While Rep. Dave Reichert and the GOP House collapse under the weight of an expanding ethical crisis, 8th District Democratic challenger Darcy Burner has adopted some “House Rules” of her own. Attacking Congress for putting the needs of high-powered DC lobbyists above those of taxpayers, she has enunciated a clear set of guidelines by which she and her staff will interact with lobbyists:
NO SECRET LOBBYIST MEETINGS: My office will report all meetings that any member of my staff or I have with a registered lobbyist, to be updated on my website once a week.
NO HELPING MEMBERS CASH IN: No member of Congress with whom I have served who becomes a federal registered lobbyist will be allowed to lobby my staff or me on any issue for 5 years after that member has left Congress.
NO HELPING LOBBYISTS CASH IN: No former member of my staff who becomes a registered federal lobbyist will be allowed to lobby my staff or me on any issue for 5 years after they have left my employment.
NO FAMILY LOBBYISTS: No direct relation of any member of my staff or of mine who is a registered federal lobbyist will be allowed to lobby my office or me.
NO LOBBYIST SPONSORED TRAVEL: All trips by my staff or me will either be official trips and thus paid by Congress or they will be paid by each person taking the trip or, if either partisan or campaign related, by my campaign funds.
NO LOBBYIST GIFTS: No gifts will be accepted by my staff or by me from any registered federal lobbyist.
COMPLIANCE: Any member of my staff who willfully violates any of these rules will be terminated.
What does this mean? Well, first of all, it means working for Burner won’t be a get-rich-quick scheme like some congressional gigs. It also means Burner’s staffers will have to work a helluva lot harder than most of their colleagues, as staffers often rely on their lobbyist buddies for position papers, talking points… even (gasp) drafting legislation.
It also means that a Congresswoman Burner would run as transparent and influence free an office as you’re likely to find in the Capitol.
Burner has challenged Reichert to adopt similar rules for the remainder of his term, and beyond. Fat chance. Reichert has proven to be a bit of an overwhelmed lightweight, captive to his professional staff and advisors, and there’s no way they’re going to let him throw them off the gravy train.
And you know what else his staff won’t ever let him do? Debate Burner. You know why? They’re afraid. (And so is he.)
lofty ideals. I applaud her.
I hope she means it.
If the worst that would happen is that folks would have to work harder, than so what? They should be working harder.
In the previous thread, I suggested term limits and public fundings of campaigns might be a way to reduce corruption, but nobody commented on it. Any supporters?
By the way, I am still waiting for Roger to explain how a union guarantees more qualified labor.
Lib,
We definitely need a huge reform of the *pay your way* system of american politics.
Thanks, Sven. I think public financing, coupled with term limits might be a way to stop the Abramoff-style corruption. Of course, it’ll meand amending the Constitution, and that won’t be easy.
I think the southern states would be most against term limits. They keep re-electing their guys and gals so that they can have national influence through committee chairmanships, etc. If senators and representatives had a limited “shelf life,” the south’s influence at the national level would wane.
@6
Instead of just theorizing about which states re-elect their people the most, why don’t you do the real work and run a search to see which states have the longest serving Senators and Representatives. Do it before the last election cycle also.
My feeling is that it is a mixed bag of where they serve the longest.
@ 6
Length of service is not indicative of corruption. If you think that Delay Etc. would be LESS corrupt simply because they were in congress for a shorter time, then you’re hopelessly naive.
Our own Sen. Warren Magnuson was in DC from 1940 until 1981, and somehow he managed to avoid becoming a Delay-style prostitute, doing good work (and honest work) for years for the people of WA state.
Libertarian @3,
I am opposed to term limits for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that it guarantees you an amateur legislature, dominated by the full time professional staff and bureaucrats.
I do think we need to chip away at the power of incumbency, and public funding might be part of that solution.
Sven sez:
“lofty ideals. I applaud her.
I hope she means it.
Comment by Sven— 1/12/06 @ 3:36 pm”
Of course she doesn’t mean it Sven. Darcy Burner will say anything to get elected….just like all the LEFTIST PINHEADS.
If Burner was serious, she would start with her disclosure campaign NOW!
So Darcy, have you talked with any Lobbyists to date?
Of course you have!!
How many Union Leaders have promised you support?
Have any of them asked for your support on certain issues…wink, wink???
Tell us now…what Lobbyists have you met with thus far??
Often times the die is cast BEFORE the noble elected official takes office. She has her marching orders IN ADVANCE.
Goldy, have Darcy make a full public disclosure of Lobbyists she has met with thus far and we will take her pledge seriously.
Now don’t forget anybody!
It’s the Republicans, Stupid… was nice piece. I suggest anything that is written about Dave “In over my head” Reichert should hereby be titled “It’s the stupid Republican”. I realize that there are many stupid RightWingNuts, just read what they post here, but he is a special case.
