Democrats Who Want Reform Should Start With Their Own Party-- As Orange County Progressive Sam Jammal Is Trying To Do

Sam Jammal is in a very tough race in northeast Orange County (CA-39). The district is ripe for a red to blue switch-- Hillary beat Trump 51.5% to 42.9% (and people hate him more now than they did then); the PVI went from R+5 to dead even; and the long time GOP incumbent, Ed Royce, saw the writing on the wall and announced his retirement. But... before Sam can take on whichever one of the 4 or 5 Republicans the GOP nominates, he has to contend with at least 8 Democrats, many not even living in the district. Meanwhile, Jason Bresler, the political director of the DCCC, the "brains" behind the Laura Moser fiasco in Houston, is trying to push all the Democrats out of the race to clear a path for the most ridiculous candidate in the race, corrupt "ex"-Republican lottery winner Gil Cisneros.

The problem is that the dysfunctional DCCC is looking for the same old types of members that created the environment for Trump in the first place. Take, for example, the wealthy self-funders who barely understand the communities they seek to represent. This is just the self-funding in CA-39... as of December 31-- 10 months to go:

• Andy Thorburn- $2,335,900
• Gil Cisneros- $1,352,762
• Mai-Khanh Tran- $230,000
• Phil Janowicz- $152,287

This is why people don't trust Democrats-- its extremely hypocritical to run a bunch of millionaires all the time while criticizing the other side for being the party of the rich. No one really believes that congressional Democrats really understand or care about them. There are exceptions, but this isn't a group that inspires or makes you think they have our backs.

Our side never speaks about the economy because we don't want to piss off our donors. Our party obsesses over money much more than you usually hear about from Republicans-- although... when push comes to shove the operatives for both parties are cut from the same vile cloth. Many in DC say the DCCC is basically a fundraising apparatus while the NRCC is under control of Republicans who demand it at least appear to be more of an arm of an actual political party.

This week, Sam Jammal released a compelling but, alas, a largely ignored, white paper, "Washington is Broken-- Here is My Plan to Fix It."

Americans do not trust their government. This was a problem before Trump that has only gotten worse. Too may families are falling behind while our elected officials are only focused on raising funds, living large or scoring a political point. This is a problem because our challenges will only get worse with the rise of automation, but we do not have an elected class capable of addressing anything.

I am running where I grew up because I am concerned about my community and country. I know how Congress and the Executive Branch work-- I served in the highest roles. I learned how to pass good laws and stop bad ones. And, while we need this experience to stop the Trump agenda-- what we need most are new voices who will fix our broken government and restore trust.

Our system is functionally pay-to- play and Members of Congress operate in the dark while making decisions that are making things so much harder for the rest of us. Ed Royce was a part of the problem, but this is about more than just replacing him with a Democrat.

To pass good laws, we need to make Congress work again. Here are my ideas on fixing Congress:

Fix How Campaign Finance Works: Money is destroying American politics. Whether its special interests like the NRA using their resources to block gun control or the parade of millionaires trying to buy and influence elections across America, our democracy is in real danger.

• Repeal Citizens United – This must be the top priority of Congress. While it will take years for aconstitutional amendment to pass, the process must start immediately.
• End Dark Money in Politics – While Citizens United opened the floodgates of money in politics, this doesn’t mean this money can’t be regulated or lack transparency. All donors and money spent to influence elections must be disclosed. Every Democrat must take a pledge to oppose any dark money spending on their behalf – we must show leadership otherwise we are no different than Republicans. I oppose any dark money used on my behalf in June and hope my Democratic opponents will pledge the same.
• End the Self-Funding Circus that has become Democratic Politics –The Democratic Party must move away from its obsession with self-funders and institute a pledge from self-funding candidates to cap their personal donations at the same rate they would otherwise be able to support another candidate. A wealthy candidate for office should have to raise funds and build an operation like everyone else. This shows people beyond your consultants want you in office.

We can’t put a “For Sale” sign on our elections and tie party support to the highest bidder. The obsession with self-funders is hypocritical-- how can we be opposed to unlimited funds from the Koch brothers but not from our own millionaires?
• Cap Individual Donations and Corporate Donations the Same – The maximum for a corporate PAC is $5,000 in a primary. For an individual, the maximum is $2,700. This is backwards. Corporate PACs contributions should be capped at the same rate as individuals. I have pledged to not take PAC money from the oil and natural gas industries because I worked in clean energy and saw their undue influence. We must level the playing field.
• Establish a Public Financing Match Program – Candidates meeting a certain threshold-- say $200,000 raised-- should be able to participate in public financing match. While I am not wedded to the base line number, there should be a minimum threshold that pushes the candidate to do the work of raising money and shows community support. At the same time, a job requirement of running for Congress shouldn’t be that you are a millionaire or have wealthy friends.
• Ban on Contributions from Government Contractors – If you are receiving a contract from the federal government, you should not be able to finance the campaigns of those who fund these contracts. We spend so much money funding special interest projects when we really need to be funding our schools, roads and public safety. Banning these contributions will keep government hones and is critical as we face tighter budgets in the coming years.
• Ban PAC Trips – An open secret to get around rules prohibiting private interests from funding congressional travel are PAC trips. Members of Congress in both parties will hold destination weekends where wealthy donors and lobbyists pay for a weekend getaway with the Member of Congress. The Member of Congress and their family receives a few nice meals paid for by their donors and a free vacation. This is wrong on so many levels and must be banned.

Fix How Congress Works: Congress is fundamentally broken and needs new rules to restore public trust. We are well past replacing Republicans with Democrats as the needed fix. We need steps to hold Congress accountable and make them responsive to us.

