In Defense of (some) Lobbyists

There has been quite an uproar over Hillary's continued acceptance of campaign contributions from lobbyists... you know, those weasels bought and paid for by pond scum that happened to make its way to the top of the corporate ladder.

From my perspective here in the belly of the beast itself, Washington DC, this seems to be vastly overly broad generalization of who lobbyists really are and what role they serve.

in all that entails: schmoozing at $1,000 a head receptions, waiting for lawmakers outside of hearing rooms, and building relationships with staff over many, many years.

I would be the last to claim that this system is perfect. However, there is a mighty important distinction that I fear gets lost in all of this vilification of lobbying: not all lobbyists are created equal.

Hillary was on to something when she said that lobbyists represent real people with real concerns. The Sierra Club has lobbyists. The ACLU has lobbyists. NARAL has lobbyists. The HRC has lobbyists. And, of course, the vast majority of member unions of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win have lobbyists.

These groups represent tens of millions of progressive people who otherwise would have a very limited voice in DC. Their presence here is--90% of the time--made up of dedicated in-house employees who have made their careers fighting these fights. At their best, these lobbyists give often overlooked, factual information to lawmakers and their staff so that they can come to the best decision.

Clearly this is but a slice of a much larger lobbying pie. Unfortunately, the agnostic guns-for-hire give the true-believing in-house lobbyists a much worse name than they deserve.

Firms that rake in millions of dollars a year in fees from the highest bidder are the real problem; they not only muddy the legislative waters regardless of the outcome, they fight tooth and nail to keep the current system in place.

And that is exactly where the problem lies: the current system. Candidates have to raise exorbitant amounts of cash in order to buy ridiculously expensive TV commercials that appeal to the lowest common denominator of the voting public.

Moving to a public finance system would take away those $1,000 a head cocktail parties. Since the hired guns have loads of corporate cash, they can afford to attend a lot more parties and give a lot more money to candidates of both parties.

We in the labor movement have to pick and choose how our much more limited money gets divvied up.

So we get the money out of the system. Lawmakers will still need advice from representatives of the people they serve and still need votes on election day. Progressive lobbyists in such a brave new world would be in even greater demand, as they represent actual people, not corporations (which, despite what the courts say about their inalienable rights, still can't vote).

Back to the current situation, saying that a candidate ought never accept money from a lobbyist is, frankly, silly. If someone who works for the ACLU wants to give Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama or anyone for that matter $200 of her own money, why shouldn't a lobbyist that works for the Sierra Club be able to do the same?

All I'm asking for is just a wee bit of nuance when talking about the special interests buying their way into Washington. At the end of the day, there are truly dedicated, honest people fighting the good fight on the ground in DC, toiling in obscurity and playing a game not of their creation or choosing.

In fact, let's applaud these hard-working men and women who step into our nation's capitol everyday, trying to counter the overwhelming money and clout of MegaCorp's hired legislative muscle. Without these lobbyists, we would be a lot worse off than we already are.

Why shouldn't they, too, be able to support a candidate?

Newslinks!

• The FBI is underreporting use of extraordinary powers granted under the (Orwellian-named) PATRIOT Act. "The inspector general's audit found 22 possible breaches of internal FBI and Justice Department regulations -- some of which were potential violations of law -- in a sampling of 293 "national security letters." The letters were used by the FBI to obtain the personal records of U.S. residents or visitors between 2003 and 2005"
  
  
• Legislation finally granting voting rights to the 600,000 tax-paying residents of the District of Columbia will be taken up by the House at the end of the month.
  
  
• Unemployment rates decline in February as the economy adds 97,000 jobs. Bonddad notes a few caveats, such as construction losing 62,000 jobs and average employees working .1 fewer hours each week.
  
  
• Newt Gingrich admits to having an affair while he was managing the Republican impeachment against Bill Clinton... for having an affair. Don't worry though, because "Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton's infidelity." Of course not, Newt.
  

Guilty!

After 10 days of deliberation, the jury in the Scooter Libby trial have found the former top aide to Vice President Cheney guilty on four counts.

He was found to have committed two counts of perjury, one count of making false statements, and one count of obstruction of justice.

The jury aquitted him of one count of making false statements.

Initial reports indicate he may be in for up to 25 years in federal jail. As a small guy, I'm sure he'll be quickly adopted by some large 'protectors'.

At least until his almost-certainly-forthcoming presidential pardon.

Update at 12:56 pm: As Speaker Pelosi notes:

“Today's guilty verdicts are not solely about the acts of one individual.

“This trial provided a troubling picture of the inner workings of the Bush Administration. The testimony unmistakably revealed – at the highest levels of the Bush Administration – a callous disregard in handling sensitive national security information and a disposition to smear critics of the war in Iraq.”

*Thunk* The Sound of Another Dropping Shoe

A ninth US Attorney, Thomas M. DiBiagio of Maryland, has come forward to claim that his own departure in early 2005 was a precursor to the current US Attorney purge.

The former federal prosecutor in Maryland said Monday that he was forced out in early 2005 because of political pressure stemming from public corruption investigations involving associates of the state’s governor, a Republican.

