More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Pearl Korn

Pearl Korn

Posted: June 1, 2010 07:02 AM

Following "Da Money" Trail in Congress

What's Your Reaction:

Senator Dick Durbin, Majority Whip in the Senate, recently quipped, "They own the place." His disgust was palpable. Corporate America and its lobbyists continue to hold sway over Congress, and the results are obvious: partisan gridlock and watered-down bills that amount to little more than sell-outs to whatever industries they would impact. Congress is being bribed every day -- legally, according to their neutered "ethics" rules -- to do the bidding of big business.

A shameless lot, these corporatists; some facts that turn the stomach:

1. The financial industry alone has pumped in $1 million per member of Congress to control the debate on financial reform.

2. The health care lobby spent roughly $125 million lobbying against healthcare reform.

3. There are 11,140 registered lobbyists plying their trade in DC.

4. In the first quarter 2010 alone, nearly $1billion was spent on lobbying by corporations, trade associations, unions and other organizations.

Many of those over 11,000 lobbyists are former aides of current Representatives and Senators, who now scurry through the halls of Congress with unlimited access to members and intimate knowledge of all the ways to game the legislative system for their new corporate masters. If we truly want a return to representative government -- representative of the American people, that is -- then two basic rules of lobbying reform must be enacted:

1. No former staff member of a Representative or Senator may be allowed to re-enter that revolving door as a lobbyist for a minimum of 5 to 7 years; and

2. They cannot be allowed to lobby for any industry regulated by a committee on which their former bosses currently serve.

We can already see the effects of these insider lobbyists in the failure of the Banking Committee to enact any meaningful overhaul of the financial industry. And I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Administration -- with its cadre of former banking and financial executives minding the coop -- to demand anything better. Nothing short of a full repeal of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 ; for which we can thank, once again, the cowardly lion Bill Clinton) and a reinstatement of at least the regulatory elements of the Glass-Steagall Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act) are needed if we are to escape the twin booby-traps of banks "too big to fail" and taxpayer-funded bailouts. Otherwise, the shady parts of the "financial services" industry will continue to make scads of money with their rigged roulette wheel of derivatives, hedge funds and other scams too complex to be comprehended by most of us -- including our "leaders" in DC. Of course, it's hard for those "leaders" to be too inquisitive when they themselves are profiting from the very corrupt system they are supposed to fix!

In a different world, retiring Senator Chris Dodd might have found sufficient backbone during his last days in office to enact a strong regulatory overhaul on this industry and its practices. But once again, it appears "da money" reared its ugly head. Following the Senate's passing their wimpy financial "reform" bill last week, the Center for Responsive Politics compared the Senators' votes with their campaign funding. The results? Senators who opposed the legislation received 16% more money from the financial industry than Senators who supported it. In the House version, the results were even more egregious: Representatives who voted "No" received 70% more in contributions from commercial banks than those who voted "Yes."

Dodd's Banking Committee is responsible for overseeing more than two-dozen industries, mainly in the nation's financial markets and insurance. When you see how much money flows from PAC's and individuals in those industries to the campaign coffers of members of this Committee, it is clear why an assignment there is so highly prized. From PAC's representing finance, insurance and real estate alone, contributions reached $9,031,702 this cycle, with an additional $21,812.497 from individuals. Does anyone in DC understand the meaning of "conflict of interest?"

And then we have the DNC, DCCC and DSCC, as well as the Democratic Party itself. Based on FEC data released on May 24th, the DNC has raised $124,545,249 so far in the 2010 cycle; the DCCC -- $79,586,395; and the DSCC, $58,738,440. The Democratic Party has raised $525,387,321. Where does all this money go? To keep incumbents in their jobs, of course! Even with all that money, the DCCC is still only planning to support 30-39 candidates this cycle. The DCCC must come clean on how and why it spends its funds and what percentage of those funds is coming from the public versus the PAC's. Again, you can check out www.opensecrets.org/ to get an idea.

