Recently in Campaign Finance Category

"The problem with Granny D...is that she makes the rest of us look like such schlumps."-- Molly Ivins. R.I.P. campaign finance reform activist Doris "Granny D" Haddock, 1910-2010.

"'This is the earliest that the Center has ever offered an estimate,' Krumholz said. 'As election observers across the political spectrum work to assess the impact of Citizens United, this prediction offers a solid baseline to compare new spending levels against.'" Before even taking the torrents of campaign cash expected in the wake of the Citizens United decision into consideration, the Center of Responsive Politics estimates that the 2010 midterms will cost over $3.7 billion. (FWIW, the year 2006 clocked in at $2.85 billion.) Sigh...fasten your seat belts -- It's going to be a bumpy ride.

"When the Chief Judge joined in the argument about the continuing vitality of the corruption rationale for campaign finance restraints, he flatly accused Kolker of evading the Citizens United ruling. "I'm not hearing you address Citizens United," Sentelle said. And Judge Thomas B. Griffith chimed in: "You're trying to avoid Citizens United. This is a new world: corruption means a lot less than it did before.'"

Hey, you said it, Judge. According to the good folks at SCOTUSblog, the doors to unfettered campaign cash are open in a big way in the minds of the DC District Court after Citizens United: "From the opening moment of the 65-minute hearing, most of the nine judges on the en banc Court treated the Supreme Court's ruling...as the beginning, not the end, of expansion of those freedoms. When an FEC lawyer tried to bring up, and rely on, older precedents, he was reminded repeatedly that those came before Citizens United."

President Obama's stern words about the decision in his State of the Union address may have induced Justice Alito to expose himself as a partisan hack, but it seems, alas, that the Justice and his four conservative contemporaries will have the last laugh.

"The Chamber spent much of its money in 2009 on campaigns that worked -- it scared the Senate away from considering a version of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation, and an argument can be made that its cutting ads on health care (with money taken from some insurance companies) helped to undercut support for the legislation." You think? In a shape-of-things-to-come moment even before Citizens United goes into effect, the Chamber of Commerce outspent both political parties in 2009.

"According to The Center for Responsive Politics, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its national subsidiaries spent $144.5 million in 2009, far more than the RNC and more than double the expenditures by the DNC." But corporate spending isn't a problem or anything.

"In a new national poll, 65 percent of Americans say they disagree with the 5-to-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision to allow corporations to spend without limits on ads in political campaigns." And yet hope remains while the company is true: A new poll finds Americans across the board are unhappy with the court's ruling in Citizens United.

"The Reid poll found little difference in partisan attitudes...Sixty-six percent of Democrats either "moderately" or "strongly" disagreed with the ruling, but so did 63 percent of Republicans. A whopping 72 percent of Independents disagreed with the Supremes' decision." One wonders how those numbers might've moved if we started using Citizen United's full name to discuss this case...

You stay classy, GOP. And folks thought "teabagger" was ugly.

"Debate on the question of money and politics has been percolating within the ACLU for years, long before the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Citizens United. 'It is difficult to think of an issue that has generated more internal controversy,' an internal ACLU memo states."

To its credit and as a result of the Citizens United decision (which the organization has previously lawyered and lobbied for), the ACLU convenes a weekend summit to discuss its campaign finance reform position. "'The ACLU's version of democracy is from the ground-up,' one civil rights lawyer, David Gans, told the ACLU's board, which was assembled downtown at One New York Plaza. 'Now Exxon Mobil can spend 2% of its money and blow that all up.'"

Here's hoping the reformers win the day -- or walk out CIO-style if they don't. Imho, the stance that unlimited corporate funding of our elections is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment has always been the Achilles' heel of an otherwise superb organization. I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I can tell, their reasoning relies on two unfortunate bugs in the legal code -- corporate personhood and the conflation of money with speech -- that they too often deem fundamental First Amendment principles. I would argue they're not.

For why the former -- corporate personhood -- has obvious problems, just read Justice Stevens' dissent from Thursday:

"The basic premise underlying the Court's ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker's identity, including its 'identity; as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law....

Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure,and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races."

For the latter -- the ruinous conflation of money and speech in Buckley v. Valeo -- check out Stevens' concurrence in Nixon v. Shrink Government Pact (2000), where he says how he'd come down if Buckley were reopened:

"In response to [Justice Kennedy's] call for a new beginning, therefore, I make one simple point. Money is property; it is not speech.

Speech has the power to inspire volunteers to perform a multitude of tasks on a campaign trail, on a battleground, or even on a football field. Money, meanwhile, has the power to pay hired laborers to perform the same tasks. It does not follow, however, that the First Amendment provides the same measure of protection to the use of money to accomplish such goals as it provides to the use of ideas to achieve the same results...

Telling a grandmother that she may not use her own property to provide shelter to a grandchild -- or to hire mercenaries to work in that grandchild's campaign for public office -- raises important constitutional concerns that are unrelated to the First Amendment."

But somewhere along the line and for whatever reason, the ACLU latched on to both of these unwise shibboleths, and have since been arguing that corporate personhood and the idea of money as speech are both enshrined in the First Amendment. Uh...really?

To see what kind of damage these two bogus ideas have wrought, one need only to go over to Salon and read through Glenn Greenwald's ugly meltdown on Citzens United the past few days. As anyone who visits GitM regularly knows, I link to Greenwald pretty much constantly. On a host of issues, from Obama's terrible record on civil liberties to the broken-down state of our journalism, he's been remarkably on point, and one of my favorite columnists to read. I used to wonder if there was anything I disagreed with him on. Well, it turns out, there is. And, apparently, I'm a "partisan hack" for thinking different.

For the Cliff Notes version of this whole conversation, I wrote up a snarky summation of it here yesterday, well after things had gone south. But, basically, Glenn -- on "homework assignment" -- argued on Friday that, all the negative consequences that will ensue aside, the Majority in Citizen's United decided the case correctly, that this was a victory for the first amendment, and that people who disagree with their decision are practicing "outcome-based law." (He also made the dubious and unprovable assertion that things can't get any worse anyway. Really? We'll see.)

Well, this assessment did not sit right with a lot of people. Some questioned his reading of the case. Others pointed out that law is always outcome-based, even the Majority's ruling in Citizens. (The concerned outcome for Justice Kennedy here is that blogs might get banned someday, somehow, if this ruling isn't made. I'll take my chances.) And, others, such as myself, questioned these two principles -- corporations are people, money is speech -- that the ruling was based on.

Well, suffice to say, Greenwald did not take criticism well. He adamantly refused to engage either notion -- money isn't speech, corporations aren't people -- as having any merit whatsoever, eventually trying to write off both with some dubious 1L hypotheticals. (All were answered to his disadvantage, several times over.) He went on to ridicule the folks who disagreed with him in a "check out the Big Brain on me" kinda way. (He argued his lawyerly creds just means he knows better.) He ignored Stevens' actual dissent throughout. And he accused folks of being just like Dubya on torture for deigning to disagree with him on the decision.

This embarrassing conceit -- those with disagree with me are Dubyaites, end of story -- formed the extraordinarily condescending introduction of Greenwald's follow-up to his first post. Still ignoring the legitimate criticisms people were making of the two assertions above -- money=speech and corporations=people, Glenn instead pulled one line from Justice Stevens' ninety pages of dissent to argue that all nine Justices agreed with both of these propositions. (This even though both Ginsburg and Sotomayor questioned the corporate personhood idea in oral arguments, and that Stevens explicitly said he did not agree with the money=speech proposition in Nixon v. Shrink, an argument Glenn would not touch.) As it turns out, the one line Glenn pulled from Stevens' dissent proved neither assertion. Nonetheless, he returned to his shell, refusing to even consider the notion that "money=speech" or "corporations=people" might be lousy interpretations or legal accidents, or that they aren't necessarily covered by the First Amendment.

When I shared the above ACLU story this morning, Greenwald blew another gasket:

The ACLU has a long history of standing up to and defying people [like] you: those who pretend to believe in the Constitution and civil liberties only when it can be used as a weapon to advance your partisan and political agenda.