• Establish Congressional Term Limits – No one should spend a generation in office, which was the case with Congressman Ed Royce. We need a government responsive to changes in our community. If elected and re-elected, I pledge to serve no more than 5 terms (10 years) in Congress. If you can’t make improvements to our country in 10 years, you have no business collecting a check from taxpayers. While there are examples of Members of Congress who have served for 20 years and contributed immensely, there are also dozens of examples of Members of Congress who literally do nothing other than show up to work, yet have the advantage of incumbency to prevent challengers. We cant do this anymore-- our country and economy are changing too rapidly to be a retirement home.
• Ban on Member or Member Spouse Lobbying or Family Enrichment – Too many Members of Congress are enriching themselves and their family. Public service should be about helping your community, not a path to being a millionaire. There should be a 10-year ban on lobbying for any Member of Congress, their spouse and their children on the federal level. We also must fix our campaign finance laws to ban any spouse, child or family-owned enterprise from being paid by a candidate for federal office. There are already prohibitions on using congressional funds to pay family members, but too many Members of Congress get around this prohibition through their campaign accounts.
• No Secret Settlements – Members of Congress must be prohibited from using tax dollars to settle sexual harassment or any workplace discrimination claims. Likewise, no campaign funds should be used for these settlements. If a Member of Congress is forced to settle a claim, the claim must be made public. Voters deserve to know if their Congressman is harasser.
• No Budget, No Pay – In any other job, you don’t get paid if you fail to do your job. The same should go for Congress. If Congress fails to pass a budget and spending bills-- which is now the norm in DC-- they should not be paid until an agreement is reached. Likewise, if there is a shutdown, Members of Congress should be held responsible for paying the cost of maintaining their offices out of their personal bank accounts until an agreement is reached. Taxpayers shouldn’t foot the bill for incompetence.
• Make Schedules Public and Hold Monthly Townhalls – While I can’t mandate this across Congress, I can lead by example. My schedule will always be made public because I believe in a transparent government. Voters should know who I am meeting with and when. I will also hold monthly town halls throughout the district to make sure everyone knows what government is doing and how we can fix it.
• Allow Tele-Voting – Members of Congress should be allowed to vote remotely, which will enable them to meet with constituents before key votes, instead of lobbyist, congressional leadership and special interests. Backroom deals have undermined families in the 39 th district and across the country. We have the technology where Members of Congress can vote where they live-- let’s use it so Congress is connected to communities.
• Cut the Size of Congressional Staff by a Third – As a former Chief of Staff, I saw firsthand how much we waste taxpayer dollars on oversized staffs who functionally do all the work for the Member of Congress. If you are in Congress, you should be competent enough to read legislation yourself and decide on how to vote. Some of the greatest legislative accomplishments in our nation’s history were driven by Members of Congress with very small staff. The growing bureaucracy in the legislative branch is only meant to make sure lobbyists can have their meetings taken, which, in turn, opens the door to campaign contributions. Congressional offices shouldn’t be a vehicle for fundraising. Staff should be focused on helping constituents, not serving lobbyists or doing the work for the Member of Congress.
• No Congressional Pensions – For decades, Congress has failed to ensure our seniors have a secure retirement and now Republicans are trying to cut Social Security. Congress is willing to cut Social Security because their retirement is already covered by the taxpayers. If Members of Congress were forced to rely on Social Security like the rest of us, you can bet that they will make sure the program is solvent.

Sam seems almost to be despairing about where his own party is headed. But he isn't. He's optimistic that he and other reformers are going to clean up the DC Democrats. "I am running," he told us today, "out of concern over the direction of our country and Congress. Donald Trump is the most urgent concern, but I worked up there long enough to see how broken DC is. The truth is that Democrats haven't been much better or, at least, make it really hard for people to see that we are on their side. This doesn't work as so many families in my community are falling behind and don't trust our government. We need new voices that are willing to actually push for change and know how to do it." And this week Indivisible CA-39 conducted a poll showing the two grassroots progressives-- Jay Chen and Sam Jammal-- way ahead of Gil Cisneros, the feeble conservative who the DCCC is desperately trying to shove down everyones' throats. If corrupt right-of-center DCCC staffers like Kyle Layman and Jason Bresler insist on interfering and "clearing the field," they should clear out the one puppet they have in the race who will do whatever they tell him to, self-funding lottery winner and potato chip taster Gil "4%" Cisneros. By December 31, he had already let his consultants rip him off to the tune of $588,850-- for 4% of the vote! The DCCC should be ashamed for backing this foolish and unqualified man.

Too Many Multimillionaires In Congress? How Many Are Too Many? How Rich Is Too Rich?

In 2014 the Center for Responsive Politics analyzed the personal financial disclosure data from 2012 of the 534 then-current members of Congress and found that, for the first time, more than half had an average net worth of $1 million or more: 268 to be exact, up from 257 the year earlier. All those rich people... do they understand what most Americans go through? Can they even begin to understand? The number of millionaires is probably closer to 300 now. And while over 50% of Congress are millionaires, only 4% of Americans are millionaires. Wow are they over-represented! And when you start talking about multimillionaires, it's even more out of whack!

Monday, David Hawkings did a column for Roll Call, Wealth of Congress: Richer Than Ever, but Mostly at the Very Top, which deals with not how many millionaires there are in Congress but about how multi, the millionaires in Congress are. "The people’s representatives," he began, "just keep getting richer, and doing so faster than the people represented. The cumulative net worth of senators and House members jumped by one-fifth in the two years before the start of this Congress, outperforming the typical American’s improved fortunes as well as the solid performance of investment markets during that time." And that inevitably leads to a discussion of "the financial disparity between those who try to govern and those who are governed."

Millionaire lawmakers have always been a part of the congressional story-- from the landed gentry who created and first populated the legislative branch, through the industrialists who wielded outsize influence in the Gilded Age, to the corporate bosses and old money heirs who larded the cloakrooms through the end of the Cold War.

What’s marked recent years, a time when wealth disparity has grown wider than ever in American history, is the arrival of so many of the superrich. For every 13 members, in fact, one may fairly be dubbed a “1 percenter,” the term of derision imposed by liberal groups on the richest 1 percent of Americans. Data from the Fed pegged the net worth threshold for these people at $10.4 million in 2016, a mark exceeded by 26 Republicans and 17 Democrats.

At the high end of that group are 10 House members and three senators worth more than $43 million, which the Fed calculates as the richest one-tenth of 1 percent of the population.

Two cents from Howie: only 2 can be termed even remotely "progressive," Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Jared Polis (New Dem-CO). Remotely. The rest are all Republicans or reactionary Democrats unsympathetic to the legitimate aspirations of working families. Yesterday's column in the same publication, using the same data, asked the question: Maybe They’re Too Rich for Congress? But mostly about the millionaires who are quitting Congress. Of the 44 current members who have announced they are voluntarily leaving, they account for nearly a third of the $2.43 billion in cumulative riches of the 115th Congress. The column doesn't real with all the multimillionaires remaining in Congress, but does touch on the plague of new ones trying to buy seats and join the other crooks.

A short detour: when Trump said he is so rich he didn't have to steal, that was a laugh. Generally speaking, the wealthier someone is, the more corrupt, greedy and unethical.

Of course, the departing lawmakers of this year will be replaced by the newcomers of 2019-- and several credible candidates for Congress look to have little trouble cracking the roster of richest members.

In Southern California, health insurance executive Andy Thorburn and Gil Cisneros, who won the state lottery eight years ago, are both in the hunt for the open 39th District House seat-- and each has filed candidate financial disclosure forms signaling a net worth above $50 million.

Lucas St. Claire, an heir to the Burt’s Bees “earth friendly” cosmetics fortune, is a top Democratic prospect in Maine’s 2nd District, and wine store magnate David Trone is back for another House run, this time in Maryland’s 6th District.

The Republican side features Senate candidates Mike Braun of Indiana, who’s worth at least $35 million after creating a successful truck parts and equipment company, and, of course, Mitt Romney, now of Utah, whose private equity fortune was calculated at $250 million when he ran for president six years ago.

