Interesting list of initiatives.

Tell me, Michael, since we're discussing Congress, how do you feel about the FBI raiding a corrupt Congressman's office? I'm not being snarky or anything. I'm just curious how this is cutting over on your side of the fence.

Michael- great post and great links. I won't donate to a Democrat, but I will contine to write and call Republican operatives.

As for the Hassert issue:

Orin Kerr pretty much nailed the legality this morning...Jefferson was served last summer, but failed to tell the House until Sept. 15, 2005. When he failed to respond, the FBI had no choice. And they did go to a judge. I am not sure how they say that because it has never happened, precedant has been set. I believe it has never happened because those that were in the same position, never allowed it to get to this!

Article I, 6, cl. 1 . . . does not purport to confer a general exemption upon Members of Congress from liability or process in criminal cases. Quite the contrary is true. While the Speech or Debate Clause recognized speech, voting, and other legislative acts as exempt from liability that might otherwise attach, it does not privilege either Senator or aide to violate an otherwise valid criminal law in preparing for or implementing legislative acts. If [the conduct under investigation] would be a crime under an Act of Congress, it would not be entitled to immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause. It also appears that the grand jury was pursuing this very subject in the normal course of a valid investigation.

Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 626-27 (1972),

Michael,

Thanks for the clarification.

You can excuse me for thinking I'm in some Bizarro version of the United States: Pelosi demands that Jefferson resign the Appropriations committee and Hastert claims a violation of the constitutional separation of powers.

What the hell is going on??

A couple of thoughts:

1. We in Louisiana have known forever that Jefferson was a crook. But like they say, if you think HE was bad, you ought to see his constituents. I'm just saying.

2. Like that goofball in the movie Airplane, Hastert "picked a hell of a time to stop sniffing glue." After being a rubber stamp Congress for Bush for nearly 6 years, after rolling over for the president time and time and time again, after turning a blind eye as Bush gave Congress the finger, NOW Hastert wakes up? Feh. Well, I guess better late than never, eh?

To paraphrase Richard Dimitri as Roman Troy Moronie in Johnny Dangerously:

Fargin' Icehole Hastert.

Haster's a twerp and an idiot for arguing a nonexistent privilege, but it appears the stoy of him being under investigation may not be true.

OTOH I read a good knee-slapper today about how the whole Truth-out debacle was a set up by Rove. Is there anything that man cannot do?

It's morning in America.

Hey, as long as there was a warrant, the FBI search of Jefferson was legit, there being felonies and all, which is the exemption from the "Speech and Debate" clause.

I was figuring that Frist was making noises because of the SEC investigation, but it did seem weird that Hastert was making even more noise -- and now we know why. I had been wondering how he had kept clear of the DeLay/Abramoff thing. I mean, just how does a powerful Chicago politician not, have legal troubles?

Pam, you did a very good job listing all the democrat scandals. You missed a few, but stole my thunder because I had been working on the same thing myself for a blog post that will now probably go unpublished. One thing so many of them had in common was greed, just plain old theft or graft. I was going to point out that theres a different phenomenon now.

What makes things different now with the GOP scandals is the motivations and structure seem different. Power was the reason for the K-Street Project, all legit, but when coupled with the ordinary bribery and extortion we are seeing it comes closer to something they would charge under RICO.

When the executive branch from the same party pushes the bounds of legitimate secrecy and surveillance, you might not be able to prove conspiracy to commit fraud on the American people, but the perception that we are dealing with an organized crime syndicate remains.

And in politics, perception is reality -- especially at the voting booth.

Mark - I want to take the time to reflect what you pointed out on GOP. I am not sidestepping it!

Pam, on Jefferson. Yeah, I'll buy that.

Hey, I'm not sure about the numbers, or if it includes Hastert, but Bill Press is saying:

In the list of politicians now under investigation, the count is now: Republicans 15, Democrats 1.