“There was direct pressure not to pursue these investigations,” said the former prosecutor, Thomas M. DiBiagio. “The practical impact was to intimidate my office and shut down the investigations.”

His office had been looking into whether associates of Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. had improperly funneled money from gambling interests to promote legalized slot machines in Maryland. Mr. DiBiagio said that several prominent Maryland Republicans had pressed him to back away from the inquiries and that one conversation had so troubled him that he reported it to an F.B.I. official as a threat.

But he said that the Justice Department had offered little support and that that made it “impossible for me to stay.”

“I believe it was that investigation that played an integral role in what was done to me,” Mr. DiBiagio, now at a law firm here, said about the gambling inquiries. “I clearly got the message that I had alienated my political sponsor and I would not have any political support to stay another term. Clearly, they wanted me to leave.”

And then, unsurprisingly:

The investigation appears to have ended after Mr. DiBiagio left office in January 2005.

Newslinks!

• As Iraq burns... 2 suicide bombers kill 93 Iraqis; 9 US servicemen killed in seperate attacks on their armored vehicles, making it the deadliest day for Americans in a month.
  
  
• Second Republican lawmaker, Heather Wilson (R-NM), admits to contacting former US Attorney David Iglesias regarding an ongoing investigation. Although she claims innocent motives, the statement was released the day before "Iglesias, one of seven U.S. attorneys fired by the Justice Department on Dec. 7, is expected to tell Congress today that Wilson and Domenici were trying to sway the course of his investigation."
  
  
• Democratic activist Bob Hattoy died on Saturday after a two decade fight with HIV/AIDS. In 1992, he was the first openly gay American to address a national political convention. He went on to be a close advisor to President Clinton, despite his outspoken stance against the discriminatory Don't Ask-Don't Tell policy.
  
  
• Indonesian island of Sumatra is rocked by two powerful earthquakes, leaving at least 70 dead. Although a tsunami was averted because the source was under land (as opposed to water), thousands fled to higher ground.
  

Bad Moon Rising

For the first time in over three years, the Earth elbowed her way directly between the sun and the moon, causing a full lunar eclipse.

With the Earth in the way, the only light to reach the moon was filtered through the atmosphere, giving it the reddish hue.

That, or Mars swung by for a quick visit.

Bush's White House in a Nutshell: US Attorneys

As we all now know, there has been quite a shitstorm raised by the apparently politically-motivated firing of eight US Attorneys.

Earlier revelations included Senator Domenici admitting he had personally browbeaten David Iglesias about an ongoing investigation of New Mexico state Democrats in the lead-up to a hotly contested race in NM-01 last November. He wanted indictments and he wanted them before the election.

In Eastern Arkansas US Attorney Bud Cummins was pushed out to make room for a close protege of the man behind the curtain himself, Karl Rove. Thanks to a sneaky provision in the Orwellian-named PATRIOT Act, the President can replace US Attorneys without Senate confirmation.

We also know that one of the sacked Attorneys, Carol Lam in San Diego, was leading the public corruption investigation into (former) Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, which lead to several high-profile arrests.

Who Got Canned?

• Daniel Bogden - Nevada
  
• Paul Charlton - Arizona
  
• Margaret Chiara - Western Michigan
  
• Bud Cummins - Eastern Arkansas
  
• David Iglesias - New Mexico
  
• Carol Lam - San Diego, CA
  
• John McKay - Western Washington
  
• Kevin Ryan - San Francisco, CA
  

The names in bold earned marks of "well regarded," "capable," and "very competent" in their official reviews in recent months. The performance reviews for the other two have not been publicly released.

As Senator Feinstein (D-CA) noted

These reports only serve to fuel my concerns that the Department of Justice based its decisions to fire competent and successful U.S. Attorneys because of a desire to put young politically-connected lawyers from the outside into these offices.

Their Job
The United States and its territories are divided into 93 judicial districts. Each is served by a US Attorney. They are charged with prosecuting federal crimes within their district as well as defending the US government in civil cases.

Although they serve at the pleasure of the President, barring disciplinary or performance problems they have historically stayed put for the duration of the presidency.

As noted above, the PATRIOT Act gives the President authority to name an 'interim' replacement indefinitely, without Senate approval.

The Bush Story
The White House claims that the unprecedented forced resignation of these high-performing Attorneys was because "senior Justice Department officials identified the prosecutors they believed were not doing enough to carry out President Bush's policies on immigration, firearms and other issues."

As Josh Marshall notes over at TPM, this is bullshit. Of all of the potential reasons to fire a presidential appointee, willfully disregarding (legal) policy would seem like one of the best.

Then why, when confronted with the issue, did Attorney General Gonzalez and the Justice Department say otherwise?

Since the mass firings were carried out three months ago, Justice Department officials have consistently portrayed them as personnel decisions based on the prosecutors' "performance-related" problems

Not only have they changed their tune, the personnel reviews completely contradict the idea that it was a performance-related problem!

Par for the Bush course: obfuscation, changing stories, and plum jobs for political supporters. Yay.