And that barely even touches on the ranks of the vile self-funders. In California alone, as of December 31, 2017 (the last FEC reporting deadline), there were 13 self funders vying to buy seats in the House who have already gone beyond $150,000. Expect millions more before November, especially from Jacobs, Cisneros and Keirstead, three candidates with absolutely nothing to offer but their wealth, ruthless ambition and money-hungry consultants:

• Andy Thorburn (D-CA-39)- $2,335,900
• Gil Cisneros (D-CA-39)- $1,352,762
• Sara Jacobs (D-CA-49)- $1,074,151
• Harley Rouda (D-CA-48)- $730,500
• Paul Kerr (D-CA-49)- $712,728
• Omar Siddiqui (D-CA-48)- $458,498
• Ron Varasteh (D-CA-45)- $250,000
• Michael Kotick (D-CA-48)- $245,452
• Mai-Khanh Tran (D-CA-39)- $230,000
• Stelian Onufrei (R-CA-48)- $228,000
• Hans Keirstead (D-CA-48)- $220,400
• T.J. Cox (D-CA-10)- $215,500
• Sean Flynn (R-CA-31)- $177,059

Other crooked, swampy candidates running for House seats who have already spent over a million dollars of their own money:

• Kathaleen Wall (R-TX)- $2,733,802
• David Trone (D-MD)- $2,281,939
• Shiva Ayyadurai (R-MA)- $1,163,248
• Steven Lonegan (R-NJ)- $1,006,972

And let's not forget poor (rich) Dan Moody (R-GA), who made an idiot of himself by flushing away $3,053,120 of his own in a primary where he came in 4th with just 17,028 votes (8.8% of the total). Today a rich Tennessee businessman, Darrell Lynn (R) jumped into the open U.S .Senate race, saying he "can easily spend $5 million" from his own pocket on the campaign. Republicans love self-funders. Establishment Democrats have come around to seeing it the same way the Republicans do.

A little tangent: tell me, is this a coincidence or part of a culture of corruption that pervades the Trumpist swamp? Another way to ask the question is if our government of the multimillionaires and by the multimillionaires is also a government for the multimillionaires. Carl Icahn is a longtime Trump crony, a friend and a short-lived member of the Regime. Insider trading maybe? Icahn sold a $31.3 million stake in Manitowoc whose stock tanked by 6% right after Trumpanzee he would be slapping a 25% tariff on steel imports. steel tariffs announcement. When Icahn sold off his Manitowoc shares in mid-February, they were trading at around $33. Friday they were selling at around $26. I bet other investors wish they had the same access to info Icahn had.

Should The Country Be Soley Ruled By Multimillionaires And Billionaires?

Republicans Darrell Issa (CA), David Trott (MI), Diane Black (TN), Tom Rooney (FL), James Renacci (OH) and Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ) will not be returning to Congress next year. The only one worth less than $30 million is Frelinghuysen but altogether this half dozen anti-healthcare fanatics are worth quite a bit over half a billion dollars. Among the Democrats not returning to the House next year are Jared Polis (New Dem-CO- $122.6 million) and John Delaney (New Dem-MD- $92.6 million).

Don't worry about millionaires and their interests not being represented in Congress next year. Although just 5% of Americans are millionaires, 51% of the members of Congress are. As iron-worker and Wisconsin congressional candidate Randy Bryce-- who the DCCC is trying to crush-- tweeted this week, "Just 2% of our members of Congress have come from the working class. A Congress made up of millionaires works for millionaires. We need a Congress made up of working people if we want our government to work for us." Good luck with that. Nancy Pelosi and her elite gang of multimillionaires have moved systematically to keep working class candidates from winning primaries and when they do win primaries-- as Bryce did-- Pelosi and her crooked gang of wealthy creeps make sure they are not supported by either the DCCC or Pelosi's own House Majority PAC.

Wednesday, Vox published an essay by Nicholas Carnes, a professor of public policy at Duke and author of The Cash Ceiling: Why Only The Rich Run For Office. That's him up top explaining the difference between the Millionaires Party and the Working Class Party. And the clip below is also Nick, this time being interviewed at Duke a few years ago after he released a previous-- and related-- book, White Collar Government. His main point in the two books is that "our government is run by rich people-- and it benefits them the most"-- and he asks, in a country where virtually any citizen is eligible to serve in public office, why are most of our elected representatives drawn from the millionaire class rather than the working class, which makes up way over half the population.



"This year," he wrote, "it might be tempting to think that working-class Americans don’t have it so bad in politics, especially in light of recent candidates like Randy Bryce, the Wisconsin ironworker running for the US House seat Paul Ryan is vacating, or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the former restaurant server whose primary election win over Democratic heavyweight Joe Crowley may go down as the single biggest election upset in 2018. In reality, however, they are stark exceptions to a longstanding rule in American politics: Working-class people almost never become politicians. Ocasio-Cortez and Bryce make headlines in part because their economic backgrounds are so unusual (for politicians, that is). Their wins are stunning in part because their campaigns upset a sort of natural order in American politics."

The figure above plots recent data on the share of working-class people in the US labor force (the black bar) and in state and national politics. Even in the information age, working-class jobs-- defined as manual labor, service industry, and clerical jobs-- still make up a little more than half of our economy. But workers make up less than 3 percent of the average state legislature.

The average member of Congress spent less than 2 percent of his or her entire pre-congressional career doing the kinds of jobs most Americans go to every day. No one from the working class has gotten into politics and gone on to become a governor, or a Supreme Court justice, or the president. And that probably won’t change anytime soon.

...The exclusion of working-class people from American political institutions isn’t a recent phenomenon. It isn’t a post-decline-of-labor-unions phenomenon, or a post-Citizens United phenomenon. It’s actually a rare historical constant in American politics-- even during the past few decades, when social groups that overlap substantially with the working class, like women, are starting to make strides toward equal representation. Thankfully, the share of women in office has been rising-- but it’s only been a certain type of woman, and she wears a white collar.

This ongoing exclusion of working-class Americans from our political institutions has enormous consequences for public policy. Just as ordinary citizens from different classes tend to have different views about the major economic issues of the day (with workers understandably being more pro-worker and professionals being less so), politicians from different social classes tend to have different views too.

These differences between politicians from different social classes have shown up in every major study of the economic backgrounds of politicians. In the first major survey of US House members in 1958, members from the working class were more likely to report holding progressive views on the economic issues of the day and more likely to vote that way on actual bills. The same kinds of social class gaps appear in data on how members of Congress voted from the 1950s to the present. And in data on the kinds of bills they introduced from the 1970s to the present. And in public surveys of the views and opinions of candidates in recent elections.

The gaps between politicians from working-class and professional backgrounds are often enormous. According to how the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce rank the voting records of members of Congress, for instance, members from the working class differ by 20 to 40 points (out of 100) from members who were business owners, even in statistical models with controls for partisanship, district characteristics, and other factors. Social class divisions even span the two parties. Among Democratic and Republican members of Congress alike, those from working-class jobs are more likely than their fellow partisans to take progressive or pro-worker positions on major economic issues.

These differences between politicians from different economic backgrounds-- coupled with the virtual absence of politicians from the working class-- ultimately skew the policymaking process toward outcomes that are more in line with the upper class’s economic interests. States with fewer legislators from the working class spend billions less on social welfare each year, offer less generous unemployment benefits, and tax corporations at lower rates. Towns with fewer working-class people on their city councils devote smaller shares of their budgets to social safety net programs; an analysis I conducted in 2013 suggested that cities nationwide would spend approximately $22.5 billion more on social assistance programs each year if their councils were made up of the same mix of classes as the people they represent.

Congress has never been run by large numbers of working-class people, but if we extrapolate from the behavior of the few workers who manage to get in, it’s probably safe to say that the federal government would enact far fewer pro-business policies and far more pro-worker policies if its members mirrored the social class makeup of the public.

As the old saying goes, if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.

