Democrats’ demands for more transparency in federal funds to home-district projects and a required pledge that no earmarks personally benefit a member of Congress could put a bad spotlight on Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the Washington Post reported. Murtha helped create and secured federal funding for a nonprofit group called the Pennsylvania Association for Individuals With Disabilities (PAID). And though the group has helped people with disabilities find jobs, it also has been a conduit for lobbyists and others trying to gain assess to Murtha and his influence on the defense appropriations subcommittee. The Post reported: “That arrangement over the years has yielded millions of dollars in federal support for the contractors, businesses and universities, and hundreds of thousands in consulting and lobbying fees to Murtha’s favored lobbying shops, according to Federal Election Commission records and lobbying disclosure forms. In turn, many of PAID’s directors have kept Murtha’s campaigns flush with cash.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Tully on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- HLP on Open thread 11/24
32 Comments
And this is a surprise? As if dems aren’t as likely to be using the “pipeline” as repubs? I’m sure this will be a stomping point for nuts and a few others, but I see it as business as usual on the beltway. Only voting will change it.
Can it be possible? A Democrat who is not holy and pure? Reading the many comments on this blog over the past few months, I thought ONLY Republicans (and of course, ALL Republicans) are dishonest crooks.
I still steadfastly maintain that corruption and dishonesty knows no party boundaries. There are crooks in every party. Some of us can recognize that…..
The system doesn’t change. The dollars follow the power. Those with dollars to spend on influence will funnel the money to those with the power to make the desired policies. With Democrats in power, the dollars will flow to them. Period. Has always been so. Will always be so.
The only solution, ultimately, to this is to get gov’t out of the business of dispensing favors and benefits. Like that’s likely to happen.
As I think about it, this scheme sounds a lot like the kind of round-about bribe he was trolling for in Abscam. Who’d a thunk it?
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
This will be the first test for the new Democrat Leadership. If they are serious about cleaning up Congress, then let them prove it. But I do think that if the Democrats pull any shenanigans like the Republicans pulled in the last do-nothing Congress – then they will find their butts out in the cold next election.
This may be a turning point in our 2-party system. Voters are tired of the corruption and if it is proven that both Democrats and Republicans are just as corrupt – then the voters may be just ready to go to a 3-party system the next time election rolls around.
suza -
For lots of structural,historical, and political reasons, a 3 party system is NOT workable in the US. This is NOT a parliamentary system, like most of Europe.
No, the answer is not to wait on a 3rd party to ride to the rescue. It is to get involved in the process ourselves, and hold our officeholders accountable.
Hmmm
A Democrat helps set up an organization to help disabled people. This is bad……how?
Republicans set up organizations to help THEMSELVES and their corporate sponsors.
If Ross Perot had not botched it up so badly when he ran for president, I believe there could be a 3-party system here.
In fact, we always have a Libertarian on the ticket but just because the 2-parties don’t want to give them any leverage – they are not given much credibility.
I just think that the voters are getting fed up with the corruption in both parties. And, like you stated, if the parties do clean their acts up – then so be it. But if they don’t – then I look for the voters to demand something else.
Suza, it’s got nothing to do with Perot, or Nader, or anyone else. It is structural in the system. It relates to the differences between a winner-take-all system, like ours, and a proportional representation system like most parliamentary democracies (most of Europe) are.
There’s no 3rd party white knight out there, nor is there going to be. We have to work in the system we have; there is no other.
JR
Tough to spin this one, I know, but you give it your best effort, as always.
you might not want to open the can of worms on “personal responsibility” given that drug-using Rush, libel-monger Coulter, pedophile Mark Foley, pedophile enabler Dennis Hastert, scam artist Jack Abramoff, and gay hating gay evangalists are all on your side.
Why are you so afraid of a 3-party system GMC? And the winner take all can be accomplished in a 3-way race just as well as a 2-party race.
Why are you so hellbent on just having 2 choices? I’m tired of having a choice between ‘bad or worse’ – aren’t you?
So you think these Independents that have won elections are just a fluke? Like Lieberman? I don’t think so.
and the K Street Project, (remember tommy delay and jackie abramhoff?) partied on, unabated…
But Murtha and is group are the real problem?
hehehehehehehehehehheheheehehhehe(deep breath)
heheheheeheheheheheheeheheheheheheheh….
You can never tell how stupid I am and how full of hate I have until I post the drivvle that I post. I hope in the coming New Year that someone out there will develop a brain transplant for me. I need it. I’m dumb. I’m suza!
Hey real suza
Your fan is back.
Hey troll suza? Why not come on out and debate?
I too would like to see a third party. Or even a fourth or fifth.
Aint gonna happen. The two parties are linked in an unholy alliance to prevent it.Primaries went a long way toward locking that down.
Hey JR – you think we have found my troll? Isn’t it funny that he/she happens to pop up now?
suza?
What you mean GMC? Just cause you guys were going around?
Nahh I don’t think GMC trolls. He’s too busy being in love with me and his own words to have the time!
