It only LOOKS like bribery

[mburbank]

Energy firms paying tab for GOP trip
USA TODAY


By Jim Drinkard, USA TODAY

A dozen or more congressional Republicans will gather at a resort in balmy Phoenix this week to hear the legislative wish lists of Western coal, power and mining companies - and raise money from them.

The four-day conference begins today with a $1,500-per-person round of golf and private dinner, dubbed "Mulligans and Margaritas." The money raised from industry officials will be divided among the re-election campaigns of the lawmakers, most of whom serve on committees that oversee the mining and energy industries.

Members of Congress often take privately sponsored trips. Such trips are allowed under ethics rules if they are primarily for fact-finding or other official business.

But guidelines issued by the House ethics committee warn the chamber's members "to avoid even the appearance that solicitations of campaign contributions are connected in any way with an action taken or to be taken in their official capacity."

The conference includes panel discussions with policymakers interspersed with cocktail receptions, dinners and two other golf tournaments. One agenda item: drawing up a "Top Ten To-Do List" for Congress for 2004.

"It is a festival of access-buying," says Frank O'Donnell of the Clean Air Trust, an environmental group often at odds with the conference's industry sponsors.

The event was organized by the Western Business Roundtable, which lobbies for reduced government regulation and other pro-business policies. Its members include utilities, mining companies, railroads and energy companies.

On its Web site, the group claims credit for a long list of lobbying successes. Among them: getting the Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites) to loosen rules governing toxic mercury emissions from power plants.

Jim Sims, the group's executive director, said industry sponsors will pay the food and lodging tab for members of Congress and other government participants. Rooms at the Arizona Biltmore Resort & Spa start at $395 a night. Sims rejected O'Donnell's characterization, calling the event "an open-ended Western issues conference" that will focus on proposals to rewrite clean-air laws and the energy bill stalled in Congress.

Attendees include Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, and representatives of the Energy and Interior departments and the EPA.

Sims said House members confirmed as attending include Reps. Rob Bishop and Chris Cannon of Utah; Jim Kolbe of Arizona; Denny Rehberg of Montana; Darrell Issa of California; and Tom Tancredo of Colorado.

[kellychaos]

Methinks that a campaign reformation enema needs to take place in both the major political parties.

[The One and Only...]

What's your point? People should be able to fund political parties without any limitations, hindrances, or anything of the sort what-so-ever. Furthermore, there should be no public funding of campaigns.

Campaign finance reform has always been a huge failure as far as its stated aims go. As for its unstated aims, they should be obvious: congressional Democrats enacted it in order to lower the huge cash gap between the two parties. And that's just plain dirty politics; no one should be able to hinder my ability to support candidates, even if I support ones who would give me a piece of the pork. After all, Democrats have the right to target minority votes with Affirmative Action, so why shouldn't Republicans get to target money from industry with promises of cutting back taxes? Now, granted, I don't like subsidies going to anyone, but I sure as hell don't want the Democrats to be able to fuck over the Republican's strength from a realistic point of view.

[Jeanette X]

"Hey, I think I'll offer the libertarian perspective on this issue. Because everyone wants to know just what I think about it, even though they should be able to guess by now."

[Big Papa Goat]

Why should people with greater wealth have greater influence in politics?

[Pub Lover]

...because the rich are more equal.

[mburbank]

I'm guessing OAO wouldn't have any trouble with people literally buying votes. With the amount W has 'raised' so far, it shouldn't be a problem. Say, why have votes at all? Save taxes and just count how much money each candidate raises, The one with the most is the winner. What could be a fairer system than that?

[kellychaos]

Your honor, I'd like to introduce into evidence "Exhibit A: George W. Bush".

[The_Rorschach]

To adjudicate without accountability is tyranny. To say any single demographic should have more influence than another over the remaining variables is ignorant, unenlightened and irresponsible.

Even if all the rich possessed a patrician sense of responsibility -a sentiment entirely lacking in the world today, might I add- then I would still stand against such confusion. The Governed must consent to the Governing for the latter to have any legitimacy, at least in accordance with American common-law, therefore each individual must be tried rather than appointed.

[The One and Only...]

The poor have votes. The educated rich have money.

Do you really want the majority to rule? Can you even conceive of the problems that would cause?

In any case, money going to parties does not ensure their election. If it does, that is a problem with voters, and no more.