Now, defenders of America’s white-collar government will tell you that working-class people are unqualified to hold office, and that voters know it and rightly prefer more affluent candidates.

Alexander Hamilton said it (“[workers] are aware, that however great the confidence they may justly feel in their own good sense, their interests can be more effectually promoted by the merchant than by themselves”). Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists have said it (“voters repeatedly reject insurrectionist candidates who parallel their own ordinariness ... in favor of candidates of proven character and competence”). Donald Trump has said it (“I love all people, rich or poor, but in [Cabinet-level] positions, I just don’t want a poor person.”).

However, this line of reasoning is flat wrong. The raw personal qualities that voters tend to want in a candidate-- honesty, intelligence, compassion, and work ethic-- are not qualities that the privileged have a monopoly on. (In fact, two of the traits voters say they most want in a politician, honesty and compassion, may actually be a little less common among the rich.)

When working-class people hold office, they tend to perform about as well as other leaders on objective measures; in an analysis of cities governed by majority-working-class city councils in 1996, I found that by 2001, those cities were indistinguishable from others in terms of how their debt, population, and education spending had changed.

When working-class people run, moreover, they tend to do just fine. In both real-world elections and hypothetical candidate randomized controlled trials embedded in surveys (which help to rule out the so-called Jackie Robinson effect), voters seem perfectly willing to cast their ballots for working-class candidates.

The real barrier to working-class representation seems to be that workers just don’t run in the first place. In national surveys of state legislative candidates in 2012 and 2014, for instance, former workers made up just 4 percent of candidates (and around 3 percent of winners).

So why do so few workers run for office? I’ve been researching this question for the past decade, and I think the answer is right under our noses: campaigns... [in which] groups with fewer resources are at a huge disadvantage.

In democratic elections, people can only be considered for office if they take time off work and out of their personal lives to campaign. Even in places where candidates don’t spend a lot of money on their campaigns, they still put in a lot of time and energy-- any candidate will tell you that running was a significant personal sacrifice. They give up their free time. They give up time with their families. Many of them have to take time off work.

For politically qualified working-class Americans, this feature of elections seems to be the barrier that uniquely distinguishes them from equally qualified professionals. In surveys, workers and professionals alike hate the thought of asking for donations. They say that the thought of giving up their privacy is a downside. They express similar concerns about whether they are qualified.

But it is the thought of losing income or taking time off work that uniquely screens out working-class Americans long before Election Day. When the price of competing is giving up your day job (or a chunk of it), usually only the very well-off will be able to throw their hats into the ring.

Elites recruit elites

But couldn’t party and interest group leaders help working-class Americans overcome these obstacles? Couldn’t foundations create special funds to encourage and support candidates from the working class?

Of course. But they usually don’t. The people who recruit new candidates often don’t see workers as viable options, and pass them over in favor of white-collar candidates. In surveys of county-level party leaders, for instance, officials say that they mostly recruit professionals and that they regard workers as worse candidates. Candidates say the same thing: In surveys of people running for state legislature, workers report getting less encouragement from activist organizations, civic leaders, and journalists.

The reasons are complicated. Some party leaders cite concerns about fundraising to explain why they don’t recruit workers, for instance, and in places where elections cost less, party officials really do seem to recruit more working-class candidates. However, by far the best predictor of whether local party leaders say they encourage working-class candidates is whether the party leader reports having a lower income him-- or herself and whether the party leader reports having any working-class people on the party’s executive committee.

Candidate recruitment is a deeply social activity, and political leaders are usually busy volunteers who look for new candidates within their own mostly white-collar personal and professional networks. The result is that working-class candidates are often passed over in favor of affluent professionals.

What about foundations, reformers, and pro-worker advocacy organizations? Couldn’t they help qualified working-class Americans run for office?

Of course. But they usually don’t. There are models out there for doing so, actually-- the New Jersey AFL-CIO has been running a program to recruit working-class candidates for more than two decades (and their graduates have a 75 percent win rate and close to 1,000 electoral victories). But the model has been slow to catch on in the larger pro-worker reform community.

To the contrary, the pro-worker community has focused on reforms aimed at addressing the oversize political influence of the wealthy that have historically tended to look at on inequalities in political voice, imbalances in the ways that citizens and groups pressure government from the outside. We’ve heard the same story for decades: If we could reform lobbying and campaign finance and get a handle on the flow of money in politics, the rich wouldn’t have as much of a say in government. If we could promote broader political participation, enlighten the public, and revitalize the labor movement, the poor would have more of a say.

The key to combating political inequality, in this view, is finding ways to make sure that everyone’s voices can be heard-- and the idea of giving workers influence inside government has never been a part of the mainstream reform conversation.

How about wealthy candidates who just outright try to buy congressional seats-- self-funders? These are the biggest self funders (over $2 million) this cycle along with the amount they've spent from their own purses and the percentage of their campaign that has been self-funders. The two political parties encourage them, not despite the personal cash and wealthy friends, but because of that. And, again-- alas-- they're not all Republicans.

• Rick Scott (R-FL)- $38,934,441 (71.3%)
• Bob Hugin (R-NJ)- $24,000,000 (91.5%)
• David Trone (D-MD)- $15,983,172 (96.8%)
• Scott Wallace (D-PA)- $8,856,892 (90.3%)
• Mike Braun (R-IN)- $8,114,377 (60.6%)
• Gil Cisneros (D-CA)- $8,052,762 (80.9%)
• Kathaleen Wall (R-TX)- $6,169,732 (99.4%)- lost primary
• Paul Kerr (D-CA)- $5,912,728 (98.2%)- lost primary
• Phil Bredesen (D-TN)- $5,508,140 (37.2%)
• John Kingston (R-MA)- $5,188,265 (82.2%)- lost primary
• Sandy Pensler (R-MI)- $5,009,578 (95.8%)- lost primary
• Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)- $5,006,050 (30.8%)
• Shiva Ayyadurai (I-MA)- $4,802,331 (96.3%)- lost primary
• Jim Renacci (R-OH)- $4,000,000 (54.9%)
• George Flinn Jr. (R-TN)- $3,068,270 (99.9%)- lost primary
• Dan Moody (R-GA)- $3,040,237 (96.9%)- lost special election
• Andy Thorburn (D-CA)- $2,860,900 (91.5%)- lost primary
• Mike Gibbons (R-OH)- $2,690,226 (86.7%)- lost primary
• Mel Hall (D-IN)- $2,122,000 (70.4%)
• Sara Jacobs (D-CA)- $2,117,987 (73.7%)- lost primary

Yesterday, Gaius did an excellent post that shows how an issue as absolutely crucial as dealing with climate change has been hopelessly distorted by a government controlled by the uber-wealthy. It's definitely worth reading if you haven't already. I love this video that CAP Action Fund just released. I wish there was a way to get it out more widely. Play it for your friends?

