"I wish they would only take me as I am" - Vincent Van Gogh               "How Can I believe in God when just last week I got my tounge caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?" - Woody Allen              "Our truest life is when we are in dreams awake" - Henry David Thoreau              "I took a speed reading course and read 'War and Peace' in twenty minutes. It involves Russia" - Woody Allen            "When promulgating esoteric cogitations, eschew platitudinous ponderosities" - Mark Rowan, my father            "Up, sluggard, and waste not life, for in the grave there will be sleep enough" - Benjamin Franklin             "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world." - Albert Einstein            "Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence" - Ronald Reagan            "It's odd that you can get so anesthetized by your own pain or your own problem that you don't quite fully share the hell of someone close to you." - Lady Bird Johnson              "I still want to be the candidate for guys with confederate flags in their pickup truck" - Howard Dean

e-mail me

My Photo
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, United States

Graduate of the University of Oregon, Married for 4-1/2 years to my High School sweetheart. I am currently residing in Cleveland while I attend med school.

  • John McCain
    • Read what I feed

    Powered by Blogger

    Tuesday, May 09, 2006

    Will a Democratic Congress ban all contributions from lobbyists? Pelosi Could

    This weekend on Meet The Press, Tim Russert interviewed House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Most of the media is focused on Rep. Pelosi's statements seeming to imply that Democrats would seek impeachment if they win the house. While potential impeachment is a big story, it is nothing new from the Democrats. However, what has gone largely unnoticed were Rep. Pelosi's remarks about lobbyists and how campaigns are funded. The following exchange Demonstrates the Minority Leader's intentions:
    MR. RUSSERT: Will you bar all lobbyist contributions?
    REP. PELOSI: I’m for, I’m for what we call clean campaigns. That is [p]ublic funding of campaigns. I think we have to break the link completely. I think we have to break the link completely.
    MR. RUSSERT: Who’s going to pay for that? You think the American taxpayer will want to pay for campaigns?
    REP. PELOSI: Well, you can—it can be an add-on. Or the American people can decide...
    MR. RUSSERT: What do you mean, add-on to what?
    REP. PELOSI: They can add-on to their—in other words, you’re paying your considerable taxes...and you can add on to that to, to get a...
    MR. RUSSERT: But voluntary—it doesn’t pay for the presidential system, barely. How, how...
    REP. PELOSI: Well, well that’s a decision the country has to make. But you’re asking me would I ban, I’m answering back what I would do. But what we do...
    MR. RUSSERT: But will, will a Democratic Congress ban all contributions from lobbyists?
    REP. PELOSI: We could do that.
    MR. RUSSERT: You will?
    REP. PELOSI: We could do that.
    (full transcript)
    These ideas, though not as incendiary as talk of impeachment, represent far more extreme and dangerous stances. First of all, they serve to show the willingness of Democratic leaders to raise taxes, whatever the cause. The all-too-common thought appears to be "if there's a problem, raising taxes will fix it". Remember that these statements came the very same week that the Dow Jones was approaching record levels, with recent unemployment numbers showing more improvement, and in an economy that hat been growing faster than any other industrialized nation; three products from President Bush' highly criticized tax cuts (for the sake of full disclosure, I was initially against the cuts but have come to realize that they have stimulated the economy). Raising taxes now would be a horrible decision.

    Secondly, Rep. Pelosi does not realize the importance that privately funded campaigns play. It is a simple argument of incentives. Candidates with a more appealing message are able to obtain proportionally greater levels of financial support. Those with less popular ideas receive less money. The incentive to donate money is that you are giving it to a candidate whom you agree with. In that way, financial support is a reflection of candidate support. Strictly publicly funded campaigns (i.e. if hard-money and soft-money lobbying were banned) would eliminate this concept, preventing those with more appealing messages - be it more appealing to businesses, religious groups, civil rights groups, individuals, educational groups etc. - from obtaining a financial advantage. Related to this is the fact that people are hesitant to provide an "add-on" to their taxes when the money may go to support candidates whom they strongly disagree with. In this way her "plan" is completely nonsensical, and should be recognized as such.

    Thirdly, corruption obviously exists on capitol hill, but placing a "ban" on lobbying is not only unconstitutional, it doesn't address the issue. Bribery can occur whether or not someone is labeled a lobbyist. If Jack Abramoff's official job title were not "lobbyist", would his actions be less despicable? Of course not! Bannying lobbying will prevent bribery to the same extent that banning murder lowers the homicide rate. In fact, one could argue that the recent scandals on both sides of the political divide represents a success; that those who perpetrate these corrupt acts are being caught.

    If Minority Leader Pelosi really wants to fight corruption, she should do so in a way that does not stifle our political system, and that provides meaningful changes and oversight. Extreme talk of raising taxes and publicly funded elections only show how out of touch she is with logic.


    Blogger T.L. Stanley said...

    The Democrats want political contributions to Republicans stopped. However, they will never suggest that unions cease giving to Democrats. Also, the Communist Chinese are always a good source of contributions for the Democrats. Just ask Bill Clinton.

    2:43 AM  
    Anonymous Debbie said...

    I agree with the first comment. Pelosi is worth millions, maybe more.

    She just gives me the creeps every time she makes a crazy statement. I think the rest of the Dems are upset with her latest ... "the things the Democrats will do in their first 100 days if elected, like start prosecuting Bush, etc.

    Creepy woman.

    8:21 PM  
    Blogger Travis said...

    Oh how the tables have turned!

    The other day I saw a really interesting debate between two political pundits, and the Republican said that the Republican campaign strategy for 2006 will be, essentially, "you don't want to go through a lewinsky-level debacle in D.C. again, do you?"

    I guess the only difference between then and now is that voters did not jump ship on Clinton in the way that they have with Bush - which I believe speaks less to political tit-for-tat, and more to the level of competency people expect in their President.

    However, regardless, I don't think either house of Congress will actually change hands in 2006 - perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised.

    What I WOULD like to see, if and when the House goes to Democratic hands, is whether the Democrats will have the political courage to actually follow through with their current promises to the public -- or, if Americans will get what they got from the Contract with America in 1995 - nothing.

    8:44 PM  
    Blogger prying1 said...

    Great post GC! These folks are nuts!

    2:15 PM  

    Post a Comment


    Links to this post:

    Create a Link

    << Home