I know that there is at least one other Democrat, Mollohan, who stepped down from his committee post on the ethics panel at Pelosi's request.

And that's another difference. The Dem leadership reacts to even the appearance of impropriety, not by circling the wagons but by cutting loose the dead weight.

And that's another difference. The Dem leadership reacts to even the appearance of impropriety, not by circling the wagons but by cutting loose the dead weight.

Jefferson was not asked to step down until today. He was asked to and refused to step down from Ways and Means. He let the leadership know about this on September 15, 2005. It is May 24, 2006. Well, I guess you didn't say how quick they do it! If we go by the raid..you are correct =:)

Gosh, I wish this politics-obsessed Canadain knew what the hell you people were talking about. Sounds exciting.

No, don't explain, I'd just zone out.

Pam:

It appears that ABC pulled at TruthOut here!

Maybe not so much?

Despite a flat denial from the Department of Justice, federal law enforcement sources tonight said ABC News accurately reported that Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert is "in the mix" in the FBI investigation of corruption in Congress.

Speaker Hastert said tonight the story was "absolutely untrue" and has demanded ABC News retract its story.

Law enforcement sources told ABC News that convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff has provided information to the FBI about Hastert and a number of other members of Congress that have broadened the scope of the investigation. Sources would not divulge details of the Abramoff’s information.

"You guys wrote the story very carefully but they are not reading it very carefully," a senior official said....

ABC’s law enforcement sources said the Justice Department denial was meant only to deny that Hastert was a formal “target” or “subject” of the investigation.

"Whether they like it or not, members of Congress, including Hastert, are under investigation," one federal official said tonight....

Officials said the next logical investigative step would be for the FBI to seek a wide range of documents from the members of Congress named by Abramoff, including letters and business documents.

No wonder Denny went ballistic.

Tell me, when you try to stop the investigation like Hastert did, is that considered obstruction?

Mark- thanks for the explanation. You have helped me gain some insight into the legalities of the issue of lobbying...I walk away with this...

1. Lobbying is a legal way to sway the lawmakers with money

2. Campaign finance is bad as you may be able to buy a candidate.

3. add 1+2 from above and that equals a complete joke! These people are legal crooks! (no not all but for the most part)

Pam:
How do you feel about the demand from a lot of progressives about public funding of campaigns? I'm hearing that a lot, not just from Liberal Blogtopians.

Personally, I'm not completely on board, but I don't see an alternative way to get the graft our system.

Also...I'm too rushed for sourcing right now, but I seem to recall that there are only two to four democrats that were mentioned as under scrutiny for Abramoff ties, but that Abramoff personally never gave donations to any democrat, only republicans, a lot of republicans, either directly or though one of his interlinked PACs, 501(c)'s, 527's or his for-profit lobby corporation. And that dems who got funds from his clients (the tribes, etc.) used to get a lot more from those same clients before they hired Jack.

I hate to say it, but it looks like McCain is one of the few GOP lawmakers not beholden to Abramoff since the house of cards started coming down when his Indian Affairs Committee started snooping.

Ara- I understand that un-named sources get used all the time, but it doesn't make it right. I give more credibility to a story where the source is named. That's just me. I also reminded myself that this is the same ABC employee that claimed to be the target of wiretaps last week..so I am wondering if there is an axe to grind..in addition to the fact that they rehashed a 4 month old story...and added to it. It looks like it fell apart within 1 hour!

As for Hasserts actions yesterday, you and I saw different things. I saw him barking about lawbreaking(which it isn't), and demanding that Congressional papers be returned. He made an ass of himself, yes, but I don't think he impeded the investigation. I didn't think his comment, and you could certainly use it to bolster your arguement, helped the situation:

Paraphrased as I can't find the quote:

Once the documents are returned, Jefferson can cooperate!

No Jefferson has his chance to cooperate. Hasert and Pelosi have had 8 months to get this taken care of!