EAT THE RICH... CONGRESSMEN

Many political philosophers-- lol; like probably every single one of 'em-- worried that in a "democracy," the "rabble," by sheer weight of numbers, would trample on the rights of the propertied classes. "Safeguards" to prevent anything of the kind from happening, were always discussed and then always put in place in all bourgeois democracies (or republics), our own included; our own especially. The rights of the rich and privileged HAD to be protected from the masses. Right into the 1900s U.S. Senators were appointed, not elected, and their body was thought to be kind of an Americanized version of the House of Lords, at least by some, a check on any populist tendencies of a "too democratic" House of Representatives. Far from being trampled upon, the rights of the propertied classes have become so sacrosanct than even a hint of a discussion of economic "fairness" is met with wild-eyed hysteria marking the hinter as un-American, un-patriotic, anti-God, Communist, gay, etc. And instead of a legislature filled with congressmen and senators coming from the masses of working and middle-class Americans, we have a legislature filled, over-filled, with multi-millionaires, millionaires, with just a smattering of average-income middle class people. Normally about half the senators are millionaires, which ranges from people with assets over $100 million (like John Kerry, Herb Kohl, Jay Rockefeller and probably Bill Frist-- they all lie fudge big time when it comes to reporting) to a few with barely over a million (like Grassley, the Florida Nelson, Landrieu, Hatch, Boxer, Cantwell, Stevens, Carper, Brownback, Reid). Assets are different from annual income. Every member of Congress is paid a salary of $154,700 (and members of the leadership get $171,900 each) and each is the recipient of a truly generous, even royal retirement and health benefits package; all this puts them in a financial situation considerably higher than their constituents. Only 10 U.S. senators reported a net worth of under $100,000.

Jonathan Salant of Common Dreams pointed out after the 2004 elections that about half the incoming members of Congress were millionaires and that "many will face votes that could affect their financial holdings." A large number, for example, held significant interests in banking and credit card companies (as they prepared to vote of a bankruptcy bill they made those holdings worth a lot more-- at the expense of less well-off constituents). Same went for the pharmaceutical and energy industries, each of which benefited mightily from aggressively-generous legislation (written, for the most part, by their own paid lobbyists!), at the expense of average American workers and consumers. Salant pointed out that "watchdog groups often cite the economic inequity between many members of Congress and the people they represent. They say wealth makes lawmakers more apt to think about their financial interests than what's best for their constituents."

The specific conflicts of interest are too numerous to count-- and many wealthy congressmen are either out-and-out liars or seriously delusional about the issue, as we recently witnessed in the case of one of the biggest offenders "Dollar" Bill Frist, the Senate Majority Leader who helped fashion medical legislation that made his already wealthy family into BILLIONAIRES. And although Frist was clumsy, greedy-beyond-reason, outrageous and arrogant enough to think he couldn't get caught-- and will probably wind up in prison-- other members of Congress are more... subtle. Republican Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona owns Liberty Petroleum and claims his business interests don't affect his votes. "There's every desire on my part to do what's best for the country and for the people I represent, regardless of any implication it has upon my business," said Franks, who would need to represent a district of multi-millionaires for that statement to even approach objective truth. Not to mention the fact that the very wealthy and those who aren't, often have divergent opinions on "what's best for the country," usually seen through the sort of economic prism that allows Franks to vote for legislation that enriches him and the 1% of Americans the policies he backs are actually good for, while further impoverishing the lives of the vast majority of Americans.

Another right-wing Republican from the Greed and Selfishness wing of the GOP, New Hampshire's Jeb Bradley obfuscates enough so that the closest one can come to guessing his net worth is to say more than a million but not over $5 million. "I don't believe you can, as a member of Congress, use your influence to benefit yourself," Bradley said. "What you try to do is set the stage for the economy to benefit. That's why you enter into public service, to improve, as you perceive it, the lot of your constituents." Is he naive? Retarded? A bold-faced liar? A little of each? Has he met "Dollar" Bill Frist? (Even if he hasn't, we do know he met Tom DeLay, who funneled many thousands of tainted dollars into Bradley's campaign coffers. After DeLay was indicted for money laundering and conspiracy, Bradley, facing tough re-election prospects, returned $15,000 of corrupt money to DeLay.)

About 50% of the legislators are millionaires, as opposed to about 1% of Americans. The concerns of ordinary Americans are not shared, at least not viscerally, with their legislators. (Examples, according to a Pew poll last December 86% of Americans think the minimum wage law should be raised and 65% think there should be government backed universal health insurance even if taxes have to rise. (Even the CEO of one of the country's worst labor exploiters, WalMart, is asking Congress to raise the minimum wage.) Obviously neither of these overwhelmingly popular ideas is going anywhere in a Congress of the rich and for the rich.

Wealthy congressmen have their rap down pat about how beneficial it is to have "successful, talented business people" serving in Congress. "You want people who have good judgment and have the courage to stand up for what they believe in," said Maryland Representative C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger. "If people have done well, that means they're successful. Maybe that's part of leadership." Or maybe it's part of cronyism or inheritance or shady business practices or lucky breaks... could be a lot of things. And it is a lot of things.

I remember how shocked I was during the run up to the coronation of John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court when a couple of CNN talking heads decided to "analyze" his stock portfolio. They didn't analyze anything; they merely pointed out that it was "a typical American middle class $10,000,000 stock portfolio." There was no sense of irony in anyone's voice; nor was their an ironic smile playing on anyone's lips. This was, in their minds, a straight forward statement of fact: "a typical American middle class $10,000,000 stock portfolio". Do they live in a different America from the one I live in? Actually... the chattering class and the political class do.

One of the biggest yaps on the Far Right, just under Ann Coulter in terms of sheer loathsomeness-- a slick-talking apologist for the rich and powerful-- is Michael Medved. "If we agree that it would be ridiculous to discriminate against candidates because of their educational achievements," he oozes, ever so unctuously, "then why should we discount them because of their financial achievements? Do we honestly believe that earning a university degree provides a more reliable indication of talent and leadership ability than accumulating a personal net worth of more than a million dollars?" Uriah Heep Michael Medved says it would be hard for him "to imagine a middle-aged American who's achieved the sort of conspicuous success in any field that might make him an attractive congressional candidate not coming close to that million dollar net worth – unless he's made the sort of ill-considered investments that might lead to questions about his wisdom and maturity." (Not that I want anyone to think that I'm taking Medved's nonsense seriously, but I would like to point out that wise and mature and rightist Judge Roberts' single biggest investment was in AOLTimeWarner stock, which has been catastrophic, trading right now at between $17 and $18/share after having reached a high of around $100, when it was being touted by Wall Street shills and stuffed into every average American portfolio.)

A classic battle along these lines is brewing in Vermont, where proud independent socialist, Bernie Sanders is looking to jump from his House seat to an open Senate seat, a Senate seat that a Vermont multi-millionaire, Rich Tarrant wants to buy for himself. Campaign fundraising laws, written by wealthy people to favor wealthy people, are, of course, stacked in Rich Tarrant's favor. According to an A.P. article on the race "Campaign finance filings show that Sanders has received donations this year from more than 100 times as many Vermonters as sent money to Tarrant... Sanders (who refuses to take corporate PAC money, also known as BRIBES) gets lots of relatively small, individual donations." Rich Tarrant has gotten far fewer donations, but almost all are for the maximum amount permitted. Sander's average donation is under $55; Rich Tarrant's average-- not counting his own massive donation; he claims he is willing to spend $5 million of his own to get the seat-- is $1,890.