Cyniclown,
Do you ever give it a rest? How are things in the Bat Cave? Talked to Spiderman lately? I know, you are positive that there must be a conspiracy somewhere. What are you going to do this coming November when the RightWingNuts are thrown from office en masse? I can’t wait to hear the belly aching. I can’t wait to hear it then. By the way, you might notice that here at HA we talk alot about national politics. That is because this state is already BLUE. And, as always, high school boy, go kindly fuck yourself silly with Stefan and the gang.
Bloviate for us, Cyniclown. We are on pins and needles.
Cyniclown,
One last thing. RightWingNutFucks never lie to get elected. They never take money they shouldn’t. They never try to circumvent the rules. Noooooooooooooo, never. Just for fun, high school boy, go fuck yourself, again.
3
“In the previous thread, I suggested term limits and public fundings of campaigns might be a way to reduce corruption, but nobody commented on it. Any supporters?”
Term limits has been a dead issue ever since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that term limits laws applicable to federal elections (e.g., Congress) are unconstitutional.
4
“By the way, I am still waiting for Roger to explain how a union guarantees more qualified labor.”
This question has been asked and answered. Go back and read the old threads. It’s not my fault you’re too fucking lazy to read the reply after you ask a question. Screw you!
My LeftFoot (aka Roger Rabbit)–
Darcy Burner is the one trying to stake the “high ground”.
And she is doing it publicly.
All I’m doing is saying, OK Darcy how holy are you?
Start disclosing your meetings with Lobbyists NOW retroactive to the time you were approach or considered running.
What is so cynical about that??????????
Darcy can be a real trendsetter…..
Hopefully she won’t forget any of those meeting with Lobbyists that ALREADY happened.
I’m just calling her bluff.
It’s real simple Left Rabbit….
All Darcy does is make a list stating:
Name & address of Lobbyist she met or talked with.
Date met.
Purpose of meeting
Issues discussed
Any discussion of financial contributions etc.
Isn’t this what she wants us to believe she intends to do???
Why is it merely a good idea AFTER she takes office LeftRabbit???
What is she trying to hide?
You guys are making my dad mad. Me and my buddies are going to destroy your gardens if you don’t stop making my dad mad. I am going to play with Thumper now.
Cyniclown,
I wish I was as eloquent as RR. But I promise you that I am not he. How can we prove it to you? Just let me know. Now, go fuck yourself, high school boy.
Comment by Libertarian— 1/12/06 @ 3:42 pm
“In the previous thread, I suggested term limits and public fundings of campaigns might be a way to reduce corruption, but nobody commented on it. Any supporters?”
Public funding of campaigns hardly seems like a libertarian ideal. I’d expect a proposal like this from someone who favors more government, like Goldy @ 9, not less.
My concern with public funding is that it would give even more power to advocacy groups, i.e. Swift Boat Vets and moveon.org. In addition, I think that public funding would make campaigns difficult for those who want to reduce the size of government to run for office since they’d have to be a hypocrite to do so. I also think that public funding would further entrench the two major parties as any law passed would likely benefit them the most and shut out minor parties.
Comment by Goldy— 1/12/06 @ 4:15 pm
“I am opposed to term limits for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that it guarantees you an amateur legislature, dominated by the full time professional staff and bureaucrats.”
Should we repeal the 22nd Amendment, it’s a term limit on the Presidency, so Bush or Clinton can run for a third term?
Well, one thing’s sure. The 22nd Amendment guaranteed us an amatuer President. . .at least this time. I do wish, though, he would listen to some of the professional advice around him. . . like the CIA and maybe the Justice Department core staff?
ConservativeFirst,
The term limit Amendment was past to prevent one party, or man, from becoming all powerful, something the Republican party longs for now. Read your history. Then come back.
Con1st @21,
We were talking about legislative term limits. I think executive term limits are a different beast, and somewhat useful depending on the powers of the executive office. Personally, I prefer a term limit like Philadelphia has on the mayor’s office… you may serve no more than two consecutive terms. Nobody’s ever managed to win a third term (old Frank Rizzo tried), but at least that way if you have a truly extraordinary public servant, he has the opportunity to serve again.
Dammit I did it again. Passed not past in my previous post. Here is some history on term limits for the President.
George Washington, the first President of the United States, is often said to have established the tradition of limiting service as President to two terms only. His Farewell Address, however, suggests that it was because of his age that he did not seek re-election. More accurately, one may suggest that Thomas Jefferson established the convention of a two-term limit; he noted, “if some termination to the services of the chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life”. Jefferson’s immediate successors, James Madison and James Monroe, also adhered to the two-term principle.