Speaking of campaign finance reform, I'd support this plan from Carville and Begala:

As any average person will tell you, the heart of the problem [of corruption in politics] is that elected officials take money from interested parties.

Whether it's technically legal or not, accepting money as a public servant is a form of bribery, and it serves to fundamentally corrupt democracy.

We don't let cops, customs agents, or federal judges take money from the people they're serving. We should hold elected officials to the same standards. They should be out of the fundraising business altogether.

And, with that, the bad boys from Texas and Louisiana lay out a sweeping, radical plan to remove the corrosive effects of money from politics.

Yeah, I know what you're thinking -- we tried it before. It doesn't work.

But listen up: if nothing else, you should read their piece because you might learn something about how the system really works, not how the civics books explain it.

Here's the PowerPoint outline:

* First, raise congressional pay big time.

* In return, Congress cannot take anything of value from anyone other than a family member. No lunches, no taxi rides. No charter flights. No golf games. No ski trips. No nothing.

* When it is campaign time, incumbents would be under a complete ban on raising money. No president or member of Congress could accept a single red cent from individuals, corporations, or special interests. No nothing.

* Challengers would be allowed to raise money in any amount from any individual American citizen or political action committee. No limits -- as long as they report it electronically, within 24 hours, with full public access to the info.

* Almost every cent raised by the challenger would also be granted to the incumbent -- by the US Treasury.

* Similarly, if an incumbent wants to use his own money, fine. An equal amount will be granted to his challenger -- by the US Treasury.

* If a sitting congressman wants to run for senator, or a senator wants to run for president, they would be allowed to raise funds -- once they have resigned their seat.

* Penalties for violating this system would be swift and awful: Incumbents would be thrown out of office and challengers would be eliminated from running.

There's more:

Today more than 90 percent of all senators and representatives are re-elected. Under current law, incumbents almost always have a huge money advantage.

Our wager is that a majority of incumbents would be willing to give up that advantage in exchange for higher pay and no time spent fundraising.

Think about it. Not only would they be bringing in a much larger salary, they'd also never have to kiss up to another rich donor. You should never underestimate how much these folks hate spending half their time—or more—sniveling for money. Nor should you underestimate how damaging and distorting it is to require federal office holders to spend that time raising money. No wonder they vote on so much legislation without ever reading it.

And what about the public? We haven't seen the final data for 2004, but in all the federal races in 2000—congressional, senatorial, and presidential—candidates spent a total of $1.6 billion. Half of that, which is what taxpayers would have had to shell out under our plan, would be a lot of money: $800 million.

But that is nothing compared to what the current system costs us.

Those special interests who pour money into politicians' campaigns get something in return. Actually, they get a lot in return. Special tax breaks, special loopholes, special funding of pork-barrel projects, maybe even a no-bid contract or two. The energy bill passed in 2005 handed $2 billion in subsidies to the ethanol industry—you know, the fine folks at Archer Daniels Midland. It gave the makers of the controversial fuel additive MTBE another $2 billion. And another $8.1 billion in tax breaks for oil, coal, and electric utilities. In all, that one bill cost you $80.8 billion.

All of a sudden $800 million—one percent of the cost of one bill—doesn't seem like very much money, does it?

Carville &Begala admit that the plan is not perfect. And, of course, it stands zero chance of being implemented simply because of a fundamental conflict of interest: the incumbents would be the ones voting on it and if there is anything those guys hate, it's change in the status quo.

But it's a fascinating idea, not the least because it gives you a pretty good idea of how things really are, not the way we wish them to be.

Ara- I want to adress your post in detail, but am unable to for a bit...this angered me!

* First, raise congressional pay big time.

No, let's not. These people are civil servants of the country. They chose to run for their job knowing full well what they would be paid. These people are paid very well for what they do..note the back end of their pay..ie, retirement. There really is very little they pay for out of pocket. Let's compare their pay to the local cops or firemen..Congress is paid too much imo.

