patrick.net

This just in, corporations give money to politicians most likely to pass legislation that they desire.

And of course you're not the only one to notice the party members -- you're quoting from an organization that has gone out of its way to insinuate evil from every action of every powerful democrat since Clinton was in office, mostly by republishing well known facts as "breaking news".

Of course, they also point out the corruption of Republicans when they're on the way out due to some scandal, all the while conveniently ignoring major issues while they're brewing.

I find it sad that people still fall for this bullshit.

Am I the only one to notice the party members: Democrat, Democrat, Democrat, and Democrat are intertwined with words and phrases such as corruption, bad business practices, taxpayer’s loss, and hide the truth

The Democrats did not cover themselves in glory as an opposition party 1995-2006 but, as an opposition party, they were not actually in power then. Some other guys were, but I forget who exactly. Seems that period has been memory-holed.

Top pork barrel spenders has more Republicans than Democrats! People in glass house.....

Even Ron Paul had $22 million in pork projects.

"Until their collapse, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were “government sponsored entities” (whatever that means)"

If you don't know what it means then why are you commenting on it? It's not hard information to look up or understand.

In other words (from the responses here...)... Democrats should not be questioned, held accountable, or even have their actions described negatively, because Republicans have done bad things...

Paralithodes says

In other words (from the responses here…)… Democrats should not be questioned, held accountable, or even have their actions described negatively, because Republicans have done bad things

lol--you need a reading comprehension primer. The theme of the comments is that both parties have corrupt politicians. Not just Dems as your original post implies.

Republicans should not be questioned, held accountable, or even have their actions described negatively, because Democrats have done bad things.

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

In other words (from the responses here…)… Democrats should not be questioned, held accountable, or even have their actions described negatively, because Republicans have done bad things

lol–you need a reading comprehension primer. The theme of the comments is that both parties have corrupt politicians. Not just Dems as your original post implies.

LOL - I might need a reading comprehension primer, but you might not be the one to provide it. Every response so far - even yours - is meant for the purpose of excusing the behavior HA pointed out in his original post. The primary theme of the responses so far is to attack or invalidate HA's post the first place...

Vicente says

Republicans should not be questioned, held accountable, or even have their actions described negatively, because Democrats have done bad things.

"Follow the money" is often an appropriate cliche to use when looking at the motivations of politicians, except for very liberal Democrats, it appears.... Does anything in HA's post have any significance at all?

Paralithodes says

LOL - I might need a reading comprehension primer, but you might not be the one to provide it. Every response so far - even yours - is meant for the purpose of excusing the behavior HA pointed out in his original post. The primary theme of the responses so far is to attack or invalidate HA’s post the first place

really? Here are some excerpts from above posts:

Troy says

The Democrats did not cover themselves in glory as an opposition party 1995-2006

Kevin says

This just in, corporations give money to politicians most likely to pass legislation that they desire

The reason they are attacking HA is because his original post is so partisan and biased. If he was more evenhanded, then the comments would be a little different.

Paralithodes says

Democrats should not be questioned, held accountable, or even have their actions described negatively, because Republicans have done bad things…

Question all you want but it was Republican pro-business/anti-consumer public policy that ran this country into the ground 1998-2006.

Clinton shares some degree of responsibility since a lot of this bullshit got rolling downhill on his watch -- the trade deficit with China, the repeal of Glass-Steagal with the Gramm (R)–Leach (R)–Bliley (R) act that passed with veto-proof margin in 1999.

But the key screw-up was allowing consumer borrowing to balloon the economy 2003-2006. The economy went centrifugal in 2005, and the people at the controls did not know what to do.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/REALLN?cid=100

Do reading comprehension skills allow one to remove one sentence from a paragraph to cast it into a different context than what it may be while still with the entire paragraph? Please tell me how Troy's entire response contradicts my assertion here? Kevin's response is more of the same: Pretty much: 'Everyone does it, so your point is invalid.' I agree that HA's post is partisan, and that he is biased, but is there no truth or concern in his message? The messenger invalidates the entire message? Does anything in HA's original post concern you?

Paralithodes says

LOL - I might need a reading comprehension primer, but you might not be the one to provide it. Every response so far - even yours - is meant for the purpose of excusing the behavior HA pointed out in his original post. The primary theme of the responses so far is to attack or invalidate HA’s post the first place…

I don't think that anyone is excusing the behavior as much as they're pointing out that dishonest abe hates dems and is using these examples of dems bad/republicans good. The system is so fucked up, every pol accepts special interest money or he/she can't make it to office. No one is truly independent unless they use their own dollars to run for office. If they can afford it, they're out of touch with real americans who are living substantially below the rich pol's standard of living:

http://www.wisegeek.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-run-for-president.htm
In some elections, candidates have decided to raise all their own money to run for president. When a candidate decides to forgo federal fund matching and raise all of his own money, he is not required to limit spending or spread funds out geographically. In fact, President George W. Bush opted to raise his own money in the 2000 election and secured about $100 million USD. This amount was actually twice the sum candidates were restricted to if they opted for federal fund matching in the 2000 election.

