![]() There is the problem in a nutshell. Why do you think they do K Street and Wall Street's bidding? Because they know where they are going next. "Public Service" has become a resume builder for their real careers which start after they leave office.
|
|
![]() Someone can get quite a bit of power after 6-12 years in the Congress or Senate. Why do they stick around for 30+ if it's so easy to cash in on their contacts and so forth? They stick around for the power to make policy, not for the chance at future riches.
Chris Dodd makes a decent living heading the MPAA - $1.5M/yr according to Wikipedia. While he was in the Senate he probably averaged 10% of that. He's not going to make up his "lost" earnings in his remaining lifetime - he could have made a lot more than $150k a year during those 30 years. Lobbyists give donations because they want government contracts and favorable treatment in the law. Since we don't have a reasonable public financing system for public office, and since mass-market advertizing is so expensive, and since the "franking" budgets are relatively tiny (and not available at all to challengers), public officeholders are receptive (or at least give the appearance of being receptive) to lobbyists arguments. But they wouldn't vote that way (on the whole) unless they already had that inclination. You think money or a promise of a good job would get McConnell or Whitehouse to change their minds on a vote? I don't. They'll be fine after they leave office no matter what the lobbyists want and they're not motivated by the desire for riches. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott. |
|
![]() The former Senator from Wall Street is your example of a non-corrupt politician? Sure, most of the ones that stay are power mongers reaping huge rewards from the real power in this country ("The owners" that the late George Carlin spoke about).
ÂCandidly, those who count on quote ÂHollywood for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully whoÂs going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. http://www.zdnet.com...cs-as-usual/11152 Think he only started doing that sort of thing after he left office? Think again. "This seems a straight-up quid pro quo. Dodd helped his apparently crooked friend and seems to have received a cut-rate real estate deal on a property in Ireland in exchange. Moreover, it appears Dodd attempted to cover up the gift by failing to disclose it on his financial disclosure forms. To put it mildly, this type of behavior clearly does not reflect well on the United States Senate. We hope the Senate Ethics Committee does a thorough and speedy investigation. Federal prosecutors also need to take a look at this, as knowingly filing false financial forms is a crime," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. http://www.judicialw...christopher-dodd/ |
|
![]() Dodd is no saint. I don't take JudicialWatch as an unbiased source - YMMV.
He's not in the same league as Balgo, or Rita Crundwell, or the folks who ran Bell, CA, or ... That's what I call Corruption. And that's ignoring the fact that even those examples are small-time compared to examples one could easily find over seas. There are levels of gray in this stuff that get washed out when one talks about Corruption in Congress. People who leave Congress usually need to earn a living (the congressional pensions are good, but hardly lavish). People are hired for their expertise, knowledge and contacts. Unless we have a law that elected officials must work for universities or think tanks after they leave office, most are going to end up working for companies that want to make more money than the person costs. Would robust public financing reduce a lot of these problems of apparent quid-pro-quos? I like to think so. Would it eliminate them? No, because one person's quid pro quo is another person's pushing something because it's the right thing to do. Cheers, Scott. |
|
![]() Nearly 5,400 former congressional staffers have left Capitol Hill to become federal lobbyists in the past 10 years, according to a new study that documents the extent of the revolving door between Congress and K Street. http://www.washingto...xPYROK_story.html Then, of course, I might be forgiven for being a little more sensitive about this since the complete and utter idiots of my home state re-elected Dan Coats to the US Senate. And don't get me started on Dan Quayle. If there were any question where lobbying ranks in popularity these days, the attacks on former senator Dan Coats of Indiana over the past week provide a pretty clear answer. http://www.washingto...010021003529.html |
|
![]() The WP isn't much better than a right-wing rag in its political and economic coverage these days. ;-)
Anyway... 5400 over 10 years. Out of how many? That post doesn't say. http://en.wikipedia....ngressional_staff In the year 2000 there were around 24000 people who could be called Congressional Staff (I don't know where the article got 14000). 5% turnover a year is 1200 people a year. 540 people a year (5400/10) is around 2% becoming lobbyists every year. Is it really a huge problem? Without context we can't know. Is it really a problem if some junior staffer leaves the government and goes to work for the AAAS or the IEEE or Greenpeace or some university consortium or Consumers' Union and is a registered lobbyist? The story doesn't say. "Lobbyist == BAD!" is the message. Sure, there are people who will gladly sell their position to the highest bidder. See Randall "Duke" Cunningham. They're rare, though. Be careful what you wish for. People who aren't bribe-able are generally extremely wealthy already. Do we only want plutocrats running our government? I don't. Do we only want people who go to government as their last job? I don't. Cheers, Scott. |