Few Presidents attempted to serve for more than two terms. Ulysses S. Grant sought a third term in office after serving from 1869 to 1877, but his party failed to nominate him. Theodore Roosevelt, who served from 1901 to 1909, sought to be elected in 1912 (non-consecutively) for a second time—he had succeeded to the presidency on William McKinley’s assassination and already been elected in 1904 to a full term himself—but he lost to Woodrow Wilson. In 1940 Franklin Delano Roosevelt became the first person to be elected President three times, with supporters citing the war in Europe as a reason for breaking with precedent. In the 1944 election, during World War II, he won a fourth term, but died in office the following year.
And most importantly:
After Franklin Roosevelt’s death, many desired to establish a firm constitutional provision barring presidents from being elected more than twice. The rationale was a concern that without limits, the presidential position could become too similar to that of a benevolent dictator lasting not just four years but a lifetime, that the position could become too powerful and upset the separation of powers, and even so powerful that elections would become dispensable. Hence, the Twenty-second Amendment was adopted.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Roger Rabbit is not “My Left Foot” or “Robby Rabbit,” and did not post the comments above under those names.
20
“How can we prove it to you?”
Don’t bother to try. After 500 years of effort, we still haven’t educated them that the Earth is round. There’s not much you can do with people who are wilfully ignorant.
Boldy @21
“since they’d have to be a hypocrite”
Their hypocrisy has never slowed down the Pugs in the past, and it won’t in the future, either.
Rabbit,
When the lead begins to fly, you will find me next to you, slinging it right back at them. The course that Republicans are on, has, in past history, caused civil violence to erupt. It is my hope that this does not happen. But if it does……..
Comment by My Left Foot— 1/12/06 @ 5:03 pm
“The term limit Amendment was past to prevent one party, or man, from becoming all powerful, something the Republican party longs for now. Read your history. Then come back.”
The 22nd Amendment is a term limit. I asked Goldy if he’d want to repeal it. Not sure what your point is here, except to attack Bush.
Comment by Goldy— 1/12/06 @ 5:07 pm
“Personally, I prefer a term limit like Philadelphia has on the mayor’s office… you may serve no more than two consecutive terms. Nobody’s ever managed to win a third term (old Frank Rizzo tried), but at least that way if you have a truly extraordinary public servant, he has the opportunity to serve again.”
I like that idea too. It would be fun to see Clinton (Bill) run. I’m not sure he’d win or I’d consider him an “exceptional public servant”, but it would be fun to watch.
Comment by Roger Rabbit— 1/12/06 @ 5:29 pm
“Their hypocrisy has never slowed down the Pugs in the past, and it won’t in the future, either.”
Actually most Republicans wouldn’t be hypocrites in this regard, as their recent peformance in Congress shows they don’t really want smaller government. Too bad you hate the Republicans so much you fail to see the irony of your own statement.
yawn
We know they lie. Maria also said she was financially independent.
Were D’Arcy to win, she’d be pure for about 1 term…
About whether the longer you serve in Congress, the more chance you are corrupt, does anybody have any evidence that Ted Kennedy was involved in any Abramoff style graft or corruption during his career? Man has been in office forever, and while I heard he had a reputation as a ladies man, I never heard anything about graft or bribery.
Oh, and Rog, if the Big Dog ran for a third term, he would annihilate any opponent. I would give a years pay to see him back in office.
ConservativeFirst @31
Too bad you hate the Republicans so much you fail to see the irony of your own statement.
No kidding. It does not take any eye-batting for the commenters here to make asses of themselves, but let somebody have a differing view and they fall upon poor dj like a ton of bricks. Sorry dj. Keep it real, and if they don’t let you, change the rules on the bastards…
Conservative First.
I was explaining to you and everyone who reads this blog that there is a huge difference in term limits for the President and lesser elected office and solid reasons for the 22nd Amendment. I have no opinion on term limits for lesser office. I think the people should speak with their vote to remove those who deserve it. But again, the office of President is different, on a whole different level.
Term Limits gaurantee a cackle of lame ducks with no agenda other than pushing and passing whatever they can for corporations they hope to get a cushy job with after they are forced out of their governement job.
Rec*ipe for a nightmare.
Damn, I have posted twice about term limits, but the filoter has eaten them both.. I have no idea what word I am using that is spam related.
“Lame Duck” or “Corporate sponsor*ship”?
This is pretty early in the game for Darcy to be making grand statements about her office policy on lobbyists if she gets elected. This state while timed to to take advantage of the current anti-lobbying wave shows justs how little she knows about how things actually work in the other Washington.
While there are some bad apples among the Washington lobbyists (as you are like to find in any industry) there are also some specific needs that lobbyists meet, specifically as information providers. There is no way that the staff of a single freshman congress person can provide all the issue specific information that would be need to represent a congressional district. Things are just to complicated policywise. Congress passes legislation on everything from FCC regulations to Medicare to War declarations, we live in a complicated country. I’d could rattle off a dozen or more specific examples, but I think the point is clear.