Mark- I am for term limits and a set retirement age. Let's be honest here..Strom was being walked into session and his aides did his job..I have no doubt that Byrd is just about there as well. And let's not forget the staffs that we pay to assist these people! Yikes!

I feel that 12-18 years is plenty of time to "make a difference" in this country.

BTW, why if was the Speaker of the House still defending Tom DeLay as late as last month if he didn't have a personal stake in the outcome?

Contrast that, if you will, on how Pelosi handled Jefferson and Mollohan.

Well, I'm really fond of John Quincy Adams long tenure in the House. I'm against term limits.

Yours,
Wince

Ack, sorry, my bad, I must have meant this link from 04/04/06:

"More importantly, as someone who has served with Tom in the House for 19 years, I am appreciative for his years of unwavering friendship. He embodies the term steadfast and perseveres through even the toughest attacks on Republican ideals and principles. His firm faith in God and his love of family and country is admirable."

"...the incumbents would be the ones voting on it and if there is anything those guys hate, it's change in the status quo."

I'm not so sure that it's isn't because their patrons hate it - not being able to buy public servants, that is. As you suggested earlier, most politicians hate having to constantly pander an panhandle for campaign cash.

And *gulp* I'm with pam on congressional pay. They're paid plenty - does the term "public servant" mean anything to anyone anymore? In fact, I'd make them cover the public with their healthcare plan or make them use the healthcare system available the the least among us.

P.S. Go back and read the rest of their proposal. It's worth discussing.

Mark- The letter from Hassert is sweet and to the point and does not blame the Democrats for Tom DeLay's troubles.

The point that I think you are missing is that neither party addressed the issue and actually dealt with it in a timely manner. Tom was indicted back in Oct and resigned his leadership how many weeks later? Isn't actually leaving until next week. Jefferson notified the Democratic leadership in Sept of 05' and well..that is just a mess! BTW..how should that be handled legally?

Ara- their pay is the point when you are referring to a plan that calls for :

* First, raise congressional pay big time.

* In return, Congress cannot take anything of value from anyone other than a family member. No lunches, no taxi rides. No charter flights. No golf games. No ski trips. No nothing.

This is the breakdown of the pay scale:
Congress: Rank-and-File Members' Salary
The current salary for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $165,200 per year.

• Members are free to turn down pay increase and some choose to do so.

• In a complex system of calculations, administered by the Office of Personnel Management, congressional pay rates also affect the salaries for federal judges and other senior government officials.

• During the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin considered proposing that elected government officials not be paid for their service. Other Founding Fathers, however, decided otherwise.

• From 1789 to 1815, members of Congress received only a per diem (daily payment) of $6.00 while in session. Members began receiving an annual salary in 1815, when they were paid $1,500 per year.

Congress: Leadership Members' Salary (109th Congress)
Leaders of the House and Senate are paid a higher salary than rank-and-file members.

Senate Leadership
Majority Leader - $183,500
Minority Leader - $183,500
House Leadership
Speaker of the House - $212,100
Majority Leader - $183,500
Minority Leader - $183,500

• A cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) increase takes effect annually unless Congress votes to not accept it.

Congress: Benefits
Members of Congress receive retirement and health benefits under the same plans available to other federal employees. They become vested after five years of full participation.

• Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS.

• As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes.

Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Member's of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.

The amount of a Congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.

Data compiled in 2003 showed 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service. The average age of those retiring under CSRS was 75.5 and had at least 20 years of federal service. Those who retired under FERS had an average age of 68.3 years and 21.6 years of federal service. Their average retirement payment was $3,909 a month.

* When it is campaign time, incumbents would be under a complete ban on raising money. No president or member of Congress could accept a single red cent from individuals, corporations, or special interests. No nothing.

Oh gee..do they promise!?

Mark, if in fact they enforced the rules, it would be wonderful. Keep in mind, these yahoos still write the rules they must adhere to. I wouldn't hold my breath on that be written in there!