Congressional Democrats Spell Reform: CA$H
EmailDemocrats in Congress appear to be taking full advantage of the "pay to play" system they said led to a "climate of corruption" under Republicans, an ABC News investigation has found. "Washington looks pretty much the same as it always did," said Ellen Miller of the Sunlight Foundation, despite Democratic promises of reform. Campaign finance records made public this week show Democratic congressional campaign committees taking in substantially more in contributions than their Republican counterparts. THE BLOTTER RECOMMENDS Blotter Lobster With Kerry: $25,000. Golf With Chambliss: $15,000. Access to Congress: Priceless. Blotter Ruling Congress, Dems Rolling in Special Interest Cash Click Here to Check Out Brian Ross Slideshows According to the records, the Democratic House and Senate committees reported $32.7 million in contributions. The Republican committees reported $22.9 million. One of the Democrats’ biggest fundraisers, held at a private estate in suburban Washington, required lobbyists and other big donors to pay as much as $28,000 to have dinner and access to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic House leaders. Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage. During last year’s campaign, Pelosi strongly criticized Republican fundraising efforts. "The Republicans have turned Congress into an auction house, for sale to the highest bidder. You have to pay to play," she said as the Democrats announced how they planned to reform Congress. Lobbyists say little has actually changed in Washington, other than with the Democrats in power, they are in a position to collect the largest share of the contributions. "There’s a cuisine and place to greet your favorite politicians in almost any hour of the day or night in Washington," said Tony Podesta, a leading lobbyist and Democratic party fundraiser. Democrats say they have moved to change rules banning meals, gifts and trips from lobbyists and plan to introduce a more comprehensive reform bill in the next few weeks. Wining and Dining Continues — See the Slideshow
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Did anyone really expect anything less. Its ALL about the MONEY and Benefits for themselves. Screw the American people.
Posted by: David | April 25, 2007, 1:26 pm 1:26 pm
Thank God I’m neither Democrat or Republican. And before the elections came up and everyone was saying how wonderfull the changes would be when the Dems came to power… I told you this would happen.
It’s all about power and in DC money buys power. In 2008 try REAL change and vote Libertarian!
Posted by: skidog | April 25, 2007, 2:05 pm 2:05 pm
vEE….
I think you better read the rules for each house of Congress. A hold can only be placed if a majority agrees to the hold, or if a person who is in the majority places the hold knowing that the minority can’t vote to override it. Sooooo…..I guess your post is nothing more than an attempt to keep people from seeing that it isn’t just the Repulicans who are screwing the American people.
Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the Democratic crew are now more responsible for the cr@p that going on….because they are now hypocrites. Hmmmmmmm
Posted by: Marc | April 25, 2007, 4:47 pm 4:47 pm
I’m neither Rebublican or Democrat and I believe it’s always been that way. Always someone looking to get ahead. Even though what they do may be legal……it’s still corrupt.
Posted by: Dave | April 25, 2007, 5:33 pm 5:33 pm
Politicians are politicians. It doesn’t matter what party they call theirs. But remenber the promises made by the majority, reform, no dragging people in for the past etc. Politicians don’t tell ALL the truth. Who was it that said a politician tells a lie and then convinces the public that their view is right?
Posted by: sport | April 25, 2007, 5:45 pm 5:45 pm
If only Wellstone were still here with us…
Posted by: smartboy | April 25, 2007, 6:50 pm 6:50 pm
Interesting that, in a report on Democrats fundraising, that there is a mention of Darrell Issa (R-CA) attending a Who concert with lobbyists. ABC isn’t hoping that viewers mistake him for a Democrat, are they?
Posted by: Jeff | April 25, 2007, 6:59 pm 6:59 pm
Your report on Democratic contributions and comparing them to Abranoff was not only very spotty coverage, but journalistically close to sensationalism. Your report might have had more of a truthful ring to it if your reporter had checked just WHO the major corporations give their money to. For instance, check Haliburton, Pepsico and Walmart for starters.
I’ve never seen a more scanty and less balanced report on this program, with seeming agenda.
I have to believe that Peter Jennings would have rolled over on this one.
Posted by: Virginia | April 25, 2007, 7:12 pm 7:12 pm
It doesn’t seem to matter which crook is in office.
There’s two things to remember about lawyers. 98% give all the others a bad name, and if their lips are moving, they’re lying.