15
So ammend the constitution
16
nice duck.
marks @ 34
“No kidding. It does not take any eye-batting for the commenters here to make asses of themselves, but let somebody have a differing view and they fall upon poor dj like a ton of bricks. Sorry dj. Keep it real, and if they don’t let you, change the rules on the bastards…”
Huh? what? Did I hear my name?
Umm…I’m not following what you are getting at here, marks.
Roger @ 16
I gave you the benfit of doubt ansd searched every union related post.
I don’t see any explanation by you to support your assertion that union=skilled labor.
I saw someone post about the carpenters hall, but it was not youm and it did not adequately support you.
So care to explain this? As a former machinist at Boeing who saw the union *actively* defend inept laborers I would love hear it.
BluDonkee — did you actually read the guidelines? Where does it say she wouldn’t meet with lobbyists, or wouldn’t accept information from lobbyists? (Hint: it doesn’t, and Goldy makes the same mistake in his commentary).
All this is talking about is transparency, and it makes good sense.
I posted some comments on the same issue, along with some comments about how Dave Reichert addressed the same issue at
http://coolaqua.blogs.com/cool.....se_ru.html
The decision in Buckley v. Vallejo effectively eliminates the possibility of removing either paid lobbyists or private campaign financing from our politics. SCOTUS says that money is speech in the context of petitioning the government, so whether I agree or not, that’s what it is.
Setting up a financing potential that makes it possible for a challenger to put up an effective campaign against an incumbent, coupled with enforcement of the criminal laws seems to me a better course than including terms limits in any reform. Public financing of elections is too new in Maine and Arizona to make many conclusions about what it accomplishes, but it is pretty clear that more opponents are making challenges to incumbents in these states.
Ted Stevens may be a crook, but if the people of Alaska think he’s the best guy for the job and he isn’t breaking the law, my opinion shouldn’t limit their ability to elect him for as long as the voters want him. As long as alternatives to Stevens can get their messages before the voters, I’m willing to accept that they know what they want, if not what their doing.
Setting up a financing potential that makes it possible for a challenger to put up an effective campaign against an incumbent, coupled with enforcement of the criminal laws seems to me a better course than including terms limits in any reform. Public financing of elections is too new in Maine and Arizona to make many conclusions about what it accomplishes, but it is pretty clear that more opponents are making challenges to incumbents in these states.
Ted Stevens may be a crook, but if the people of Alaska think he’s the best guy for the job and he isn’t breaking the law, my opinion shouldn’t limit their ability to elect him for as long as the voters want him. As long as alternatives to Stevens can get their messages before the voters, I’m willing to accept that they know what they want, if not what their doing.
Goldy,
The filter has some Jones about the words in my, so far, rejected posts. They seem to me to be pretty standard English phrases.
Sorry for two effectively identical posts.
dj @41
My apologies for that. Hmmm, what was that about???
Oh, wait, now I remember. It was a coded message to my GOP controller. Sorry, the repeated “dj” indicated I needed more beer money for the operation. Since the cypher changes daily it won’t happen again. Oh, I just checked todays cypher and Goldy is the ‘beer’ variant, so he can expect an inexplicable post that contains his name three times (it is Friday night, so I will need three times the usual amount)…
Con1st @ 31 Actually most Republicans …, as their recent peformance in Congress shows they don’t really want smaller government.
Talk about your ironies ! I will keep this one on the refrigerator door, to remind the next kool aid drunk republicfuck when they start talking about *tax and spend* liberals and their love of big government.
Finally you got it correct for once, Con1st.
Comment by marks— 1/13/06 @ 2:38 pm
“Oh, wait, now I remember. It was a coded message to my GOP controller.”
Tomorrow’s key word is “Seahawks”. Wait, did I type that outloud?
ConservativeFirst @48
You know, since it is Playoff Saturday, “Seahawks” will be used 5 times…
btw – the Seahawks are the last, best hope of the NFC for this year. There is no other team in the NFC that can beat an AFC team.
Superbowl-wise, of course…
DJ, just to set the record straight:
No kidding. It does not take any eye-batting for the commenters here to make asses of themselves, but let somebody have a differing view and they fall upon poor dj like a ton of bricks. Sorry dj. Keep it real, and if they don’t let you, change the rules on the bastards
I am guilty of trying to foment discord. As I recall, you had an individual who thought you were a mouthpiece of the center. Somebody calling himself harry poon.
Anyway, my GOP controller is waiting for my coded message, so toodles…
I don’t know. I think Magnuson ended up being a big ol’ whore, albeit one with really good PR.