Bobby’s Shaking Down The Special Interest Money, Too
MORE ON THE “WINK-WINK” WORLD OF LOBBYIST FUNDRAISING
FITSNews- December 4, 2007 – For all the grief we gave S.C. Ways & Means Chairman Dan Cooper for his use of lobbyists’ principals as fundraising tools, at least his people remembered to put the standard “Dear Lobbyist, wink-wink” disclaimer on the invitation:
If this solicitation was inadvertently sent to a lobbyist, please disregard.
Obviously that disclaimer doesn’t excuse Cooper’s flagrant use of lobbyists’ principals as event hosts, which is technically illegal, but it does serve as a glimpse into the cozy relationship between powerful Columbia politicians and the special interest lobbyists who assist them in raising them boatloads of cash.
Since directly soliciting campaign contributions from lobbyists is expressly forbidden by state law, campaigns use “Cover Your Ass” lingo such as the verbage featured on Cooper’s mailing (and dozens of campaign mailings like it) to make it seem completely accidental every time these fundraising pitches get sent to practically the entire directory of S.C. registered lobbyists.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but assuming that these mailings don’t specifically target lobbyists in an effort to get them to go out and raise special interest money is like assuming that political connections don’t factor into no-bid government contracts, which in turn don’t factor into hefty pay raises for the people who dole out those contracts.
Or assuming that babies really do come from storks.
Anyway, ever since we published our story on Cooper’s invite two days ago, the FITSNews’ mailbox has been blowing up with similar examples of questionable tactics, including a fundraising letter from House Speaker Bobby Harrell that neglected to include the whole “if you’re a lobbyist, please disregard this letter” charade. Here’s a look at the Harrell fundraising letter:
Hmmm … we wonder if that letter ended up in any lobbyists’ mailboxes? Because if it did, Bobby could have a small problem on his hands.
We know for a fact it went to several lobbyists’ principals, and while the letter didn’t specifically use the word “host” in encouraging them to “participate in this event,” it certainly appears to run afoul of the same ethics law as Cooper’s mailing.
Of course since South Carolina’s State Ethics Commission has about as much testicular mass as a female kitten, it’s doubtful any of this will ever be investigated, let alone even glanced at.
Even more doubtful is the notion that South Carolina’s ethically-challenged Supreme Court would actually do its job and weigh in on the legality of using lobbyists’ principals as campaign fundraising tools.
The end result of all this, not surprisingly, will be the perpetuation of a government spending orgy in which the lobbyists who direct big bucks to powerful politicians get taken care of and the average taxpayer ends up getting stuck with the bill.
Which is pretty much par for the course in South Carolina …
Comments
By abc123 on December 4th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
will,
don’t know much about politics…just curious….name a state in the union where the following is not the case:
“The end result of all this, not surprisingly, will be the perpetuation of a government spending orgy in which the lobbyists who direct big bucks to powerful politicians get taken care of and the average taxpayer ends up getting stuck with the bill.”
By FITSNews on December 4th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
ABC,
50 wrongs don’t make a right …
-FITSNews
By schotline on December 4th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
ABC,
Your back with deep political cerebration.
By acb123 on December 4th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
no, but it eliminates the reason to imply that SC is unlike the rest of western civilization.
By HD on December 5th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Will -
There is nothing wrong with Harrell’s letter. Of course it went to Lobbyist Principals, and that’s perfectly legal. Asking them to “participate” at a certain level is nothing but asking them to contribute. As with your criticism of Cooper, you seem to want to conflate “contributing” and “hosting.” Saying, essentially, “I contributed; I will be there; and I want you there too,” is not “hosting” an event.
I agree with the spirit of your criticism and know full well that the campaign finance laws are honored more in the breach than in the observance. Pointing out the flaws in the system is useful. Accusing people of breaking laws they haven’t broken is not.
By Angels dancing on a pin on December 5th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
HD scolds the sic one: “you seem to want to conflate ‘contributing’ and ‘hosting.’ Saying, essentially, ‘I contributed; I will be there; and I want you there too,’ is not ‘hosting’ an event.”
