Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (9930)	11/29/2005 6:29:58 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

House Ethics Violations: Not Just For GOP Any More Message 21288506 Pelosi's ethics stance hypocritical, GOP says Message 21291953 Democratic House Ethics; Welcome To Pandora’s Box Message 21299922 The ethics war Message 21304925 Abramoff Was Ecumenical In His Lobbying, It Seems Message 21385134 A Lobbyist's Progress weeklystandard.com Reid Between the Lines Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid will not return campaign contributions he received during the past five years from lobbyists and clients associated with Jack Abramoff, a Reid spokeswoman said Friday. http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=21764985 The Left is Consistently Inconsistent Message 21867303 Letter To Democrat Leadership On Hypocrisy Over Corruption Message 21879466 Haven't Heard About Abramoff In A While? Message 21894611

To: Sully- who wrote (9930)	11/29/2005 6:33:54 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Abramoff Client Heading Investigation By Captain Ed on National Politics Captain's Quarters Democrats have tried painting Jack Abramoff's sleazy and allegedly criminal lobbying efforts as a strictly Republican scandal for the last several months, tying Abramoff chiefly to Tom DeLay. However, as the investigation into Abramoff continues, more and more ties to Democrats have emerged, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Now it appears that the ranking Senate Democrat on the committee that has taken the lead in investigating Abramoff has more than a oversight connection to Abramoff himself: <<< New evidence is emerging that the top Democrat on the Senate committee currently investigating Jack Abramoff got political money arranged by the lobbyist back in 2002 shortly after the lawmaker took action favorable to Abramoff's tribal clients. A lawyer for the Louisiana Coushatta Indians told The Associated Press that Abramoff instructed the tribe to send $5,000 to Sen. Byron Dorgan's political group just three weeks after the North Dakota Democrat urged fellow senators to fund a tribal school program Abramoff's clients wanted to use. The check was one of about five dozen the Coushattas listed in a tribal ledger as being issued on March 6, 2002, to various lawmakers' campaigns and political causes at the instruction of Abramoff, tribal attorney Jimmy Fairchild said Monday. >>> So now Byron Dorgan is the fox in the henhouse, passing judgment on Abramoff after passing his checks along to the bank. Believe me, I'm delighted to see anyone crooked get his just desserts; as far as I'm concerned, men like Randy Cunningham should do a couple of tours at Club Fed if they use their positions of trust to sell out for bribes and kickbacks. Anyone who did so with Abramoff should bunk up with Cunningham at the first oppportunity. However, let's quit pretending that Abramoff represents some sort of Republican "culture of corruption" and instead acknowledge that the sleaze has a much more ecumenical stench than the Democrats want to acknowledge. Otherwise, they'd be better served by keeping their mouths shut. captainsquartersblog.com captainsquartersblog.com news.yahoo.com nytimes.com

To: Sully- who wrote (9930)	11/29/2005 6:46:14 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

ABRAMOFF AND DORGAN Kathryn Jean Lopez The Corner Yes, that's Democratic senator Byron Dorgan. According to the AP: <<< - Lobbyist Jack Abramoff instructed an Indian tribe to make a $5,000 donation to Sen. Byron Dorgan shortly after the lawmaker signed a letter requesting federal money for a school program that Abramoff's tribal clients wanted, the tribe's lawyer said Monday. >>> What's the point? Dems who want to shout with a laundry list of corrupt Republicans (some corrupt criminals [Cunningham], some not so [Frist, DeLay]), ought to take the opportunity to look inward, too. It's a D.C. thing that shouldn't be. I wouldn't invest too much time pointing fingers at the other party's "culture of corruption" if I were, say, Howard Dean. corner.nationalreview.com grandforks.com