If they didn't reverse themselves on the First Amendment rights of Nazis in the wake of huge numbers of people like you (those who only believe in the Constitution when it suits them) cutting off funding and leaving the organization, I highly doubt they will do so now....

But what has made the ACLU such an important and unique organization is that they have stood their ground on principle and resisted the efforts of people like you to turn it into a partisan tool rather than an organization devoted to the Constitution."

I guess he figured I'd forget what "people like me" means from paragraph to paragraph. And, yes, y'all, I've been writing on politics and progressivism here for ten years because I've always wanted to subvert the Constitution to my own ends. And I would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for that nasty Greenwald!

Anyway, when I then reminded Greenwald that people of principle can disagree on these issues, and that it may even be possible that the ACLU reformers might even be the right ones in this story, that's when I got called an Orwellian partisan hack once more. (FWIW, here's my kissoff. I particularly like "paddock of principle and certitude.")

Throughout this whole back-and-forth, there was not even the remotest possibility that any other interpretation on these two questions had merit for Greenwald: Corporations have first amendment rights. Money is speech. Both are obviously enshrined in the First Amendment. And arguing anything else is ridiculous and deserving of scorn (even if Supreme Court justices have argued differently in the past, including as recently as Thursday.) So let it be written, so let it be done.

Uh...really? Who knows...perhaps it's a lawyer thing. Nonetheless, this myopic, bullish way of thinking -- I hold the only correct possible interpretation of the law, and you're either with me or you're with the Dubyaites -- isn't very satisfying on either personal or argumentative grounds. And Greenwald's constant doubling down on his original argument, even as more and more holes were poked in it by various responders, makes me question not only his temperament but his writing in general. He usually provides a valuable public service, no doubt, but he seems to have bought into his own hype as an Incorruptible Defender of Liberty. If you can't think outside of yourself once in awhile, or find some way to weigh arguments you may not necessarily agree with without deeming them unprincipled, you're really not much use to anyone.

Update: Looks like Greenwald addressed this topic one more time this morning. Here's what he said:

"'Money is not speech' is an idiot bumper sticker slogan, not a meaningful argument which resolves anything. 'Corporations have no constitutional rights' is such an extreme and dangerous position (it endorses the constitutionality of the FBI's searching whatever corporate offices they want and seizing all corporate documents with no search warrants or probable cause, or the Congress' imposing $10 million fines on corporations every time they criticize the government, among other things) that it's frivolous in the extreme. Despite that, I spent substantial time all weekend addressing and responding to those frivolous bumper sticker slogans."

So there you have it. An "idiot bumper sticker slogan"...repeated verbatim by Justice Stevens in 2000. (And, for what it's worth, Greenwald referred to civil rights lawyer David Kairys' piece on these two questions, linked several times above, as "stupid and ill-informed.") Class act, Glenn.

"The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty born of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990). Relying largely on individual dissenting opinions, the majority blazes through our precedents, overruling or disavowing a body of case law...The Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution."

Well, it was a nice republic while it lasted. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court finally hands down its Citzens United verdict, and it is ugly. [Full Text] Basically, the distinction between corporations and individuals has been erased, and, by the already dubious proposition that money is speech, unlimited corporate expenditures in campaigns is now just good, old-fashioned government. Welcome to the new Lochner era, y'all.

By the way, this is a much, much bigger deal than Scott Brown or the effing Edwards baby. Not that you'd know that from watching the news right now.

Update: More reactions:

Fred Wertheimer, Democracy 21: "Today's Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case is a disaster for the American people and a dark day for the Supreme Court...With a stroke of the pen, five Justices wiped out a century of American history devoted to preventing corporate corruption of our democracy."

Bob Edgar, Common Cause: "The Roberts Court today made a bad situation worse. This decision allows Wall Street to tap its vast corporate profits to drown out the voice of the public in our democracy. The path from here is clear: Congress must free itself from Wall Street's grip so Main Street can finally get a fair shake."