The money merry-go-round never stops. From the time they enter Congress, members are endlessly making fundraising calls and attending pricey events with big donors to add to their coffers -- time they should be spending serving their constituents. You can see it in their countless solicitation mailings, with even more coming from the Party. A particularly galling tactic is to demand money so they can "continue their work" on one or more of the critical issues facing America and nagging at our very souls, almost as if to say, "Hey! You care about this issue, you'd better give us money if you want us to care about it, too!"

Last week I was so annoyed by yet another of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's campaign's solicitations that I returned the e-mail with a message -- "Enough is enough already with da money! Isn't $7 million enough in her coffers?" At least that got a response from a staff member.

And while individual members of Congress are working their constituents over for money and the Party organizations are collecting vast sums from God-knows-whom, our Prez is hosting fundraisers at such elegant digs as the St. Regis Hotel in New York City, where he recently hobnobbed with 185 Wall Streeters who ponied up $25,000-$50,000 a piece to attend an exquisite dinner prepared by four internationally reknowned chefs. He was joined by Nancy Pelosi and 23 Democratic members of Congress. Just weeks before, our President was lambasting these same Wall Streeters for their unconscionable, amoral greed, but I suppose on this night it was OK to accept some of those ill-gotten gains as political contributions. What next, a "power cruise" in the Gulf of Mexico with executives from BP?

This exercise in shameless hypocrisy was a fundraiser for the DCCC and yet another compelling reason for the passage of the Fair Elections Now Act.

Also check out http://www.votesmart.org/ for more information on these issues.

Additional content by Jon Stone.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 41
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
09:28 PM on 06/13/2010
bighat wrote "I see no difference between democrats and republicans when it comes to fund raising, letting lobbyists write the actual legislation and selling out the american citizenry."

Interesting. Perhaps some readers know that health care is not an issue of political parties or campaign contributions by lobbyists. That is, it isn't this kind of situation in other free-market countries.

Why not? Because the citizens in those countries know what a health care for all system is like.

Of course, Americans living and working in those other countries also know what a health care for all system is like ... and they like it.
http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/Real_Life_Stories#other

So ... in part ... it's a matter of informing Americans and inviting them to take action .... and then getting our own health care for all via Improved Medicare for All.
http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/Explanation

Then ... regarding "da money" ... we will not have the same scenario of control. That is, the people will be in control instead of the lobbyists.

Relative to the multiple-issue topic of the Fair Elections Act, success by the people on the single-issue topic of health care could at least have citizens know that they did accomplish that control for one topic.

Perhaps that success could help the other ... ??? ...

Bob Haiducek, Bob the Health and Health Care Advocate
11:05 PM on 06/02/2010
"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of changes in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." -- Supreme Court Justice William Douglas

It is obvious that everything has and is changing for the worse at an accelerated rate as the past several presidents along with Democrats and Republicans in Congress and their counterparts in the states run this great nation and its people into the ground.

Their only interest is political aspiration and unbridled greed, and it makes no nevermind to any of them how they attain their goals. NIghtfall has arrived while most Americans were more interested in watching reality TV than paying attention to what was going on around them.

Clean elections won't make a dent - every bill they write is riddled with loopholes for their corporate money masters from bailouts to so-called health care reform and on down the line.

Our best bet at this point is to figure out how to survive what they are dumping on us. Only those who are awake will make it through.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Pearl Korn
11:02 AM on 06/04/2010
The wisdom of justice Douglas lives on, and continues to be timely. A continued fight against that darkness must continue and does in many places and on many levels.

How can you say clean elections won't make a dent. Once the toxic money is removed by the FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT all of the special interest influence will be gone. Public funding and our votes will matter. And on the voting level we must be more selective and not be afraid to show our displeasure with our elected officials if they don't represent our interests.

Your concern is self preservation. Are we not after all our brothers keeper? Let's have more WE INSTEAD OF ME, then we can look forward to serious change for one and all.
01:23 AM on 06/07/2010
Pearl - you say: How can you say clean elections won't make a dent. Once the toxic money is removed by the FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT all of the special interest influence will be gone.

I said in my comment that any act or law Congress writes and passes has loopholes galore. That is why such an act will not have an impact on campaign financing/elections.

You say: Your concern is self preservation. Are we not after all our brothers keeper? Let's have more WE INSTEAD OF ME, then we can look forward to serious change for one and all.

