January 19, 2007 7:02
Re: Never mind...
UPDATE: The ethics bill comes back from the dead in the Senate. The most important thing in this bill is the additional disclosure requirements that it puts on lobbyists and lawmakers, which will make it much harder for them to do favors for each other without anyone knowing about it.
Does this mean Congress will be squeaky clean from here on out? The history of ethics reform is lather-rinse-repeat. Reforms work for a while, until politicians find a way around them. And often, the seeds of the next scandal are sown in the effort to clean up the last one. The classic example is campaign finance reform: In answer to the abuses of Watergate, Congress established PACs, which became their own Culture of Corruption. So they clamped down on them, which led to huge increases in "soft money." So they got rid of soft money in McCain-Feingold, which sent the money into 527s. The result is, there's more money in politics than ever, and it's harder to trace.
UPDATE UPDATE: In comments, AlphaLiberal makes a good point:
Well, it was pretty hard to trace when donations were made in brown paper sacks. Now we have campaign finances reported and analyzed online.So, "I'm just going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there."
But I can't see where ideologically driven 527s, especially when they work in concert with affiliated 501 (c) 4s (which don't have to disclose their donors), are much of an improvement on the political hackery of soft money. I do agree that online reporting is a real step forward--though to really work, it should have to be done in real time, not weeks and months after the fact, when the damage has already been done.
About Swampland
Ana Marie Cox is the founding editor of Wonkette and the author of the novel Dog Days. Read more
Joe Klein is TIME's political columnist and author of six books, most recently Politics Lost. Read more
Karen Tumulty is TIME's National Political Correspondent and has also covered the White House and Congress. Read more
Jay Carney is TIME's Washington bureau chief. He has covered the Clinton and Bush 43 White Houses as well as Congress. Read more
Jay Newton-Small has covered the Bush 43 White House and Congress since the DeLay era. Read more
Michael Scherer is a TIME Washington bureau correspondent covering the 2008 presidential campaign. Read more
Mike Murphy is a GOP consultant and was a senior strategist for John McCain's 2000 presidential campaign. Read more
RSS Feed
 |
Daily Email
CNN Politics
Get U.S. and global politics 24-7. Politics at CNN has campaign coverage, latest headlines and video, candidates' positions on the issues, fundraising totals, states to watch, delegate counts, election results, news and analysis
CNN Politics
The Page
Mark Halperin and the TIME political team covering the 2008 campaign bring you all the latest breaking news, videos, and best stories from every
source, all in one place, expertly culled and edited, 24/7.
The Page
White House Photo Blog
Get an intimate look at the Bush administration and race for 2008 through the eyes of TIME's White House photographers.
White House Photo Blog
Ana Marie Cox on the trail
Keep up with Cox as she posts pictures and tidbits from the campaign trail.
Flickr
Twittr
Reader Comments
Posted by trifecta
January 19, 2007
Too much money in the system from all the lobbying groups on both sides of the aisle. The obvious answer is public financing which will actually save the taxpayers money because less industry groups need to be greased.
The media won't promote this because they are at the trough too. The same industry groups that lobby congress give a ton of "free money" to journalists to give pep talks at $5,000 to $30,000 a pop.
Isn't that right Jay Carney? Represented by Keppler Speakers Or, Ana Marie Cox, represented by All American Speakers, or Joe Klein, who of course has been known to collect quite a bit of cash as well.
It reminds me of when Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts took a ton of cash from groups such as the tobacco lobby til ABC was shamed into having them knock it off.
The point I am getting at is that the media will not help address the issue because they are part of the problem. It also affects their coverage of issues. If a trade group is offering you $20,000 a pop to give them 45 minutes of boiler plate, are you really going to work very hard to show how the group is greasing the head of the appropriations committee?
Filthy lucre is corrupting D.C. Politicians from both parties and the media are equally corrupted.
Posted by Buffy Moitz
January 19, 2007
So, they should not have passed this bill?
Posted by Ben
January 19, 2007
Speaking of ethics... what are we supposed to make of the Post's front-page story today about John Edwards selling his house to a guy who has some shady stock transactions in his past? It seems like a pretty standard real-estate transaction (in fact the Edwardses got less than they wanted) yet it's reported in the sort of breathless style one might associate with a recap of Duke Cunningham's looting scheme. I would be interested to hear whether you reporter-bloggers think this sort of story adds anything useful to our knowledge of the candidates.
Posted by trifecta
January 19, 2007
Ben, ignore the Post story. It was written by John Solomon, of the breathless, Harry Reid got to sit on a folding chair for free at a Vegas boxing event, fame.