Robert Weissman, Public Citizen: "Shed a tear for our democracy...Money from Exxon, Goldman Sachs, Pfizer and the rest of the Fortune 500 is already corroding the policy making process in Washington, state capitals and city halls. Today, the Supreme Court tells these corporate giants that they have a constitutional right to trample our democracy."

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI): "[T]his decision was a terrible mistake. Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president. Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns. Just six years ago, the Court said that the prohibition on corporations and unions dipping into their treasuries to influence campaigns was 'firmly embedded in our law.' Yet this Court has just upended that prohibition, and a century's worth of campaign finance law designed to stem corruption in government. The American people will pay dearly for this decision when, more than ever, their voices are drowned out by corporate spending in our federal elections."

President Obama: "With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less."

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick: "Even former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist once warned that treating corporate spending as the First Amendment equivalent of individual free speech is 'to confuse metaphor with reality.' Today that metaphor won a very real victory at the Supreme Court. And as a consequence some very real corporations are feeling very, very good."

"The congressional legislation intended to defund ACORN, passed with broad bipartisan support, is written so broadly that it applies to 'any organization' that has been charged with breaking federal or state election laws, lobbying disclosure laws, campaign finance laws or filing fraudulent paperwork with any federal or state agency. It also applies to any of the employees, contractors or other folks affiliated with a group charged with any of those things. In other words, the bill could plausibly defund the entire military-industrial complex. Whoops."

D'oh! As it turns out, the GOP's ridiculous act of political gamesmanship last week may well cause some severe blowback for government-as-usual in Washington. "Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) picked up on the legislative overreach and asked the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) to sift through its database to find which contractors might be caught in the ACORN net. Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman both popped up quickly, with 20 fraud cases between them, and the longer list is a Who's Who of weapons manufacturers and defense contractors."

What this probably means is that the ACORN ban will be found unconstitutional sooner rather than later. After all, the spice must flow.

"'The First Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, protects the right of individual citizens to spend unlimited amounts to express their views about policy issues and candidates for office,' Kavanaugh wrote." (And they're about to do it again.) With Emily's List v. FEC, a federal appeals court strikes down "soft money" regulations. [Opinion.] Sigh. This is all going to end very badly.

"With this history, you can rest assured that the insurance industry is up to the same dirty tricks, using the same devious PR practices it has used for many years, to kill reform this year, or even better, to shape it so that it benefits insurance companies and their Wall Street investors far more than average Americans." Former head of corporate communications at CIGNA, Wendell Potter, the health insurance industry equivalent of Russell Crowe in The Insider, explains in Salon what his former employers are up to, and why our republic appears to be in a spot of trouble:

"During my 20 years in corporate communications and public affairs, I participated in the steady growth and influence of largely invisible persuasion -- and at a time when newsrooms are shrinking and investigative journalism seems to be vanishing. The number of PR people long ago surpassed the number of working journalists in this country...The clear winners as this shift occurs are big, rich corporations and other special interests. The losers are average Americans, most of whom are completely unaware how their thoughts and actions are being manipulated to achieve corporate goals on Capitol Hill."

"If Republicans were wondering how their 2012 presidential candidate is going to compete against President Obama's $600 million fundraising juggernaut, the Supreme Court seems poised to provide an answer: unlimited corporate spending supporting the Republican candidate, or attacking Obama." With Justice Sotomayor aboard, the Supreme Court holds a special session today to re-hear arguments in Citizens United v. F.E.C.

And, as Slate's Richard Hasen explains, the projected outcome does not look good for McCain-Feingold or advocates of campaign finance reform. "If Roberts or Alito were ready to go the narrow route again in Citizens United, however, there would have been no reason to set the case for reargument explicitly asking the parties to brief the constitutional question, and certainly no reason to rush the case to September so it can be decided before the 2010 election season goes into full swing...Expect the floodgates to open, and the money to flow freely, as early as next year."

"That's happened with increasing frequency at the FEC lately. Election-law experts, supporters of campaign-finance regulations, and even some members of the commission itself are expressing growing concern about a string of cases in which the three Republicans on the commission -- led by Tom DeLay's former ethics lawyer -- have voted as a block against enforcement, preventing the commission from carrying out its basic regulatory function." Pete Martin and Zachary Roth of TPM Muckraker delve into how Republicans antithetical to campaign finance reform have effectively sabotaged the FEC. "The FEC, he said, has been made 'ineffective' -- and not by accident. 'This is what McConnell had in mind.'"