And, what happened in the first 100 hours?
Posted by: Richard | April 25, 2007, 7:12 pm 7:12 pm
Nancy Pelosi, the bomb couldn’t have hit a more deserving person. That woman drives my wife and I crazy. I’m glad the rest of the world can now see her for who she really is….
Both parties really need to clean their act up. I almost wonder if their banning assult rifles was because their afraid of what the right to bear arms was all about. Us being able to stop a run away & crupt goverment by any means necessary.
and to “Jeff” Jennings likely wouldn’t have likely aired it.
I hope Mr. Gibson keeps up what seems like much more even handed reporting with a lot less injection of his personal political views/leanings. Now that IS a professional!
Posted by: Devlin | April 25, 2007, 7:35 pm 7:35 pm
I hope that Mr. Gibsen uses his suddenly found outrage at Democrats equally with Republicans. How soon he forgets the resent Republican House Majority Leader”s escapades. It may be close, but what the Democrats are doing is still legal so keep it fair. At least the Democrats are trying to help the citizens. P.S. I am not a registered Democrat, but I want fair news coverage.
Posted by: Terence Herrera | April 25, 2007, 9:45 pm 9:45 pm
The democrats are now busted, especially Nancy Pelosi, because now they’re proven hypocrites. And we all know for a fact that ABC is on the democrats side politically, so you know good and well that for ABC to even portray them in this light, it must have been even worse than shown, giving them no choice. Wow.
Thanks ABC. Every once in awhile you get it right.
Posted by: Jo | April 25, 2007, 10:57 pm 10:57 pm
Thank you for your expose regarding business as usual for our corrupt congress. Please keep a fire light under these slugs!
Posted by: David Gross | April 25, 2007, 11:44 pm 11:44 pm
Why do we need Democrats and Republicans? Why can’t it just be “for the people?”
Posted by: Deb | April 26, 2007, 9:18 am 9:18 am
Regarding “Business as Usual” – So Congressman Issa attended a Who concert surrounded by lobbyists. It is against House rules to accept such entertainment from lobbyists, but “nothing could stop him from buying the tickets himself and then sell them to Lobbyists at 10 times their cost” – ever heard of the term “Scalping”?
Huge fines and jail time await scalpers. I’m waiting to hear of his case coming to trial.
Posted by: David | April 26, 2007, 9:39 am 9:39 am
Deb, we need opposing viewpoints and perspectives. “The People” is a pluralism; I think we need MORE political parties, not less…
Posted by: Jazz | April 26, 2007, 10:31 am 10:31 am
Yes, the Democrats are awash in money and take things for themselves just like the Republicans, but you need to follow the money even further.
The political parties have to raise ungodly amounts of money to pay for TV campaigns. So, if you follow the money all the way, it comes back to you ABC and the other networks. We need reform so that money isn’t so dramatically the driving force in politics. I don’t expect the networks to get on board with that because they are the winners in this corrupt system.
Posted by: Irene | April 26, 2007, 10:48 am 10:48 am
Isn’t it ironic that a congressman is seen with a lobbyist at WHO concert, and Pete Townsend is singing in the background, “We Don’t Get Fooled Again”. I think we did.
Posted by: Deborah | April 26, 2007, 11:17 am 11:17 am
This article is a bunch of bull. Oil tax breaks, no-bid contracts,corrupt spending, THAT IS PAY TO PLAY.
Fundraising #’s go up when you’re in the majority. duh.
Bad Brian…bad.
Posted by: BenMurphyNYC | April 26, 2007, 11:49 am 11:49 am
What do people expect, the Democrats are going to stop raising money? Yeah, let’s just sit back and let the Republicans raise all the money and let’s lose every election for eternity. The whole contention of the article is that nothing has changed, that the Democrats are doing the same thing as the Republicans, but they back that up with what, a quote from one person and then a “Lobbyists say little has actually changed in Washington”. What lobbyists? Then this, “Democrats say they have moved to change rules banning meals, gifts and trips from lobbyists…”. No, Democrats don’t say this, this is fact; they have changed rules, and they did it immediately just as they promised.
Posted by: Glenn | April 26, 2007, 2:44 pm 2:44 pm
Does ANY sentient human being expect the democrats to behave any differently once in power than the republicans did (AND the democrats before 1994). As Mark Twain said, Congress is America’s only true criminal class. Aint a dimes worth of difference between the parties except for the faux outrage of the aggrieved.