How Did Congress Get To Be Dominated By All Those Millionaires? Look No Further Than The DCCC And The NRCC, Institutions That Embody Beltway Corruption

This week the Center for Responsive Politics issued a widely cited report that makes clear that, for the first time ever, most Members of Congress have net worths of over a million dollars.

For the first time in history, most members of Congress are millionaires, according to a new analysis of personal financial disclosure data by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Of 534 current members of Congress, at least 268 had an average net worth of $1 million or more in 2012, according to disclosures filed last year by all members of Congress and candidates. The median net worth for the 530 current lawmakers who were in Congress as of the May filing deadline was $1,008,767-- an increase from last year when it was $966,000. In addition, at least one of the members elected since then, Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), is a millionaire, according to forms she filed as a candidate. (There is currently one vacancy in Congress.)

Last year only 257 members, or about 48 percent of lawmakers, had a median net worth of at least $1 million.

  Members of Congress have long been far wealthier than the typical American, but the fact that now a majority of members-- albeit just a hair over 50 percent-- are millionaires represents a watershed moment at a time when lawmakers are debating issues like unemployment benefits, food stamps and the minimum wage, which affect people with far fewer resources, as well as considering an overhaul of the tax code.

"Despite the fact that polls show how dissatisfied Americans are with Congress overall, there's been no change in our appetite to elect affluent politicians to represent our concerns in Washington, said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center. "Of course, it's undeniable that in our electoral system, candidates need access to wealth to run financially viable campaigns, and the most successful fundraisers are politicians who swim in those circles to begin with."

Breaking the numbers down further, congressional Democrats had a median net worth of $1.04 million, while congressional Republicans had a median net worth of almost exactly $1 million. In both cases, the figures are up from last year, when the numbers were $990,000 and $907,000, respectively.

Democrats trending even more-- albeit slightly-- towards plutocracy that Republicans? What a shattering concept for people who want to think of the Democratic Party as the party of working families! That, after is what Democratic Party ideals encompass, right? The Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt approach, embodied today by political leaders like Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Alan Grayson (D-FL), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), perhaps Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)… and even given lip service by Wall Street-financed characters like Obama, Schumer and outright anti-working family villains like Rahm Emanuel and, scraping the bottom of the barrel, Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY) and Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL).

A few months ago a wealthy Democratic congressional candidate from 2012 called and told me he didn't think he would run again and would, like so many other quality candidates, wait until 2016 when he reckoned, Steve Israel would no longer he head of the DCCC. His disdain for Israel was far greater than my own-- and if you are a regular DWT reader that may be hard to imagine. Several top candidates told me they would rather sit out 2014 than be subjected to Israel's stupidity and deceit. But this particular candidate told me Israel only had one overriding goal in his race-- and it wasn't to win the seat. "He kept demanding I spend more of my own money-- two million dollars. And he wanted that money to go into consultants he's in bed with and into spending-- primarily TV-- that doesn't win elections here. The DCCC discouraged, violently discouraged, paid canvassers or any kind of a serious ground game… in favor of spending that threw off hefty commissions to their cronies and families… Israel is running a racket."

Israel is also-- like the NRCC-- working feverishly to recruit wealthy candidates, millionaires and beyond. The Jumpstart List reads like a roster of wealthy hacks who will be completely unable to empathize or even relate to the lives of grassroots Democrats. Israel is adamant that the DCCC not back candidates from working class backgrounds. One of his Jumpstarters, for example, is Sean Eldridge in upstate New York. I hear he's a nice guy and has some progressive instincts. He also has a lucky husband who was in the right place at the right time, Chris Hughes, and wound up with nearly a billion dollars. But Eldridge insists he knows what it's like to be of modest means:

Eldridge’s supporters note that for all the trappings of wealth he now possesses, Mr. Eldridge grew up in a middle-class community in Ohio, where both of his parents were doctors; they say he has a genuine understanding of people of modest means.

In the middle class neighborhood I grew up in, the kids who's dad were doctors were the richest kids in school, no? Someone that wealthy-- who thinks he understands "people of modest means" because both his parents were "merely" doctors-- is more likely than not to be a conservative scumbag when it comes to issues of economic justice-- like Maloney next door has proven to be. Eldridge and his husband have contributed quite a bit of money to Maloney's campaign so presumably they approve of his reactionary-- or cowardly-- agenda.

Recruiting these multimillionaires instead of working class activists works out badly for Democrats. We wind up with Blue Dogs and New Dems voting with the Republicans against the interests of working families. And, worse, we wind up with members of the Democratic caucus working relentlessly behind the scenes to pull the Democratic Party ever to the right, in committees and subcommittees and in caucus meetings. It's why Obamacare is so flawed and hard to defend. It's why Wall Street regulation is so weak and getting weaker. It's why the Democrats in Congress are always playing defense and always giving in to the Republicans, the actual-- by ideal-- party of plutocracy.

Last year we noted that an analysis of the top 50 investments held by members of Congress showed most companies had fewer congressional investors in 2011 than in 2010, a trend that had been ongoing for several years. We noted last year that only 11 stocks in the top 50 had more investors in 2011 than in 2010.

But of 41 stocks listed in the top 50 in both 2011 and 2012, 33 of them had more investors in 2012 than the year before.

General Electric continued to be the most popular investment for current members of Congress. In 2011, there were 71 lawmakers who reported owning shares in the company; in 2012, there were 74. The second most popular holding was the bank Wells Fargo, in which 58 members owned shares (up from 40 in 2011). Financial firms were well-represented in the 10 most popular investments: Bank of America came in sixth (51 members) and JPMorgan Chase was seventh (49 members). Both companies had more congressional investors than in 2011 (11 more for Bank of America and 10 more for JPMorgan Chase.)

Investing in instruments like mutual funds, managed portfolios and even hedge funds continues to be a popular strategy. Besides providing good returns, they also cushion lawmakers from accusations of having a conflict of interest when they take actions on the job that might impact specific stocks.

Overall, though, real estate was the most popular investment for members of Congress. Their investments in real estate in 2012 were valued at  between $442.2 million and $1.4 billion. The next most popular industry to invest in was securities and investment, with congressional investments being worth between $64.5 million and $229.6 million.

Commercial banks, computers and oil and gas rounded out the top five most popular investments for lawmakers in 2012.

There are some good millionaires in Congress. But most of them aren't. And it would take a lot to persuade me to vote for any more of them. Steve Israel is the worst DCCC chairman in history-- and that says a lot-- and the Democratic Party will never win back the majority as long as he's in power and setting the agenda for the committee. He's the worst mistake of Nancy Pelosi's entire career. I'm saving the story of how he defrauded his synagogue (and the U.S. government) for my upcoming sit-com.

One last thought-- when the DCCC comes begging to you for money for it's mediocre (and worse) candidates, keep in mind that many of them are rolling in the dough-- like worthless New Dems Scott Peters (CA), Sean Patrick Maloney (NY), Patrick Murphy (FL), etc-- and that they've just spent a year in Congress voting against the interests of working families. Maybe you should consider contributing to these candidates instead.