To: Sully- who wrote (9930)	11/30/2005 2:29:33 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Corruption creep in GOP By Bruce Bartlett The Washington Times Commentary November 30, 2005 One of the most important political developments in America is the creeping corruption of the Republican Party. Increasingly, there is little meaningful difference between Republicans in Congress and the Democrats they replaced a little more than 10 years ago. Unless they clean up their act fast, Republicans will suffer major losses in next year's congressional elections. There is no question Democrats became deeply corrupt in the 40 years after 1954 when they controlled the House of Representatives continuously. Everyone knew it, just as everyone knows the truth of Lord Acton's famous maxim: "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." That is why the House bank scandal involving bounced checks was so politically potent: Average people could relate to how it exemplified petty Democratic corruption. Republicans pounded the bank scandal mercilessly and promised to overhaul House procedures and operations if they took control in 1994. On the first day of a Republican majority, they promised outside audit of all House finances, Congress would be made subject to laws from which it had exempted itself, committee chairmanships would be limited and proxy voting ended. Other reforms also were promised. To their credit, they enacted these reforms in January 1995. But it didn't take long before Republicans started engaging in the same abuses of power as the Democrats. Earlier this year, minority members of the House Rules Committee issued a 147-page report detailing these abuses. The worst suppress debate and allow the Republican leadership to ram bills through without any real examination of their provisions. This is one reason pork barrel projects have vastly proliferated in recent years. As with Alaska's infamous "bridge to nowhere," Republican leaders know such blatantly unjustified spending cannot survive open debate and must be sneaked through under subterfuge if it is to be enacted. One abuse that particularly bothers me is routinely holding open votes far beyond the normal time so Republican leaders can twist arms to force principled conservatives to back big spending measures. The worst was the three-hour vote in 2003 that gave us the Medicare drug monstrosity. Just a few weeks ago it was done again when the leadership held a 5-minute vote open 45 minutes to bludgeon through an energy bill. Although few Republicans will speak on the record about such abuses for fear of retaliation, it is a growing topic of private conversations. Earlier this year, The Washington Post quoted one leadership aide lamenting, "It took Democrats 40 years to get as arrogant as we have become in 10." It was only a matter of time before the petty abuse of power morphed into actual corruption. That is the significance of the growing scandal involving lobbyists Jack Abramoff, Mike Scanlon and others. Last week, Mr. Scanlon pleaded guilty to defrauding Indian tribes who had paid Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Scanlon to lobby for their gambling interests in Congress. Another time, Mr. Abramoff funneled money through a policy institute to pay for a lavish golfing vacation in Scotland for then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Texas Republican, and Rep. Bob Ney, Ohio Republican. Sad to say, I have known of other so-called think tanks abusing their tax-exempt status to pursue political agendas and their executives' personal profit. I believe the root of the current Republican scandal wave is that the party's governing element in Washington has completely forgotten why they were elected in the first place. Grass-roots Republicans support the party because it is the party of small government. Those who like big government, who always want Washington to do more, vote Democratic. When Republicans begin aping the Democrats by proposing endless pork barrel projects and lavish new drug benefits for the elderly, not even pretending any budget deficit concerns, rank-and-file Republicans wonder why they should remain in a party that has little meaningful difference from the Democrats. I predict many will stay home Election Day next year. When Republicans no longer stand for any sort of principle, it becomes a simple matter to use power just to reward your friends or those with connections. Things like the Abramoff scandal are the logical consequences. A renewed commitment to principle is the best antidote. In the words of conservative New York Post columnist John Podhoretz: "As is often the case when reformers take the reins of power, they've become mirror images of those they replaced. They've grown especially interested in rewarding their friends, punishing their enemies and using government power for their own narrow partisan ends." Bruce Bartlett is a nationally syndicated columnist. washingtontimes.com

To: Sully- who wrote (9930)	11/30/2005 2:43:06 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

This just doesn't seem right. ‘Duke’ keeps his pension By Jackie Kucinich The Hill Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.) will soon relinquish many of his properties and his freedom after pleading guilty to charges of fraud and conspiracy, but he will keep his government pension and could retain the privileges enjoyed by other former members of Congress. Cunningham has served in the House 17 years, and his right to his federal pension will not be affected by his crimes, according to a senior House aide familiar with the rules. He will also receive benefits accrued during his service in the U.S. Navy, in which he served from 1966 to 1987. Ordinarily, upon leaving Congress, former House members, like former senators, get lifetime floor privileges, access to the gym and a parking space. “The Speaker’s office has yet to receive his letter of resignation,” said Ron Bonjean, a spokesman for Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), but he added that the office expects the letter soon. “We are looking at this matter very seriously,” he said. Cunningham’s access to the usual privileges has not been discussed, Bonjean said. The Federal Elections Commission allowed Cunningham to use campaign funds to pay legal fees, according to a source close to the congressman. It was not clear how much was in Cunningham’s war chest before the investigation. Cunningham had $627,388 on hand as of Sept. 30, according to PoliticalMoneyLine. Cunningham’s congressional office will continue to function under the supervision of the clerk of the House until a new member has been elected for California’s 50th District, according to Harmony Allen, Cunningham’s chief of staff, who released a statement yesterday expressing the staff members’ sorrow for their former boss and his family. “The office will not comment any further on [Monday’s] proceedings other than to say that we are praying for Duke in these exceedingly difficult times,” Allen said. “The office is working closely with the clerk of the House to ensure that the needs of the constituents of the 50th District of California are met throughout this transition.” A source familiar with the situation in Cunningham’s office, which will become the office of the 50th District of California once the formal resignation process has concluded, said that while most staff members are not “rushing out the door,” they are looking for positions elsewhere in preparation for the changeover to a new member. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has 14 days from Cunningham’s official resignation to set the date for the special election. Cunningham, a member of the House Appropriations Committee’s Defense and Intelligence subcommittees, announced Monday that he will resign from Congress after he pleaded guilty in a California district court to charges of tax evasion and conspiracy. He will be sentenced Feb. 27 and could receive up to five years in prison on each of the two counts. In entering a guilty plea, he admitted taking $2.4 million in bribes. “Some time ago, I asked my lawyers to inform the U.S. Attorney Carol Lam that I would like to plead guilty and begin serving a prison term,” Cunningham said during his emotional statement Monday. “Today is the culmination of that process. … I will continue to cooperate with the government’s ongoing investigation to the best of my ability.” In 2002, former Ohio Rep. James Traficant (D) was convicted on 10 counts of racketeering, fraud and bribery. He is serving an eight-year sentence in Summit County Jail in Akron, Ohio. In 2003, after Traficant was expelled from Congress, a handful of House Republicans introduced a bill that would prevent any lawmaker from receiving a congressional pension after being expelled. Currently, only members convicted of “high crimes” such as treason can lose their pensions. Republican Reps. Jeff Miller (Fla.) Ginny Brown-Waite (Fla.), Howard Coble (N.C.), Joe Pitts (Pa.) and Lee Terry (Neb.) sponsored the legislation. It stalled after being sent to the House Administration and Government Reform committees for action. thehill.com