After presidential nominees have been selected, the general election campaign starts and is financed through public funding. The cost to run for president in the general election can amount to millions of US Dollars. Though the amount of money required can vary, it normally costs at least $70 million USD to run for president. It is possible that at some point in the future, presidential candidates will run for president without taking any federal contributions. According to campaign finance experts, this change could push the cost to run for president to more than $500 million USD.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/290007_richsenate26.html
That's hardly a coincidence, political consultants and activists from both parties say. The parties recruit and prefer rich candidates, especially in Senate races that can cost more than $10 million to make a credible run."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1389338/posts
minimum $400k - but usually over a million is necessary.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/16/secret-politics-in-your-mortgage/

Tom Fitton is president of Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan educational foundation that fights government corruption

Nonpartisan? Oh, that's a good one.

Why would the Obama administration want to keep secret records about Fannie's and Freddie's campaign contributions? A review of the top recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1989 through 2008 yields an obvious answer. President Obama is second on the list....

Contribution records are a matter of public record, and in fact in next sentence he's listing off those very records. Why is he going through this dance pretending they are secret? Sounds much more scandalous I suppose. But it does not say much about his respect for his reader's intelligence.

Nobody likes money in politics except incumbent politicians. But receiving contributions does not imply corruption.

Paralithodes says

Does anything in HA’s post have any significance at all?

Not really, since Republicans were making the political decisions in Congress 1995-2007, except for the brief period in 2001-2002 when Dems had a 49-49-1 majority caucus with Jeffords.

Corruption as charged by JW isn't the legal receiving of campaign contributions, corruption is pay-for-play.

This is just more right-wing smearjobs, the only thing you conservatives are good for any more.

Again, this is not to say that the Democrats did a good job in opposition 1995-2007. They largely went along for the ride.

And the funny thing, when you look at the actual PAC contributions from the GSEs, you get this pretty picture:

Blunt, Roy (R) $78,500
Bennett, Robert F (R) $71,499
Bachus, Spencer (R) $70,500
Bond, Christopher S 'Kit' (R) $64,000
Boehner, John (R) $60,500
Reid, Harry S (D) $60,500

I think the (R) stands for "retired", dunno.

Mudslinging -- eg. unfounded insinuations of corruption -- isn't constructive. The principals in power -- from both major parties and nearly all congresspeople -- made some serious screwups 1998-2008. But the Democrats weren't running the train then; their failure was a failure to fight for the right course of action -- eg. allowing Bush to take the country to war in 2002 (though their Senate caucus had enough DINOs in it to push through the war regardless of what Dems as a whole thought), and of course the major failure of allowing mortgage lending to go off the rails 2003-2006.

http://dorkmonger.blogspot.com/2008/11/cutting-red-tape.html

Paralithodes says

I agree that HA’s post is partisan, and that he is biased,

Yep, and we can pretty much stop right there. It is not anyone's responsibility to sift out the "some truth" from a message that is targetted not at truth, but at partisan sniping.

Partisan sniping? How about: "The truth hurts". Any you're right - it's about BOTH parties. Big, massive, bloated government sucking the life out of the taxpayer - pandering for votes in order to "help" the masses. Give me a break.

Your post quite pointedly attacked Democrats, so partisan sniping is accurate. Aside from which, clearly the Democrats are in power on relevant committees so of course they are targetted with heavier weight of contributions. The "conservative" Supreme Court judges even endorse the idea of corporations having no limits in their contribution & lobbying powers. Last time I looked at the top 25 recipients about 9 of them Republicans.

Honest Abe says

Partisan sniping? How about: “The truth hurts”. Any you’re right - it’s about BOTH parties. Big, massive, bloated government sucking the life out of the taxpayer - pandering for votes in order to “help” the masses. Give me a break

So, what do you suggest we do about it? You can't get elected without a huge war chest these days...

I'd be happy to list some corrupt Republicans, if you acknowledge the APPEARANCE of corruption in my original post above. Corruption is wrong no matter who is doing it, wouldn't you agree?

Fair and balanced - do you watch Fox News ? (For the record- I do not - I'm more fair and balanced than that !).

My understanding of the matter is the Supreme Court ruled that campaign finance by corporations is a form of speech and thus protected. So, why does your post use DEMOCRATS multiple times, never a generic term like Congressmen, or politicians? Please, do go on.

Let me get this right, you're saying "campaign finance by a GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTITY is FREE SPEECH"???

I used Democrats multiple times because Democrats showed up multiple times...the top four recipients from these GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTITIES all from the same party. It would stink just as bad if it were the other way around, agreed?