Four years of fighting nearly 24/7 for meaningful health care reform is not something a person does who is only concerned with self-preservation and me instead of we.

Good luck with the serious change. I'm moving on.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
dnalpahs
09:17 AM on 06/02/2010
We have this backwards. Government gets involved in business through over-regulation and picking winners and losers, and that makes businesses hire lobbyists.

Take healthcare. The government gets involved to the point that insurance companies have to hire lobbyists.

No business whats to have to go to Washington, but because of over-regulation and a tax code that favors one industry over another, it is necessary to go to Washington. And when they get there, the ploiticians have their hands out.

Washington not only has no interest in "fixing" this, they created it. Corporations are NOT taking over Washington, Washington is blackmailing business.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Puller58
Man of Mystery
09:42 AM on 06/02/2010
More of a co-dependent situation. Or chick & egg. Pork & lobby is the name of the game and our fearless felons on the hill essentially posture, pander and peddle influence.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
dnalpahs
10:17 AM on 06/02/2010
Less chicken and egg when the political class gets involved (healthcare, finance) for the sole purpose of getting the attention of that industry to increase the political classes power to pick winners and losers and increase contributions. They are actively creating lobbyists to gain power and money.

MicroSoft wanted to stay out of Washington and never hired lobbyists, until Washington saw all that money and wanted a piece. They are not forced to hire lobbyists and donate to both parties or risk more federal lawsuits.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kmich718
Hope for the best - Prepare for the worst
10:19 AM on 06/02/2010
Both are doing a number to the other. Both feed eachother. Neither one is more dependent on the other. It's become a situation where one doesn't exist without the other.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
bighat
Truth as I see it
03:59 AM on 06/02/2010
Every member of congress and the President seem to start fund raising from their first day in office.

We only have 1 choice. Vote out the incumbents and keep voting them out until they represent the people instead of the corporations.

When congress passes legislation that strips corporations of any rights as individuals. Then bans business from donating any funds for political activities.
Add in people running for congress can only raise funds from the congressional districts they want to represent then we will know we finally have the right people in office.

Getting the right people to represent us should be more important than any other legislation being considered from war funding to health care along with financial reform.

As it stands now our congress raises funds for re election from the same corporations that profit from their legislation.

Perhaps this is why the wars continue, the healthcare bill is weak, and we bail out companies that have run themselves into the ground.

I see no difference between democrats and republicans when it comes to fund raising, letting lobbyists write the actual legislation and selling out the american citizenry.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Pearl Korn
11:13 AM on 06/04/2010
You agree with me on many counts.

The answer remains, PUBLIC FUNDING, PUBLIC FUNDING.
Republicrats and Republicans indeed one and the same.Our bail out of companies and its corporate welfare must stop and those tax loop holes off shore for corporations must also stop.Certainly a look at the Prez's economic advisers needs review and change. Why isn't Joseph Stiglitz and Robert Reich sitting in on meetings with Obama?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ray christl
HEMP can save us from ourselves.
03:55 AM on 06/02/2010
Real problems in our world ,and the President sends people to get out of the RAIN ,so we gush with pride.I voted for that wonderful man. Indeed, what are the 18 month deeds of no-knock SWAT TEAM ACTION.Up to all time highs under the stimulus DEMS. WE march for PEACE and vote DEBS,and our effort gets the bonus of additional ex-BUSH-DEA promoting 50,000 swat warrants and even expanding,like moving up to Canada. BUSH-DEA still think BIG>40,000 swat warrants in 2006 when Radley Balko 's book on Paramilitary creates dog murder prevention of anti-medical marijuana industry.Stealing and raping liberty over a plant/herb that can CURE CANCER. A dodgy 500 billion toxic patent cancer making pharma-petro chem-monopoly.Don't ad hominem tbag and gun slave devolutioaries.Don't mock the Tbag intellectuals until you vett all separate arguments.Anti-DEMSrREPS platform is good for democracy.Obama is REAGAN with sweet NANCY SHOW.
08:46 PM on 06/01/2010
In most countries people are convicted for bribing elected officials and the officials convicted for accepting the bribes.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Pearl Korn
11:16 AM on 06/04/2010
This usually takes place in third world countries run by juntas.

