.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Saturday, August 05, 2006

Stomach turning - a lobbyist's story

The NYTimes has an article on Brent Wilkes, telling his version of the "lobbying process." It's absolutely disgusting how corrupt this has become.
Mr. Wilkes had set up separate meetings with the lawmakers hoping to win a government contract, and he planned to punctuate each pitch with a campaign donation. But his hometown congressman, Representative Bill Lowery of San Diego, a Republican, told him that presenting the checks during the sessions was not how things were done, Mr. Wilkes recalled.

Instead, Mr. Wilkes said, Mr. Lowery taught him the right way to do it: hand over the envelope in the hallway outside the suite, at least a few feet away.....


The culture of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee is one of great power and little scrutiny. Mr. Wilkes said every member appeared to have a personal allowance of millions of dollars to disburse without public disclosure.......


Sometimes, Mr. Wilkes said, lobbyists offered him an earmark if he could come up with a project. In 2004, he said, (former top Delay aide) Edwin A. Buckham, another lobbyist for Mr. Wilkes, reported that the House Appropriations Committee wanted to make a “going-away gift” in the form of an earmark to Representative George Nethercutt, Republican of Washington, who was leaving his seat on the panel to run for the Senate.

Mr. Wilkes suggested a shipboard communications project in Washington State and got $1 million for it. Mr. Nethercutt said he thought the technology was promising.

It's all about earmarks. (and it looks like Rep. Lewis (R- Ca.) is toast.)

House Majority Leader Boehner isn't making changes. Neither is the presidency eyeing McCain. I don't know if a Speaker Pelosi would necessarily be any cleaner, but at least it would stall the process for a few years as the Republican K street project fell out and another construct formed.

7 Comments:

  • Lawmakers are obviously reluctant to trim back to far on 'entitlements'.
    I guess the result shows in the poor approach to new lobbying laws.
    Unfortunately there is just too much at stake for all the players and no real interest in fairness to the public.

    By Blogger Cartledge, at 4:19 PM  

  • That's exactly it. In the current climate, the Republicans in Congress lose less by being perceived as corrupt relative to what would happen if they actually gave up the money.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 5:34 PM  

  • Unfortunately, this corruption really knows no party. The Dems are just as bad I think when they're in power. Dump all the incumbents. It's the only way.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:29 PM  

  • That's what I'm saying. The Republicans didn't come in this corrupt. They gotthat way over time, just like the Dem majority before them.

    You've just gotta turn it over from time to time to tear down the corrupt structures.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 8:59 PM  

  • Term limits is part of the solution. Another part is allowing campaign contributions only from individuals - not PACs, not corporations, not unions. And another part is outlawing paid lobbying.

    Too radical? Not if you want to give control of the government back to the people.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:04 PM  

  • I'm not a term limits fan. I understand the appeal, but running out good congressmen seems a waste to combat the bad ones. I do like your financing plan, though. I actually think banning all contributions wouldn't be too bad a thing if you could figure out some other way to pay for campaigns. It seems a very simple concept that you shouldn't be able to vote on laws that affect people who give you money.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 10:35 AM  

  • I don't like the idea of term limits either. But the reality is, IMO, that a career congressman's first priority is his career - his job. Take that away and maybe he'll put the country's welfare first.

    As much as I like Ted Kennedy representing me, there aren't nearly enough like him. I'd rather see a crop of new, enthusiastic, idealistic candidates every 6 years or whatever, than the pompous, pampered bunch we now have, whose primary talent and experience consist of raising money and running for re-election.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:18 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home