Honest Abe says

It would stink just as bad if it were the other way around, agreed?

Actually GSE employees using personal funds to donate to candidates doesn't really stink at all. Dems only top the list when you include personal contributions. Without them, my list above shows the top 5 receivers of GSE contributions had Rs at the end of their names.

I guess the main reason the GSEs tilt (D) is because they are Democratic Party-created institutions. Well, created by Democrats and killed by Republicans. General trend around here.

^ ah, correction. The fact that donation to the PAC is public information does stink a whole lot. A husband & wife could contribute $10,000 to the PAC apparently. That strikes me as influence money and should be dialed down to $500 instead of $5000.

If a $5000 limit is constitutional I don't see why $500 wouldn't be either. And if it's not constitutional we should make it constitutional anyway.

HA--

I didn't see your suggestion for solving this problem. Any ideas?

tatupu70 says

HA–
I didn’t see your suggestion for solving this problem. Any ideas?

IMHO, he's only here to point out how horrible democrats are. I've yet to read anything that says otherwise.

Honest Abe says

Let me get this right, you’re saying “campaign finance by a GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTITY is FREE SPEECH”???

Does it make sense for ANY corporation that is highly regulated by congress, or receive most of it's revenue, or other special legal status from congress be able to make campaign contributions, and have it be protected under "free speech"?

Probably not, but that's not the legal reality. The banking industry, the defense industry, and the medical industry all are heavily regulated by and/or derive revenue from the congress, and yet they are the biggest contributors to political campaigns, not to mention lobbying.

You're just now aware of this, and you think this phenomenon is found primarily among Dems?

Wow, you are a serious piece of work.

MarkInSF says

Wow, you are a serious piece of work.

This is why we shouldn't take him seriously. Honest.

GSE's are primarily slush funds for left wing causes, and left wing politicians have already given over 1/2 BILLION $$$ promoting radical liberal causes and buying influence.

I know how much you lefties LOVE regulation, and I know you don't want to admit it, but ALL Republicans voted for regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while ALL Dumb-o-crats voted against such regulation...gee, I wonder why. Oops.

And it just doesn't matter to you socialists that taxpayers have been punished by $Trillions of dollars because of corruption at the highest levels of government...because you gotta defend your homeboys no matter what.

So who's the piece of work, the crooks (and you'all who defend the crooks) or someone who points out the obvious?

Tea anyone?

Abe--

Once again, I must have missed your post explaining your ideas for solving this problem. Could you refresh my memory?

Tat, sorry you missed it, I'll repeat: a maximum of four years "government service" total, in any persons lifetime. In other words, no more career hacks.

Thanks for asking. Abe

I see, your occasional attempt to claim to be "non-partisan" in just a diversion. Thanks for making it plain. I have to wonder what the original HONEST ABE would think about this constantly shifting rhetoric to suit your needs of the moment.

Vincente...and you?

MarkInSF says

Nonpartisan? Oh, that’s a good one.

Oh, that's not even the half of it. JudicialWatch is almost completely funded by Richard Scaife, a billionaire (air to the Mellon fortune) who used to support Richard Nixon. The typical MO of a silver spooner.

Honest Abe says

: a maximum of four years “government service” total, in any persons lifetime. In other words, no more career hacks

Thomas Jefferson would have been a representative to the Virginia House of Burgesses 1769-1773 and then that's it? No Declaration of Independence, governor of Virginia, minister without portfolio to France, Secretary of State, Vice President, or President?

Would you count his work in the Continental Congress as government service?

Do you realize how stupid you are?

The problem with your policy solution is that it would result in a government of noobs having to face no consequences of their actions. It reminds me of how most American business has to look at most 2 quarters ahead and not the long term.

Also, CEOs and boards don't operate on a 4-year limit so over time the private sphere will eclipse the public in power and profit.

Libertarians have no problem with this, because libertarians are either glib fools or evil people driven by greed and the power money enjoys.

And there is a libertarian slur. Woo hoo!

Regarding Dems not being in power, I don't care if they weren't. They were all for GSEs/Fanny n' Freddy, just like many repubs. Go find Barney Frank's statements against OPHEO from 04-06. What I object to is all the flim flammery by Dems and many in the media that this was all Bush's fault or Repubs when they're just as neck deep in it.

Honest Abe says

Tat, sorry you missed it, I’ll repeat: a maximum of four years “government service” total, in any persons lifetime. In other words, no more career hacks.
Thanks for asking. Abe

But won't that just increase lobbyists power? Term limits have been tried in several places and sound good in theory, but I think the actual results have been mixed at best.

AltonS says

Regarding Dems not being in power, I don’t care if they weren’t.

I like that. I don't care whose fault it was, I'm blaming whoever I want to. Well, you're not alone in that thought process...