Posted by: Roger | April 26, 2007, 3:03 pm 3:03 pm
It isn’t about raising money, everyone needs money to run for office. It’s who you are accepting money from. The cozy relationship between politicians and lobbyists continues. All should be allowed to raise as much money as possible as long as there is immediate disclosure of the source of that same money.
Posted by: Lou | April 26, 2007, 3:08 pm 3:08 pm
Heh -
I bet the independents and moderates that voted in the current bunch of bozos are suffering from buyers’ remorse.
If you were hoping for a change, remember – “hope” rhymes with “dope.”
Posted by: apb | April 26, 2007, 3:59 pm 3:59 pm
The problem is that under the current campaign financing structure, you either have to be (i) very rich and willing to self fund or (ii) willing to run around acting like the zombie panhandlers in South Park asking everyone for change.
I think it would be better simply to remove limits but require full disclosure (and computerize disclosure so it is more real time).
I am currently reading the oral history/autobiography of retired Judge James Buckley, who was elected to the Senate in 1970 as a Conserative from New York. He ran a real outsiders campaign. He was able to get his campaign started thanks to a big contribution by one supporter, and a line of credit from another. Neither supporter wanted anything — both were simply “true believers”.
Buckley never heard back from the supporter who gave him the line of credit after it was repaid. The other supporter contacted Buckley once when he was in office — the supporter was visiting Washington and wanted to have lunch in the Congressional dining room (which Buckley says he did). That was it.
Let the true believers give as much as they want, but require full and fast disclosure.
Posted by: Anthony Calabrese | April 26, 2007, 4:19 pm 4:19 pm
This is just the usual game of the Dems, blast the GOP for what you are doing. The sad irony is that this might not even be a bad thing, but the constant bickering from the left just makes it look that much worse. How much corruption will the Democrats tolerate? We do not know, they have not reached a point yet where they feel the need to act honorable. Willaim Jefferson? anybody?
Posted by: jweaver | April 26, 2007, 4:21 pm 4:21 pm
Glenn:
“The whole contention of the article is that nothing has changed, that the Democrats are doing the same thing as the Republicans, but they back that up with what, a quote from one person and then a “Lobbyists say little has actually changed in Washington”. What lobbyists?”
Well, yeah, they back it up with that, and then this:
“According to the records, the Democratic House and Senate committees reported $32.7 million in contributions. The Republican committees reported $22.9 million.”
Minor detail there, I guess, huh?
Qwinn
Posted by: Qwinn | April 26, 2007, 4:50 pm 4:50 pm
The democrats will and have done plenty of good things, and tried to do more but were blocked by republican rubberstamps. I don’t think the democrats won in 2006 because they were going to be the walking on water party. We have that now and it stinks. What they will and are doing is caring about the american people, unlike this administration that has plotted the energy program with the enron honchos. They have put republican incompetents in all the important positions and just let them bleed tax payers dry. There is no way that a democrat administration could ever reach the depth of evil that this bunch has. The democrats will continue to raise money, they aren’t stupid. They are staying ahead of our own evil doers – the Bush/Cheney administration.
Posted by: Vicki | April 26, 2007, 7:06 pm 7:06 pm
Qwinn,
I think you missed my point. You have to look at what politicians are actually doing, not simply how much money they raise. The Democrats are this year raising a bit more than the Republicans; when the Republicans were in Congress they were raising MUCH more than the Democrats. But that’s not the point. The point is the Republican corruption, and the fact that the Democrats passed rules to make it harder to abuse power and take bribes the way the Republican Congress did. Things have changed. The Democrats are not the same as the Republicans.
Posted by: Glenn | April 27, 2007, 5:30 pm 5:30 pm
Best comment posted so far here was by Virginia, when she said…
“I’ve never seen a more scanty and less balanced report on this program, with seeming agenda.
“I have to believe that Peter Jennings would have rolled over on this one.”
Brian Ross has fallen a couple of notches in my view. I want slime reported when slime exists, be it Democratic or Republican. But I agree with Media Matters on this one. Brian, this was a hatchet job.
Posted by: Chris Bidlack | April 28, 2007, 11:10 am 11:10 am