UPDATE: An Email For Blue America

This is pretty typical. It came in this morning from a prominent Democratic activist, introducing us to a great progressive in his state trying to run against a Tea Party Republican in a red district. It ended like this:

Let me know if you'd be interested in talking with him. I can make an introduction. He will need all the help he can get, because neither the state Democratic Party nor the DCCC will lift a finger to support congressional candidates here unless they are big self-funders.

REPUBLICANS RECRUITING VERY RICH PEOPLE TO RUN FOR CONGRESS-- THAT ISN'T NEW OR NEWS AND IT'S ONLY HALF THE STORY

This morning's NY Times has a disturbing a story in the "Politics" section entitled Short of Money, G.O.P. Enlists Rich Candidates. It's disturbing because it's somewhat misleading. First of all, the Republican Party always enlists rich candidates and, lately, so does this shameful Inside-the-Beltway crew controlling the Democratic congressional caucus. For the Times to ballyhoo it like this implies it is something new and/or unique. What is new and unique is that the Republicans are "confronting an enormous fund-raising gap with Democrats." Normally-- especially in the last couple of decades-- the Republicans have managed to scoop up all the technically legalized corporate bribes. But this year they've been out Republicaned by an unscrupulous insider who's very much at home playing by Tom Delay Rules: Rahm Emanuel, the new darling of the K Street lobbyists.

That the Republicans are "aggressively recruiting wealthy candidates who can spend large sums of their own money to finance their Congressional races" is so far from "news" that it would be laughable-- if it wasn't so tragic. Approximately half the members of the Senate are millionaires (as opposed to just under 1% of Americans). The estimate is that the House has a somewhat smaller percentage of millionaires-- by not be much. And both parties are complicit.

In 2002 Common Dreams published a piece showing that around half the incoming congressional freshmen were millionaires. It's gone straight downhill since then-- downhill meaning that members of Congress have less and less in common with regular Americans. "Close to half the incoming members of Congress," the story begins, "are millionaires and many will face votes that could affect their financial holdings." A significant number of freshmen that year had significant investments in banking and credit companies-- the year a horrendous new bankruptcy bill written by the credit industry was passed-- as well as in Big Pharma, oil and energy companies, etc.

Government watchdog groups often cite the economic inequity between many members of Congress and the people they represent. They say wealth makes lawmakers more apt to think about their financial interests than what's best for their constituents.

"Only richer people tend to win office," said Gary Ruskin, director of the Congressional Accountability Project, which is affiliated with consumer advocate Ralph Nader. "It's those very same people who tend to hold lots of stock. They have conflicts of interest in respect to their voting when they come to office."

And one of those 2002 freshmen millionaires has had the most pernicious effect of all, DWT's favorite villain, Rahm Emanuel who "reported $6.9 million in salary last year, primarily from investment banking, according to his financial disclosure form."

The income chasm between members of Congress and that of ordinary Americans is a primary reason why so many working class people have dropped out of the political process. They know that the ‘appearance’ of choice in political races is little more than an illusion of choice. So vast are the sums of money needed to run a major political campaign today that only the wealthiest people can afford to run. This leaves ninety-nine percent of the population out in the cold. The situation underscores why we need to get the special interest money out of politics. The playing field can be leveled and integrity restored to the process through publicly financed campaigns. By publicly funding political campaigns all of the candidates would have equal funding. The wealthy would have no special advantage. Working class Americans could reenter the political process and have a real chance of winning elections and thus gaining representation.

The result of having too many wealthy people in office is having calamitous impacts on America’s working class families-- the backbone of our society. It has resulted in the breakdown of the family unit. Wealthy people are likely to look out for their own financial interests rather than the welfare of society, especially the poor. This form of government excludes the vast majority of the citizenry from the process and leaves them utterly without representation. It leaves them alone and vulnerable to predation by the rich.

Owing to the huge sums of money needed to run viable political campaigns, the wealthy are heavily recruited to run for office. The wealthy can afford to self finance their campaigns-- the poor cannot. Thus they enjoy enormous advantages over those without money.

Recruiting the wealthy has been a common practice for Republicans for a very long tome; they are, after all, like all parties of the right, primarily concerned with one thing and one thing only: conserving the economic and social status quo. The parties of the right-- including in this country the GOP-- exist to represent the interests of the wealthy. It is a relatively new phenomena for Democratic, traditionally the party of working and middle class Americans, to also become a party primarily controlled by the wealthy and willing to safeguard and promote their interests. This has accelerated gigantically with the advent and rise to power of Emanuel and others like him or under his sway.

The silly Times story today babbles on about this Republican millionaire and that Republican millionaire "investing" hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own money into their campaigns. "But Democrats, who have been closely monitoring the Republican millionaires, assert that the recruiting underscores the Republicans’ financial weakness since they lost control of Congress in 2006." Neither those Democrats, nor the writer of the piece, thinks to mention trends among Democrats in recruiting millionaires.

As part of my function at Blue America I talk with lots and lots of Democratic candidates-- and often not the millionaires, the ones who are discouraged by the Insiders for not being a millionaire and yet daring to run for office. If you get a dozen paragraphs into the story you find this:

Self-financed, deep-pocketed Congressional candidates are nothing new for either party, and the Democrats have their own share for 2008. But the Democrats do not have a concerted campaign to find such candidates, they say, while the Republicans describe the recruitment of these candidates as central to their plan for the 2008 elections.

Is the writer fresh out of high school? Or did he graduate with a nice gentleman's C from a mediocre journalism school. "The Democrats do not have a concerted campaign to find such candidates, they say." Thank you... And? Is what they say true? Do the writer check the facts and figures? Last year Emanuel recruited millionaire "ex" Republicans to run (as putative Democrats), such as Tim Mahoney and Christine Jennings, against middle class actual Democrats. This year he has found himself a conservative Blue Dog millionaire Bill Foster to run against a union carpenter, John Laesch, in IL-14. The Times story even mentions the district-- but only in terms of the GOP multimillionaire candidate, Jim Oberweis, not even acknowledging Emanuel's own recruitment in the same district.

A Pervasive Culture Of Corruption Determines The GOP Agenda

This week Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) released it's list of the 10 worst corrupt Members of Congress for 2011. New Hampshire only has two congressmen, corporate shills Frank Guinta and Charlie Bass... and they're both on the list! Ann McLane Kuster, who's running for the seat Bass managed to worm his way back into last year, threaded the needle, pointing out last night that it's "bad enough that Congressman Bass is under the thumb of Speaker Boehner, Eric Cantor and the Far Right wing of this Republican Congress. But today CREW confirmed that he is using his position as a Member of Congress to financially benefit his family. Corruption of our politics is what drives Republicans like Congressman Bass to focus on tax loopholes for big-money donors instead of investment in jobs here at home. This is not acceptable."

Not acceptable? Not acceptable to whom? To Republicans it's part of the weird way they define "freedom" and liberty and it's the alter so many of them worship at. Rarely does a day pass by when some preachy Republican asshat doesn't get caught with his greasy fingers in something it shouldn't be in. This week we all found out about a different kind of Dong scandal haunting right-wing hypocrite Lindsey Graham, for example. Lindsay got all the initial blame for the scandal, but, as it turns out, the Dongs have been funneling large amounts of their stolen money into the South Carolina Republican Party and to other Republicans warchests as well, including Joe "You Lie" Wilson and hypocritical campaign finance "reformer" John McCain, long one of the Senate's most corrupt members and, of course, one of Graham's closest conspirators in all things (except, presumably dongs, small "d"). This Dong, in fine GOP "freedom" style, defrauded at least $3.6 million in taxpayer money giving Graham regular hefty cuts-- and quite illegally, to boot. He managed to load up Lindsay Graham's campaign treasury with tens of thousands of dollars in illegal foreign bribes.

