$ and Congress, part 2006

Sunday’s Deseret News had a very frank discussion of outside money in politics. It seems for once a political reporter actually looked at context and reality. So hats off to Lee Davidson and Bob Bernick Jr. (you have to praise them when they do something right, not just criticize when they do bad stuff).

The real deal as they alluded to: the safer the member of Congress is, the more outside money they raise, because it is a safer bet for lobbyists, interest-groups, and individuals seeking influence. And because Utah not is that that wealthy of a state. I didn’t do well in Stats in college, but I bet there is a statistically significant inverse correlation between one’s Cook rating (safe Republican vs. leans Republican vs. Toss up) and the type and amount members of Congress can raise. Just look at this chart:

CREDIT: Deseret News

Here is another fundamental problem with the system: “Matheson says he spends four to six hours a week on the telephone seeking funds. Because members of Congress cannot use federal phones or office space for such activities, that forces him to work out of his campaign or party offices in Utah and Washington.” That means that instead of spending his time reading bills or talking to constituents, Matheson is spending 4-6 hours on the phone raising money at the DCCC and maybe another hour or so walking back and forth from his office to the DCCC.

Another is that staffers get paid crap, like less than minimum wage in most cases. In an expensive city like D.C., offers of largess from lobbyists can be very tempting. And appearantly, that's what's been happening over the past 6 years. The Medill School of Journalism and D.C. watchgroups noticed that $50 million was given to saffers improperly. And because these staffers are the defacto members in many cases (because a lot of these Members are complete idiots and are just names), the lack of enforcement is scary.

Another big problem is most lobbyists are lobbyists not because they are experts in a field, and could therefore help their company get favorable legislation and Congress make an informed decision. Rather, these lobbyists are lobbyists because their relative is a Member of Congress or big dude in the Administration, or they themselves were a member of Congress.

Take, for example, the case of Tom DeLay's brother Randy DeLay, who is - no surprise here - a lobbyist. According to a report by NPR's Marketplace this morning, he whisked two staffers to a resort while they were both working on a transportation approrpiations bill. They spent the weekend with his client, who wanted money to a build a toll road in West Virginia. DeLay picked up the tab. No repercussions.

Now both Daschles are lobbyists. And soon both DeLays will too. Same goes for Hatch's family, the Hutinson's etc. I could go on and on. If we outlawed neposism in lobbying, made the sit out period for former Members/Appointees 3 years, publicly financed elections or allowed unlimited donations (with a payed for by section at the end of each ad), we could get back to governing for the people, not the well connected.