I am all for convicting officials who take bribes. That would mean incarcerating all members of congress. SO, the system must change to remove this legalized bribery. Let's get to work.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:13 PM on 06/01/2010
Look, Pearl... instead of trying to come up with a bunch of rules as to what kind of bribery is okay, and what kind of bribery is not ... and who is allowed to bribe public officials and who is not ... why don't we pass a law that expressly forbids bribery altogether.

I'm thinking of something along these lines:

"The President, Vice President and ALL civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, BRIBERY, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Oh. Wait a sec. It's already there. It's already the Supreme Law of the Land, and it always has been ... even before our Bill of Rights was enacted. Article 2, Section 4.

Therefore: the entire "da money trail" is, by definition, a Felony, for which "all civil officers SHALL BE removed from office."

The US Constitution: it's not just a good idea. It's The Law.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:24 PM on 06/01/2010
Here is the reality that our Founders clearly understood:

"You cannot serve both God and Mammon."

Now, granted, we are not talking about God here, but the principle is the same: EITHER you are serving "a higher purpose" (such as: being a legislator on behalf of the people who elected you), OR you are serving the most craven motivations in your own self-interest.

Therefore, the express intention of the Constitution is both brilliant and clear. If you "cross the line" into crime, whether wholeheartedly or slightly, you have "disqualified" yourself to be a holder of "any civil office." Period. You are to be held to an (ahem...) unimpeachable standard of conduct, no matter who you are and no matter what the nature of the offense might be.

The Constitution does not bother to split hairs as to what constitutes "bribery" and what does not. Its standard is simply, "zero tolerance."

IF the People of the United States of America applied this principle, exactly as it was provided in the Supreme Law of their Land, then ... the United States of America would be the shining beacon upon a hill that it, by every right, ought to be. We, the People, should expect absolutely nothing less.

We are, today, "a nation of 309 million Plaintiffs," suffering actual damages every day, because we do NOT enforce this rule. Our world's oceans are full of an unstoppable geyser of petroleum because we do NOT enforce these thirty-one(!) words.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Pearl Korn
11:22 AM on 06/04/2010
I didn't suggest that rules be implemented to make any bribery O.K. To the contrary, with public funding bribery would end.Our democracy would be returned to the PEOPLE. It seems simple enough, get corporate influence out of politics and have our voice count in the voting booth.

The Constitution got it right and now to adhere to it. The how is the next move.
05:29 PM on 06/01/2010
Ms. Korn, I believe most of what you've written, you know, I've seen the move,"Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Do you have specific data on which Senators and Congresspeople are receiving X amount of dollars, and precisely from which company or corporation? If this data can be published daily in newspapers, I think we can relieve these people of their jobs. Or, if many of the newspapers, are already "bought," we can establish a free press to print the information. Surely, this country can expose unethical (criminal) behavior by legislators, while they are in office. Who does most of this lobbying? Unions or corporations? Where and when do you think all of this dishonesty started? Do you think this behavior is a historical trend that perhaps was an Anglo-European trait, or is it innate in all cultures of the Earth? I know one thing now, no individual or solicitor gets my vote or my support, until they have laid bare every single dollar that has come to them in all aspects of their estate.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:27 PM on 06/01/2010
If it quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, then ... "it's a duck." If we know that 11,000 people are spending billions of dollars "influencing" Congress ... then duh-h-h-h-h-h.