Jian-Yun "John" Dong, the president of the South Carolina-based biotechnology firm GenPhar, and his estranged wife are accused of making at least $31,000 in illegal campaign contributions to Graham and his political action committee. GenPhar was Graham's sixth largest contributor between 2005 and 2010, with $46,269 in donations coming from GenPhar employees.

The indictments came down in April, but federal authorities didn't unseal the charges until Monday. Federal prosecutors allege Dong took $30,000 from a German national and funneled that money to support Graham's reelection. Graham's treasurer said that they were cooperating with federal authorities.

...The indictment alleges that Dong and an unnamed co-defendant falsified grant applications, progress reports, time sheets and other documents sent to federal agencies. They then used federal money for construction costs, lobbying fees, and travel and personal expenses not allowed under the grant program, the indictment states.

Dong reportedly created another company, Vaxima Inc., to help him divert federal cash for his own use, authorities said.

The newspaper reports that Dong allegedly had a German shareholder in his company transfer $36,000 from an overseas bank account to him, his wife and a worker at the company. They allegedly routed their donations to Graham through their minor daughter, family members and GenPhar employees.
"This is your money at work," Dong allegedly wrote in a Sept. 2007 email to his German investor, referring to obtaining government funds for a GenPhar project.

Graham was quoted in a press release touting one GenPhar grant.

"Once again, South Carolina is demonstrating that we are on the forefront of military technology," Graham said in a statement related on the GenPhar website.

"Military facilities in South Carolina are the tip of the spear for our nation's armed forces. I am proud to be from a state that is invaluable to America's fighting force. We provide the human assets and support systems that make the U.S. military the world's premier fighting force," Graham said.

The lobbyist who sought the money for GenPhar was American Defense International, Inc. The former chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party, Van Hipp, Jr., now chairs ADI.

Look at all those threads. Woven together, they help define a Republican systemic culture of corruption. And the mentality of self-entitlement and greed that pervades the political system in general and the Republican hierarchal elites in particular is now a defining characteristic of U.S. governance. Millionaires, many of whom-- like Rick Perry, the likely GOP presidential nominee-- have made vast fortunes based solely on accepting bribes while in public office. Millionaires-- Fred Upton in western Michigan is a perfect example-- buy their offices and then relentlessly rig the system against their own constituents. Now a pack of selfish millionaires in Congress are sitting in judgement over Obama's proposal that millionaires' tax rates go up to that of ordinary working families' rates. It isn't asking half what should be asked, but these self-serving crooks and, in some cases-- California Congressman Darrell Issa comes right to mind-- career criminals, are screaming like stuck pigs. Vern Buchanan (R-FL) is hysterically opposed to making the tax rate fairer for millionaires. He's among the three richest Members of the House-- and, according to the new report from CREW, the most corrupt member of Congress.

Witness tampering, obstruction of justice, and bribery are all in a day’s work for the ethically challenged Rep. Vern Buchanan. 

The Sarasota congressman orchestrated an elaborate scheme that forced his employees to contribute to his campaign, ensuring they would be illegally reimbursed with corporate money. 

Doubling down on the criminal behavior, he attempted to bribe a former business partner with almost $3 million in hush money in a clumsy attempt to cover up the conspiracy.

In fact of the 20 richest Members of Congress, 10 are Republicans and, lo and behold, all ten are adamantly opposed to making the tax rate on millionaires fairer. That would be the aforementioned Issa (R-CA) and Buchanan (R-FL) plus Mike McCaul (R-TX), James Risch (R-ID), Gary Miller (R-CA), Bob Corker (R-TN), Diane Black (R-TN), Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), Richard Berg (R-ND) and Kenny Marchant (R-TX), each "worth" somewhere between $13 million and $451 million, though it is likely that even the most impoverished of this group is worth well over $50 million. And they uniformly-- and adamantly-- oppose a fair tax rate. Is it a form of corruption? You're damn straight it is! And a creeping moral rot that pervades our entire political class.

This week, investigative journalist Lee Fang reported on another grotesque political scandal at the heart of the Republican Party power structure.

Late last week, FBI agents raided Jim Brulte’s home and lobbying office in connection to a corruption probe regarding the $102 million legal settlement between Rancho Cucamonga developer Colonies Partners LP and San Bernardino County in 2006. Prosecutors have been investigating the settlement, which they say was obtained through a conspiracy of bribery and extortion. Brulte, one of the most influential Republicans in Southern California and currently a lobbyist with the firm California Strategies, is also a former assemblyman and state senator who led both GOP caucuses while in office.

Already, former Board of Supervisors chairman Bill Postmus [long touted as the political heir to San Berdoo GOP capo Jerry Lewis] admitted accepting a $100,000 bribe from Colonies executive Jeff Burum. Prosecutors allege that the Colonies Partners’ lobbying strategy manipulated the San Bernardino County Taxpayers Association, the San Bernardino Young Republicans, and other bribes were made in connection to the settlement.

...Notably, FBI agents only raided Brulte’s California Strategies office in Fontana, California. ThinkProgress has discovered that during the time of the allegedly corrupt Colonies Partners settlement, Brulte conducted his lobbying business out of a suite owned by a sitting member of the legislature. In 2004, Brulte founded the Inland Empire office of California Strategies. Until last year, that lobbying shop operated out of an office space owned by current Republican Senate Leader, state Sen. Bob Dutton.

According to documents obtained by ThinkProgress, Brulte’s lobbying business shared the same office owned by Dutton’s consulting businesses at 10681 Foothill Blvd. Suite 340 in Rancho Cucamonga, California. In December 2004, shortly after Brulte finished his last term in the legislature, he began work for California Strategies at Dutton’s business address. A representative from California Strategies told ThinkProgress that the firm moved its Inland Empire office from Dutton’s office to the current location in Fontana last year “in April or May.”

Dutton, who now occupies Brulte’s seat in the legislature, has an ownership stake in a number of companies operating out of the same office suite in Rancho Cucamonga

...According to disclosures, Dutton’s “West End Investments” and his other firms have generated over a million dollars in income for the senator, although it is not clear what the firms actually provide in terms of business other than “real estate.”

Since he left elected office for work at California Strategies, Brulte has been rated almost every year by Capitol Weekly as one of the top “influence peddlers” and “power brokers” in the state. With Postmus accepting a plea bargain and speaking openly with prosecutors about what he knows, and the FBI raid on Brulte’s office, Brulte’s lobbying connections may soon open a new front in the case.

Dutton, presently the most powerful elected Republican in California, has avoided taint from the scandal so far. Although he has accepted $25,000 from the allegedly crooked developers in the Colonies Partners deal, Dutton hasn’t been directly associated with the scandal. However, this new information that Brulte lobbied out of Dutton’s personal office may change all of that.

Dutton sounds like he's been taking wealth building lessons from Rick Perry.