Remember, I don't believe in pure democracy. I believe in democratic oligarchy.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

The poor have votes. The educated rich have money.

Do you really want the majority to rule? Can you even conceive of the problems that would cause?

In any case, money going to parties does not ensure their election. If it does, that is a problem with voters, and no more.

Remember, I don't believe in pure democracy. I believe in democratic oligarchy.

You've put way too much faith in the wealthy, my friend. Just because someone is on the top of the social ladder and holds an ivy league education is no indication that they're going to do the right thing when it comes to government policy. I'd assume just the opposite based on recent events--the wealthy have only been self-serving; using their position of power to make themselves richer, usually at the expense of the "peasants."

[Brandon]

Oh, and BTW, OAO, there's something I've been dying to know:

From what kind of economic background do YOU come?

[The One and Only...]

I don't come from any one economic background.

I started off in a fairly well off middle-class family. That was fine, but then my parents had to buy a better house. Now, we weren't that well off at the time. So what happens? We lose the house, of course.

At that point I moved into a tiny duplex, and the water barely had enough pressure for the shower. I would have been better off using the kitchen sink. Pigeons roosted on the house all the time, so we were surrounded by shit; needless to say, it wasn't the healthiest place in town. Anyway, once we got our income back up, we moved into a moderate home.

That house was fine. So, of course, my parents had to buy a big ass house, way bigger than the other one we lost, and that is where I live now. I'm betting that something will be fucked up again before too long, but I'm hoping that if it happens, it comes about after I go to college.

And that is my economic history, because I don't want to disclose incomes.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon

You've put way too much faith in the wealthy, my friend. Just because someone is on the top of the social ladder and holds an ivy league education is no indication that they're going to do the right thing when it comes to government policy. I'd assume just the opposite based on recent events--the wealthy have only been self-serving; using their position of power to make themselves richer, usually at the expense of the "peasants."

Yes, but then again, I'm a libertarian. In my view, the invisible hand starts to kick in here.

But you are really missing the issue here, because you can't believe I said what I said that seriously. What is the alternative - allowing the government to pick and choose what parties to support, how much to support them? Um... I don't think so. Talk about perpetuating the two-party system.

In addition, I think it is a waste of tax dollars.

Futhermore, do you honestly believe that campaign finance reform would stop cash flows? Of course not. Regulations can't be that strict or they would have to be horribly inefficient and probably unfair.

Here is a good article on the topic.

[mburbank]

In your little system would you see anything wrong with directly paying people to vote the way you wanted them to?

Would you see anything wrong with companies and individuals, without subterfuge, paying politicians to vote for policies that financially benefitted those corporations?

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

In any case, money going to parties does not ensure their election. If it does, that is a problem with voters, and no more.

On a national level, the candidates wouldn't even be a candidate without the funds provided by party supporters. Honestly speaking, I would have never been familiar with the current presidential candidate without the help of the party and it's supporters. It's not like I picked them. That takes away, at the very least, 99.99999 percent of my voting power. "OK, here are your losers? You pick the best one!" And that's the situation with the current restrictions. Now you want to give them virtually unlimited power in funding? Actually, I read in history that the founding fathers foresaw that, even with the semblance of democratic voting, the rich would still control the vote due to the way the government elections are structured. It was sort of a concession to appease the masses.

[Ant10708]

Yea the founding fathers never intended for the masses to control the entire government.

[kellychaos]

They were rich mother-fornicators too. Can't have the scraggly masses making any real decisions.

[Brandon]

Does anyone know for sure which of these two things is going on in campaign financing?

A) Politicians are extorting money from corporations with threats of passing unfavorable policies.

B) Corporations are bribing politicians and funding campaigns to ensure favorable policies.

Or is it a little of both? In other words, who's the initiator?

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by mburbank

In your little system would you see anything wrong with directly paying people to vote the way you wanted them to?

No, although they should all be publicly ridiculed by the free press. The media was intended to be the great equalizer.

Would you see anything wrong with companies and individuals, without subterfuge, paying politicians to vote for policies that financially benefitted those corporations?

Once they are in office. What you need to remember is that capitalists are rarely fans of capitalism. Do you know what sort of policies corporations want? Ones that benefit them and help to maintain a monopoly. This is why heavily regulated, protectionist countries have so many governmentally maintained monopolist industries; many policies break-up competition and make it difficult for new firms to start up.