When our Constitution plainly says that "all civil officers shall be removed from office for ... bribery ...", then, to borrow a phrase from a really wretched country song: "this ain't no thinkin' thang."
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Pearl Korn
11:23 AM on 06/04/2010
A wealth of answers to your questions can be found by spending serious time researching opensecrets.org ( The Center For Responsive politics)
03:28 PM on 06/01/2010
Dear Pearl--Complimenti for your magnificent article, Following "Da Money" Trail In Congress, as posted in the Huffington-Post, June 1st, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pearl-korn/following-da-money-trail_b_595740.html .As always you are a very methodical writer, and most importantly, your labor-of-love is clearly found in your perspectives.Furthermore, rather than reiterate what you have gallantly asserted, I would like to further complement your viewpoints as to where we are heading to in the context of the real world. Accordingly, I would like to respectfully resort to the recent U.S. Supreme Court's decision: Citizens United v. FEC, No. 08-205, January 21th i.e., Supreme Court Rolls Back Campaign Spending Limits on Corporations, that's, "by a 5-4 margin, could unleash a torrent of corporate and union cash into the political realm and transform how campaigns for president and Congress are fought in the coming years."To that end, it is a documented fact that Pres. Barack Obama has expressed his apparent disappointment:“a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” Therefore, when I consider Pres. Obama's stern perspective, I believe that your article is right on "Da Money," and unless there is/are appropriate action(s) to correct this real problem, things unfortunately will get worse, before they will get better.Complimenti!!! Rosario
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Pearl Korn
05:47 PM on 06/01/2010
Citizens United vs. FEC must have a response. We hear that Rep. Chris Van Hollen is working on it and hopefully it will have muscle.Our immediate answer is to pass the FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT and go to Public Financing.This will help to rid our country of the toxic money pervading every aspect of our lives.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:32 PM on 06/01/2010
Actually, Perl, what "Citizens United" really showed us is that even the Supreme Court of the United States can be "bought."

Any form of what could be considered "bribery" is, per Article 2 Section 4 of the -original- Constitution text ... prohibited already. The Supreme Court was never given the power of judicial review over the Constitution itself. The text of the Constitution may only be changed by Amendment; not by the rule of any Court.

Unfortunately, Sen. Dodd's attempt to introduce a Constitutional Amendment is precisely to have the =opposite= effect. If any mention of "contributions" is added to the Constitutional text, then it introduces the notion that some forms of bribery (i.e. "contributions") ARE okay. Which will instantly blow a great big hole in the side of the ship.

The influence of "filthy lucre" upon a system of Government cannot be under-estimated. We are already a nation of Plaintiffs. And, now, so is the entire World ... as the unchecked consequences of financial crime spread ... as millions of gallons of unchecked petroleum spread ...

This is NOT "a victimless crime."
10:06 AM on 06/01/2010
Your point of view lacks consistency. On the one hand, you rail against politicians accepting money from corporations and lobbyists, but on the other, you excoriate Senator Gillibrand for trying to raise money from individual supporters. You seem to want to have it both ways. And why single out Gillibrand? Are you planning to support Joe DioGuardi in November?
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Pearl Korn
02:21 PM on 06/01/2010
Why is all of this money even necessary? With Public Funding and the passage of the FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT it would disappear. I honed in on Gilly because she is my Senator and her all too frequent requests for money is a pain, especially for work she should be doing any way. And is paid for. With $7 million in her coffers why is she seeking more? They are all guilty of this grubbiness.
02:39 PM on 06/01/2010
She's seeking more because not only does she have a state-wide campaign to finance this year, but she'll have another one -- one that may be a lot more complicated than this one -- in just two more years. It costs a lot of money to run for public office -- I don't know what you mean by "especially for work she should be doing anyway". . I agree that it would be better for everybody -- especially for the candidates -- if elections were publicly funded. That way, they wouldn't have to spend so much time and effort raising money, and they wouldn't have to fret lest whatever money they are given comes from some source that some people consider "tainted."
09:57 AM on 06/01/2010
The bribed congress will next set themselves upon our savings and social security. Their solution will be to raise retirement to 70, medicare to 70, cut your social security, benefits by 20% and "borrow" our 401k/IRA funds to balance the mess they've made of the nations balance sheet. Oh, there'll be an IOU promise capped by a miniscule rate of return tied to the phony CPI numbers which no longer include food or fuel in calculating because who uses food or fuel?