To: Sully- who wrote (9930)	11/30/2005 2:56:49 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

What goes around The Hill Editorial When former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.) ran for Congress in 1990, he highlighted ethical questions swirling around his opponent, then-Rep. Jim Bates (D). Bates was busy fending off charges that he sexually harassed female staff members. He survived a primary and then lost to Cunningham. Two years later, Cunningham again used the ethics card in his race against Rep. Bill Lowery (R) in a new district. At the time, Lowery was ensnared in the House Bank scandal. Cunningham’s campaign criticized Lowery as a member of the Washington club, spending time with the capital’s power brokers while ignoring the concerns of constituents. It also attacked Lowery for accepting trips from “special interests.” After the House ethics committee found that Lowery had written 300 bad checks worth more than $100,000, Lowery withdrew from the race. Cunningham’s political career ended this week after he pleaded guilty to evading taxes and conspiring to pocket $2.4 million in bribes from lobbyists. More than a decade after his campaign criticized Lowery for being a Washington insider, Cunningham became an insider who broke the law. The breadth of Cunningham’s offenses, and still more their crass obviousness, is staggering. They include acceptance of bribes to pay for a Rolls-Royce, to pay off a second mortgage and to pay for a graduation party. Cunningham will likely serve time in jail. Most people believe that ethics in Washington are getting worse. Despite Cunningham’s crimes, we disagree. Most lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are well-intentioned. Furthermore, the growing list of watchdog groups and the intensifying media spotlight gives most legislators pause before attempting something untoward. Still, perception is important and the Cunningham episode will hurt Congress’s reputation. That perception will be a factor in the 2006 elections, but it remains unclear how big a factor it will be and how precisely it will affect results. It is even less possible to predict confidently the electoral ramifications of the Jack Abramoff scandal. That is a much bigger story than Cunningham’s because it touches several lawmakers and staffers already and has tainted the relationship between K Street and Capitol Hill. That’s not to say that every lawmaker mentioned around the edges of the Abramoff case is guilty of wrongdoing. It’s important to note that not one member has yet been indicted. The recent plea bargain of Michael Scanlon, Abramoff’s lobbying partner on tribal issues, could give prosecutors a massive amount of new information about congressional officials. Scanlon may plunge some lawmakers into deep, deep trouble. But even in the unlikely event that the Abramoff scandal does no further damage to any specific lawmaker, and the even unlikelier event that it produces no more criminal charges, it will bespatter the Capitol. As prosecutors and the news media unpack the case, voters may be shocked less by apparent criminality than by what is still legal and is part of everyday routine in the federal capital. thehill.com

To: Sully- who wrote (9930)	12/3/2005 12:44:33 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

JEEZ, IT'S LIKE THEY'RE ALL CROOKS or something: Instapundit Abramoff Investigator Aided Mashpee Tribe The top Senate Democrat investigating Jack Abramoff's Indian lobbying met several times with the lobbyist's team and clients, held a fundraiser in Abramoff's arena skybox and arranged congressional help for one of the tribes, records show. Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., acknowledges he got Congress in fall 2003 to press government regulators to decide, after decades of delay, whether the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe of Massachusetts deserved federal recognition. Dorgan met with the tribe's representatives and collected at least $11,500 in political donations from Abramoff partner Michael D. Smith, who was representing the Mashpee, around the time he helped craft the legislation, according to interviews and documents obtained by The Associated Press. Amusing diagram here. noagenda.org The problem is that corruption is bipartisan. The Republicans seem worse now, but that's because they're in power, and power provides more opportunities. Of course, if the government had less power, there would be less corruption. Or at least, the corruption in question would matter less. instapundit.com news.yahoo.com instapundit.com

To: Sully- who wrote (9930)	12/4/2005 3:19:29 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

FUNNY MONEY John J. Miller The Corner A lawyer fired by his firm claims that he helped the John Edwards presidential campaign raise money illegally, according to a story in today's Detroit News. Shortly after joining the firm (which is run by the notorious Geoffrey Fieger, the potty-mouthed attorney for Jack Kevorkian and an occasional Democratic candidate for various Michigan offices), the lawyer says he was "urged" to donate to Edwards on behalf of himself and his wife and then was reimbursed by the firm. The Detroit News claims that 14 people in Fieger's firm gave the maximum $2,000 donation to Edwards, including a building manager and a "courier supervisor." This all smells fishy, of course, and it also recalls a similar Edwards mini-scandal that was exposed in 2003 (also linked below). corner.nationalreview.com detnews.com hillnews.com