Jesus, I haven’t seen such sophistry since One L. Of course, the pithy use of the word “conflate” made me hard as a rock, as did the hackneyed honored more in the breach than in the observance.” So thanks for that.
By HD on December 6th, 2007 at 6:28 am
Angels…
If you’d made it to 2L you’d have known I was correct. I guess your infantile sexual distractions were an impediment you couldn’t overcome.
By John Wallace on March 2nd, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Special Interest Money is Nothing More Than Bribery
Members of Congress have managed to create a seemingly lawful system whereby they can legally accept money from lobbyists or other persons who represent special interest groups that are actively involved in trying to influence those same politicians in future votes. The special interest groups that contribute large sums of money to political campaigns want and expect “their politicians†to enact (or help in some way) legislation that favors the group that provided the money. In America today, we are living under a political system that not only allows, but encourages and condones the legalized bribery of members of congress. That is why I believe “America has the best congress that special interest money can buy.â€
Compare these two examples:
1. If a known drug dealer gives a police officer in a narcotics enforcement unit a $1,000. “Contribution†for the policeman’s ball and says “I hope you consider looking the other way when I’m selling drugs on the corner.†Whether or not the police officer takes any kind of official action that benefits the drug dealer, if he accepts the money, he commits the crime of bribery, right?
2. If a lobbyist or member of a special interest group gives a member of congress a $1,000. “Contribution†for his campaign and says: I hope you consider our position on any upcoming votes that affect us.†Whether or not the congressmen or Senator takes some kind of official action that benefits that person or organization, if he accepts the money, isn’t that still bribery?
Neither of these public servants should be taking money from people or organizations to influence their decisions they will make during the course of performing their official duties. Shouldn’t both situations be considered illegal conduct by those involved? Well, not if you are a member of congress. Bribery is defined as “a corrupt activity in which a person offers or receives goods, money, services, etc. to sway a person’s opinion, action, or decision.†Merely accepting the goods, money, services, etc, is a crime. It is immaterial whether or not the person receiving the benefit, does anything. In the case of members of congress, however, receiving money is only considered to be bribery if the briber explicitly says to the politician (the one being bribed): “I’m giving you this money as payment for a yes or no vote on the house floor tomorrow.”
The reality of political life in America today is that politicians are being bribed every day by special interest groups that want them to legislate in a way that benefits them and not the American people. Americans are bearing the brunt of this horrific situation in ways that affect us all every day of our lives. The current campaign finance laws are built on a legal fiction. The legal fiction is that campaign contributions from special interest groups are considered to be legal and within the law even though they are actually bribes. Money given to members of congress by special interest groups is nothing more than “legalized bribery.” Through bundled contributions and PAC giving, industries, labor unions, and other special interest groups pay to persuade lawmakers to vote their way on the issues.
No matter how it is said, Special Interest dollars buys votes and it also buys elections. The real scandal in the nation’s capitol is that this everyday bribery remains legal. Candidates who please their special interest money donors through their votes, are usually rewarded with more bribes, I mean more campaign contributions. This legalized bribery system has created a “Privileged Oligarchy†made up of selected members of congress and big donor elites from wealthy special interest groups. This oligarchy is currently governing this country and making decisions that oftentimes are not in the best interests of the American people, but rather in favor of the special interest groups.
Our elections should be about what American citizens want, not about what big special interest donors want.
I will support any legislation that defines the receipt of special interest money by members of congress as bribery and therefore illegal.
I also will support legislation that removes the monetary limits on individual contributions to campaigns, as the US Constitution does not give Congress the authority to set such limits because it limits the citizens’ free speech rights.
I support the continuation of legislation requiring the full and immediate disclosure of all contributions to Federal election campaigns. No exceptions or loopholes allowed.
Although I do not fully support the concept of government financing of campaigns, the following two pieces of legislation, currently introduced in both the Senate and House of Representatives, are a step in the right direction and I would support them as well. They are H.R. 1614 “The Clean Money, Clean Elections Act of 2007†and S.936 “The Fair Elections Now Act.â€
By:
JOHN W. WALLACE
Candidate for Congress
New York’s 20th Congressional District
http://www.johnwallaceforcongress.com