Obama was elected on his promise, and our wish, for the exceptional but has proven instead to be the mere exception in 44.
A harsh assessment but, based on the soaring campaign rhetoric and the fervent cult of personality following developed, it's not a stretch to say thoughtful voters see a gap between potential and delivery that is deeply disturbing as it portends and parallels their slowly clearing view of a much diminished future for America.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Pearl Korn
02:29 PM on 06/01/2010
Sadly, you are correct. The Commission recentlycreated with Bowles and Simpson at the helm , more than suggests that they will be looking to cut Medicare and raise the age in Social Security. and Medicare. This is their expertise. Trimming the perceived fat. We will have to be very vigilant.And scream till we are blue in the face, if that helps.No siting on the side lines and complaining without follow up action.
08:58 AM on 06/01/2010
How do you get corrupt politicians to pass reforms that would curtail or limit their corruption?
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Pearl Korn
09:16 AM on 06/01/2010
By going to Public Financing which the FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT would provide. It would be a four to one in money for candidates and no individuals could donate more than $100.. There is considerable steam picking up on this bill. WE have to get behind it. Call your Senator and Representative to sign on if they haven't already done so.

We must get the toxic, corrupt money out of our politics. Please make those calls.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Knollsgerbils
11:18 AM on 06/01/2010
This is SO true! People need to share this important information with as many people as possible. Something MUST be done. And the FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT is the answer!
08:16 AM on 06/01/2010
Absolutely correct assessment of our corrupt political system. And these jokers are our nation's board of directors? As a former business owner, if I had a board taking bribes from people that wanted company assets, I'd have them jailed. Instead, with politicians, we re-elect them!

Actually, there's nothing wrong with "lobbying," it's lobbying with cash in hand that's the problem. It has trashed the US economy, and the current D's and R's like it just fine. Our trusted politicians took cash bribes and then passed NAFTA so the CEOs could offshore their labor at $1 per hour. Then the shared the booty with the politicians that made it all happen. So what else is new? Is that corruption any different than that in Somalia? What is it about money do we not understand?

If politicians are going to be beholden to their funders, those funders should be the taxpayers. And at $5 per taxpayer per year it would be a bargain. It would be even at 100 times that. As you point out, we MUST lobby our senators and representative to co-sponsor the bill at:
http://www.fairelectionsnow.org/more/summary

Jack Lohman …
http://MoneyedPoliticians.net
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Pearl Korn
09:00 AM on 06/01/2010
Thank you for concurring and mentioning Nafta.Tragically our Prez has made no mention of reversing its devastating effects on labor and the economy.Bill Clinton's legacy, and is referred to as the cowardly lion in my post. As time goes by its impact more devastating.
And yes they must be accountable to us, their employers. We must be more vigilant about who we vote for.

A
Thank you for adding the FAIR ELECTIONS NOW link. We must make its passage happen.
08:14 AM on 06/01/2010
Why no mention of AIPAC Ms Korn?
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Pearl Korn
08:32 AM on 06/01/2010
I am sure a few other big players have been left out. But I attempted to cover as much as possible in the allotted space. Mainly concerning itself with the day to day money pouring in, especially from within the party, and from lobbyists with unlimited access to members of congress. And any left out of importance was not intentional.
08:54 AM on 06/01/2010
Thank you for the clarification Ms Korn.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mommadona
I paint. I blog. Therefore, I am.
07:44 AM on 06/01/2010
#1 reason why politics should NOT be a full-time job/profession ~ Congress only needs 1 session a year. period. Same for states. The time wasted can be seen by viewing a few hours of "The Senate Floor" on CSPAN ~ w/not a body in sight. #2 reason why members of congress should have their main offices in their HOME districts (more the better to see U, my dears) #3 reason why members of congress should volunteer ~ any stipend provided by your STATE, according to their discretion/provisions.

Politics is NOT governing

Time for a paradigm switch and the shutting down of the 'machine' for long-overdue maintenance.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Pearl Korn
08:24 AM on 06/01/2010
And here I thought I made a compelling case for an overhaul in Congress.
You suggest they should spend more time at home and I agree. However if Congress only were to meet once a year nothing would be accomplished in congress from those home stays.

Politics as it exists today stinks and we must clean it up. It is clearly non functional today.
06:02 PM on 06/01/2010
It is destructive. Can we destroy it before it destroys us? There may be no correction except through fear and violence.