Jail time does wonders

Jack Abramoff is trying to make amends and telling anyone who will listen that money spent by lobbyists is, if anything, even more corrupting than we imagined.

When a public servant has a debt to someone seeking a favor from the government, the foundation of our government is at risk. Each time a lobbyist or special interest makes a political contribution to a public servant, a debt is created. Lobbyists are very adept at collecting these debts. Unfortunately, the true debtor on these obligations is the American people. In a very real way, congressmen who take contributions from lobbyists and special interests are selling our nation to repay their debts of gratitude. That is the price of their votes and offices -- and it must stop. 

The problem is that no one is listening.  Least of all the Democrats.  Instead of banning contributions from lobbyists and committing to shutting the revolving door, each candidate is doing his/her best to convince us that he/she is different. Every piece of campaign mail I have received in the past two weeks tells me that all we need do is elect the correct candidate and he/she will "change Washington"  by the force of his/her special moral strength.

That will not work.  If a candidate has not changed the influence of money in his/her own campaign, there is no chance of that candidate changing Washington.  Once a politician is addicted to money, those plying Jack Abramoff's erstwhile trade are still in control of debt collection.

I have been eating sour grapes*

Now that I have been out of the race for more than 2 months, I think I can comment on Connecticut's 5th Congressional District with the perspective of distance.

Boy am I disappointed.  Just today I received campaign mail from the Roberti and Esty campaigns.

Roberti tells me:  "Chris Donovan and Elizabeth Esty's CROOKED HARTFORD POLITICS aren't what we need in Wahshington."

Esty uses a shattered graphic to let me know:  "Washington IS BROKEN.  Chris Donovan Part of the Problem, More of the Same."

Sure, my hope that one of the Democratic candidates would adopt some version of my non-compete clause to shut the revolving door was wishful thinking.  But it seemed possible that Chris Donovan's finance problems would provide the opportunity for Elizabeth Esty and/or Dan Roberti to make the plague of money in politics their own issue.

If anything, the opposite has happened.  I have been following the campaign through The Register Citizen's excellent blog.  The campaign leading from the convention to the primary has incorporated all the problems folks told me they wanted changed.

1. Much of the campaigning is negative;
2. Out-of-state money is playing a large and unsavory role;
3. Even issues that should unite Democrats are being misrepresented for political advantage.  

I understand the cliche that "politics ain't beanbag."  But at some point we Democrats must commit to seeking politic success for the purpose of better governance.  I hear too many co-workers and friends who have become apathetic because "politicians are only in it for themselves."  Nothing that has happened in CT 5 recently is going to change how such people feel.  

When Democratic politics becomes mostly about gaining power for its own sake, then we might as well be Republicans.  

*I know in the fable the grapes are sour because they can't be eaten.  However, in all honesty, I am bothered by having made so little impact.

The man from Torrington

I just finished reading Tony Horwitz's Midnight Rising: John Brown and the Raid that Sparked the Civil War.  Highly recommended--a gripping tale of an important part of American history.

One of the things I glean from history is that we are much too eager to label things the "most," or "best," or "worst."  (An Australian friend pointed this out when we were watching tennis more than a decade ago and the announcer proclaimed Pete Sampras the "best ever.")

Of course many of us keep saying that our politics are "more divided" than at any other time.  My response is: "Really??"  While our current Congress has accomplished little, none of its members has attacked another with a cane.  And while the income inequality in America is at historic levels, fellow citizens are not being arrested and beaten for demanding the right to vote.

On the other hand, what does seem to have been lost is the righteous outrage that is needed to bring about change.  What I experienced is that candidates and their supporters are so committed to winning, that they do not commit to making the changes in their own campaigns that are morally required.  This is why money has become such a problem.

In my next post, I will address how this is corrupting the race here in Connecticut's 5th District.  

The Corruption of Culture

The three headlines on the New York Times front page today:

1. The Penn State child abuse scandal
2. A "New Fraud Inquiry as JPMorgan's Loss Mounts"
3. The Barclays' LIBOR fixing scandal

It seems that anything that can be labelled "big" is now corrupt: big banks, big-time college football, big Pharma, etc.

And if politics can be called anything, it is big.  Spending on the presidential election this year is forecast to be close to $2 billion.  Most Senate races will cost between $50 million and $100 million.  And many House races will exceed $5 million in spending.  

Yet our election system may be the easiest to change.  Politicians all have the same primary concern--winning the next election.  If voters are willing to demand that candidates commit to limit outside spending and eliminate the revolving door that Congress and the Administration use to acquire high-paying lobbying jobs, then candidates will become less corrupt.  The key is to punish candidates that don't make the commitments.  

As much as I think the no-tax pledge is terribly damaging, I have to admit that it has been effective because those who have ignored or broken it have seen their chance for re-election diminished.  

The only effective tool for voters is denying candidates what they want--winning.  

Wall Street cheating and wildfires

Most of us have had a similar reaction to the study that found that cheating is just another tool used by executives on Wall Street.  That reaction is: "No shit Sherlock."

My take is that corruption is like the plague of wildfires that the western U.S. is experiencing--we reap what we sow.

Our you can think of it like the steroid era in baseball.  I remember hearing a player on sports talk radio when the steroid story first broke explaining why steroid use was so widespread.  He said that a minor league player who was talented and hard-working would not be able to stay clean while his equals using steroids made it to the big leagues.  This former player said too much was at stake: lifelong dreams and millions of dollars.  The same is true for executives on Wall Street.

These men (and a few women) judge themselves by how much money they make and how conspicuously they can consume.  When that sense of self is combined with our current political climate where leaders state that "regulations kill jobs" and the hyper-wealthy are "creators," then the wildfires of cheating have a perfect mix of fuel and conditions to burn through our entire economy.

Supreme Court and Health Care

My family and I were heading to Canada for what turned out to be a wonderful vacation the Thursday when the ACA ruling was announced. We were listening to the audio from MSNBC on satellite radio.  The initial reports were that the court had found it unconstitutional.  We then began listening to "The Diane Riehm Show" on NPR.  The panelists slowly determined that the court had actually upheld the ACA--ruling it was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause but was within Congress' power of taxation.

Since hearing the decision I have had the feeling that Chief Justice Roberts has outmaneuvered everyone who supports health care reform.  My concern comes from much of the analysis I heard around the time the case was argued.  Almost all analysts agreed that the Court could "kick the can down the road" by stating that the individual mandate was a tax, then ruling that no one had yet paid the tax so no one had standing to challenge it.

I suspect that conservative activists are preparing to challenge the constitutionality of "taxing inactivity."  Justice Roberts will be able to argue that Congress cannot regulate inactivity; then in the coup de grace he will be able to say that while Congress has the power to tax, the individual mandate tax is unconstitutional once someone has standing to challenge it.

Now I am not a constitutional scholar.  The decision may be perfectly clear on the constitutionality of "taxing inactivity."  The wording of Chief Justice Roberts may be airtight and not allow for a future challenge once a specific individual has standing.  But I will remain skeptical until the individual mandate has been fully implemented.  Since Citizens United, I believe the conservatives on the court are willing to use any reasoning necessary to increase the power of the powerful while negating advances for middle-class and working Americans.

I hope I am wrong.