more American military involvement. No bomb can create peace between these opposing sects-- only the Iraqi people themselves can do that. That's why Democracy for America is urging President Obama to reject any proposal to use our military to intervene in Iraq right now.

Right after President Obama's speech today, which sounded too much like an invitation to a slippery slope for me, MoveOn issued this statement:

"Ending the war in Iraq was one of the best decisions President Obama has made. The decision to send in even a limited number of Special Operations forces is a dangerous and troubling development that threatens to lead to broader military engagement.

"Our nation has sacrificed enough in Iraq. We should not put our troops in the middle of an Iraqi civil war that can only be solved by Iraqis themselves.

"Americans elected President Obama in 2008 on a promise to end the war in Iraq. We are counting on him to remain true to that promise-- and we are counting on Congress to repeal the decade-old Authorization for Use of Military Force and hold a new vote on any new use of force in Iraq."

Sounds about right to me.

UPDATE: A Vote On Iraq Funding Tomorrow?

Grayson says there's going to actually be a vote: "I have some big news," he just wrote. "The U.S. House of Representatives is going to vote on whether to send combat forces to Iraq. Yes, I've checked the date, and yes, it's 2014. My colleague, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, will offer two amendments on the defense spending bill today or tomorrow. Both of these amendments will prevent funding for war in Iraq… Although Rep. Lee was the only member to vote against the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) in 2001, she won't be alone this time. I will also stand up to say 'No!' … Maybe Congress will get it right this time, after getting it so, so wrong last time. At the very least, since I'm in Congress this time, you can count on me to support peace. We also have a President not named Bush, and he actually listens to reason."