Actually the right has a more vested interest in the two parties than the left. I can’t see the left breaking into many distinct factions. But the right? Give the fundies, the neocons, and the libertarians each a separate party and the chance to have everything their way? They’d jump on it.
Okay, JR, I was just trying to figure it out. Anyway, whoever is getting their jollies out of trolling me is just showing how much it bothers them when I say my opinions. Could be the truth is hitting too close to home?
We all know that leftist dems are paragons of virtue! One of the benefits of being a leftists is that you can PRETEND that your shit don’t stink.
I like it when the leftists are power because they will bring down our vile “two party system” much quicker than the pseudo-cons.
Viva La Revolucion Blanco!!
Actually, I am registered Independent and I am no fan of either party when they are both full of corruption.
My original point was that let’s see if the Democrats new leadership really will address this corruption issue. Why burn them at the stake before they even get into office?
If they don’t and they take the way of the Republicans in the last do-nothing Congress, then we can look for alternatives. That is all I am saying.
suza -
It’s not a matter of being in “love” with a two party system; it’s rather a recognition of a reality that in a winner-take-all single representative system, a viable third party on any sort of scale is unworkable. There is a reason why, throughout our history, that third parties are all but unknown.
Those exceptions are just that – exceptions. That is why they are so memorable (and Leiberman isn’t even an exception. He’s a democrat).
Both parties are big tent parties, with diverse groups that have little that bind them together, except one thing. Winning. And that’s why parties exist – to win elections. ANYTHING else is secondary. It is the inherent difficult of consistently having any chance of winning that makes third parties not viable.
Heck – in many districts in the US, there aren’t even viable second parties; those districts are safe for one or the other party, and the other party knows it. Why do you think in so many places the election that matters is in the primary, not the general election, and the general election is often uncontested?
The problem with looking for a third party savior is that it diverts attention from where real reform and influence CAN be had – working withing either of the two existing parties.
And JR – hugs and kisses.
you might not want to open the can of worms on “personal responsibility” given that drug-using Rush, libel-monger Coulter, pedophile Mark Foley, pedophile enabler Dennis Hastert, scam artist Jack Abramoff, and gay hating gay evangalists are all on your side.
Again the Repukes are ignoring their own misdeeds which are far graver than any democratic lawmaker
I wonder why you will think when a 3rd party candidate comes in and wins the White House one of these years. Are you still going to hang on to your 2-party system and be crying ‘it’s not fair’?
’should be’ – what you will think
Suza-
Won’t happen. For lots of practical and structural reasons, CAN’T happen. You’re waiting for a white knight that doesn’t exist. Don’t hold your breath.
But that won’t keep you from waiting. It’ll just be a long wait.
While I have championed, from time to time, a third party candidate, the fact is that GMC is correct; for many reasons, structural as well as custom, the two party system is here to stay.
One example: the presidential election, with the electoral college. Practically, how does a third party get the needed presidential electors on all the ballots in the several states? It is possible this could happen; IMO, the probability is very small.
From all the anti-third party candidates in this blogging – I see why our country is in the mess we are in. No body is willing to even try to change things – but everybody is more than willing to sit around and complain about everything.
When the voters accept whatever choices the two parties allow them to vote for, that is no different than some of these 3rd world countries that the US supposedly tries to help bring into democracy.
lucee – I am not anti-3rdparty but am realistic enough to see that one probably will not coalesce. VT puts the obstacles well. The frustrating thing to me is that fledgling ones like the reform party don’t follow with with local slates. Think where we would be if there were a dozen Reform Congressmen, a couple senators, various State house seats and maybe a governor or two. THEN we could get a viable candidate for president.
Ben has stated it well; to get a viable third party on the national level, it must start on the local level, and build up.
That is exactly my point – it does need to start at the grassroots level and build up. But if everyone is already downing the possibility of a 3rd party – the issue is DOA.
suza and lucee
No one would like it more than me if third and more parties were realistic. But they aren’t
This is the ONE thing the two parties work together on, maintaining just two parties. With the addition of the primaries and long expensive campaigns, they have virtually elminated any possibilities of any renegades in the parties themselves as well.
It’s unfortunate but true.
JR -
You’re right. The parties collude to make a 3rd party run difficult. But that’s only part of the story. The structure of the system makes a true third-party challenge almost impossible anyway.
Primaries were imposed on party leaders who didn’t really want them by reformers who sought to put decision-making in the hands of the rank and file rather than party bosses in smoke-filled rooms.
It backfired, in a sense, and made both parties more ideological, as the respective extreme wings are those who show up on primary election day. Kinda points up the old addage – be careful what yo wish for.
The long and expensive campaigns are the product of expanded primaries and media campaigning. Ironically, they have also made candidates less beholding to party leaders, and lessened party discipline (that may or not ba a bad thing).
But you’re right – the result is as you call it.
Oh – the other thing the parties work together on, at least at the federal level? Protecting encumbants. The vast majority of seats in the House, for example, are not seriously at risk, on either side. Only a relative handful of seats are truly in play.