It appears now that he moved from the AP to the Post, Edwards is the new target.
I honestly don't care if liberals get caught doing bad things, in fact, it's a good thing when all corruption gets exposed.
It would be just as inane to me, if there was a story about Dick Cheney selling his house to somebody who turned out to be a jerk (like him).
Unless it's a situation where overmarket value was paid as a quid pro quo, this is bullshit journalism. Does John Solomon plan on doing background checks on all buyers of real estate at fair market value that all politicians have been involved in? There ain't even sizzle here. Find a quid pro quo. The house being sold 25% or more over market, then it's a story that should be followed aggressively.
Posted by trifecta
January 19, 2007
Quick follow up. Edwards got $500,000 less than asking price for the house.
It was sitting on the market forever, nobody was biting, and this guy came in, and offered him $500,000 under, and John Solomon thinks he is Woodstein.
Duke Cunningham this is not. It's crap. Jay, Ana, Karen, and Joe, it's things like this that gives people such low opinions of journalists.
We get the fact that Solomon's beat is nailing democrats for being as sleazy as the GOP. I am sure some of them are. But Solomon is so crappy at his job that we get bs stories like the ones he does on Harry Reid and John Edwards.
Why didn't anybody catch Jefferson in Louisiana? That's real corruption. Not this crap.
Posted by AlphaLiberal
January 19, 2007
Well, it was pretty hard to trace when donations were made in brown paper sacks. Now we have campaign finances reported and analyzed online.
So, "I'm just going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there."
Posted by James, Los Angeles
January 19, 2007
Here's a pet theory of mine, Karen, on the subject of Senatorial ethics.
Washington journalists, including those from Time, have been so absorbed in Hillary-bashing and cocktail party-going and gossipy inside tittering, that they have utterly failed to do their jobs the past six years.
My theory is that Washington journalists have become so lazy that they are incapable of picking up a phone to verify what their anonymous sources are telling them. I thorize that they have forgotten how to investigate and report ethical and legal violations in Washington.
My little pet theory was given a small amount of substantiation by your posting from a couple of days ago with regard to your lying anonymous source.
Your handwringing about ethics reform in the Senate rings hollow. Why haven't YOU been doing YOUR job?
Posted by RT
January 19, 2007
Some simple reform ideas:
1) Make ALL nonprofits disclose their donors above a certain level. ($500/year, say, but I'm flexible.) That wouldn't stop the contribution pipeline, but it would at least be fully visible.
2) Would be nice to see broadcast and cable TV, radio, daily newspapers, and other major media agree on some fairly stringent disclosure standards as well, in terms of who they've worked for, given paid speeches to, etc. in addition to being a talking head or op-ed columnist.
I'm tired of hearing this "Jerome Armstrong worked for a political campaign!" sort of complaint about 'blogger ethics' but no similar disclosure about the traditional media.
3) Public financing of Congressional campaigns. I'd like my reps to work for me and my fellow citizens. But I can't expect that if they have to spend many hours on the phone each week, raising money for their next campaign.
Posted by Terrapin
January 19, 2007
"I do agree that online reporting is a real step forward--though to really work, it should have to be done in real time, not weeks and months after the fact, when the damage has already been done."
Truer words were never spoken. Because everybody knows that after the election nobody bothers investigating the claims made during a campaign. That's 'old news' and we want to 'move forward' and be 'constructive' not simply 'tear people down'. I hate it when the truth tears people down. It is best to allow people to make any possible claim they want and let the voters decide.
OK, wait...I drifted off into conservative dreamland there for a moment but I am back. So Karen, how can we push that real-time disclosure idea further?
Posted by Mike Carton
January 19, 2007
Hey Karen,
Reading comments, posting updates to updates... Looks like you're getting the hang of this blogging thing.
May be you and Wonkette can tag team to teach Joe.
Looking forward to reading the blog.
MikeC
Who got here from Eschaton
PS Looking to read what you are doing about the source who played you.
PPS The comments section needs a preview facility.
MC
Posted by Honest Abe Lincoln
May 27, 2007
I have been told by very reliable sources close to the D.C. Madam case that John Solomon & Peter Baker of the Washington Post & Jeff girth formerly of the New York Times are on the D.C. Madam's list of clients. They received cash payments for hit stories against Democrats from possibly GOP leaning people. Also, they took banned drugs when they went out with the D.C. Madam's escorts & painted the town red. they did this on a regular basis & are very nervous. They (John Solomon, Peter Baker & Jeff Girth) it seems indulged in extremely kinky fantasy sex with these escorts.