Monday, February 27, 2006

The Republican Culture Of Corruption - Ga

Abramoff's efforts may have exposed another Republican who was more than happy to accept Jack's gifts, and vote for his projects.

This time it is Rep. John Linder.

following his trip to Puerto Rico, he supported all island measures Abramoff was lobbying on that came to a House vote.


The fact that these trips appear to have changed his votes is interesting, but that may be legal. Where he may run into trouble is Rep. Lindler (R-Ga.) never bother to report either trip in papers filed with the house. That is a violation of House rules.

Tags

4 comments:

JFH said...

Okay, not filing the trip was stupid and maybe he should fry for it, BUT:

What is the purpose of a lobbyist but to sway a Congressman's opinion on a given issue. Quid pro quo? Kind of weak case as there were no FUTURE campaign contributions from this group nor does the story describe any additional trips made.

So a group with a specific cause invites a Congressman down to their area of interest and explains why he should support the bill, is this a big deal?

BTW, John have you ever been to Puerto Rico in August? Not the best time of year for a "boondoggle"

John said...

Just more evidence of corruption to the core, Or more evidence that big money lobyist work; your choice

In either case, is this the type of governence you think is best. Decision based on who can spent the most money on lobyest and represenatives (or give the largest bribes).

What is funny is even when he went back to correct hsi records and list 9 other trips, he left these two off.

It is the 'little' coruption that is most telling. The casual way that these actions are viewed, but both the congresspersons, and the population.

JFH said...

Well, you're exactly right, John. The concept of lobbying and Congress acceptance to it (BOTH parties!) sounds good on it's face:

"Hey, how are we going to understand these issues if we don't have different sides brief us on these issues?"

The key is TRANSPARENCY, which was obviously lacking in this case. When someone's gives a Congressman a contribution or trip the opposition should be able to use it against them. For example, say a Dem. Rep. took a lot of contributions from a key defense contractor who then votes for an earmark that the contractor benefits. The challenger should be able to claim corruption, just as the incumbent could say:

1) I believe in the project/system
2) It benefits my local constituents.

The voters should judge which is which.

John said...

I actually spend a fair ammount of time defend the value of lobyest.

The key is TRANSPARENCY, which was obviously lacking in this case. When someone's gives a Congressman a contribution or trip the opposition should be able to use it against them

Not so much transparency, but equal access. In the last 5 years years there have been a 100% increese in the number of buisness lobyest in DC. Companys know where they are getting a return on investment, and a Republican controled DC is a gold mine.

Energy lobyest got to dictate the Energy bill, Drug COmpanies got to dictate the Sr Drg Bill, on and on and on.

This is not what is good for the US, but what is good for Shell, PB, Glaxco Welcome, and Phizer.

There is no easy or guick fix, but the first step is to expose to light all those who appear to have found to many ways to work the system their own advantage, at the disatvantage of the rest of the nation.