"Of course, the one person who could do the most to get the commission back on track is President Obama...Most experts believe that the White House supports stronger campaign-finance laws as a goal, but, with a host of other issues on its plate, is reluctant to pick a fight with the GOP Senate leader. 'They're picking their priorities, and they don't want to take on Mitch McConnell right now,' said Hasen. 'I consider that unfortunate.'" Anyone else sensing a pattern?

"In a remarkable illustration of the power of lobbying in Washington, a study released last week found that a single tax break in 2004 earned companies $220 for every dollar they spent on the issue -- a 22,000 percent rate of return on their investment." A new study by three University of Kansas profs tries to quantify exactly the amount of lucre generated by the lobbyists and influence-peddlers aswarm in Washington for their employers. And the answer? A whole lot. "The paper...examined the impact of a one-time tax break approved by Congress in 2004 that allowed multinational corporations to 'repatriate' profits earned overseas, effectively reducing their tax rate on the money from 35 percent to 5.25 percent. More than 800 companies took advantage of the legislation, saving an estimated $100 billion in the process." [Hattip: Tim C. and Marginal Revolution.]

"After Gates was confirmed as George W. Bush's defense secretary in December 2006, he gave several speeches outlining major reforms that his successor should undertake--in weapons procurement, promotion policy, and the whole careerist culture inside the Pentagon. (With only two years in office, combined with a plateful of crises in Iraq and elsewhere, he knew he wouldn't have time to take those steps himself.) When he stayed on at Barack Obama's request, and thus became his own successor, many wondered whether he would turn his words into action. With this budget, he has begun to do just that."

A holdover from the bookmarks of last week: Slate's Fred Kaplan offers a concise overview of the proposed Obama-Gates military spending reforms. (These are not spending cuts, by the way, despite what you may have heard -- just some much-needed and long-overdue reprioritizing over at the Pentagon. I also like the idea of phasing out defense contractors in favor of presumably much more cost-conscious civil servants.) "This budget will not go down easily in the Pentagon or in Congress. The F-22, the DDG-1000, and the Future Combat Systems are the favored systems by much of the Air Force, Navy, and Army brass, respectively...The F-22 in particular is also a favorite of many legislators -- the result of politically shrewd subcontracting that spread out production of the plane to key districts in 46 states."

"The Republican Party’s suit was clearly prompted by its troubles in the 2008 election, in which Mr. Obama proved far more adept at fund-raising than John McCain. It is disturbing that the R.N.C. sees its salvation in clearing the way for corporations and other special interests to flood its campaign coffers once again."

I missed this when it first went down, but the NYT just apprised me of it: On the verge of electoral oblivion -- the retirements of Sens. Martinez, Brownback, Bond and Voinovich don't help -- the Republicans have filed two lawsuits aimed at overturning McCain-Feingold, apparently in the hope that they could then feasibly prostitute themselves back into power. (Feingold's response.)

"In 2003, in McConnell v. F.E.C., the justices upheld the precise provisions the Republicans are now challenging...The McConnell decision should end the matter. But the R.N.C. seems to be hoping that because of changes in the court -- in particular, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s replacement by Samuel Alito -- it can persuade the court to undo this recent and important precedent." Hmm. I've got a bad feeling about this.

In the latest round of pre-inaugural musical chairs, Virginia governor Tim Kaine is new head of the DNC, former Clinton chief of staff Leon Panetta is in at CIA...

...and Governor Bill Richardson is out at Commerce. "'Given the gravity of the economic situation the nation is facing,' the governor said, 'I could not in good conscience ask the president-elect to delay for one day the important work that needs to be done.'" [Official Statements.] Um, ok...but how has the situation on the ground changed in the past month or so? It doesn't seem like this investigation into a possible pay-to-play deal in New Mexico snuck up on anyone, and, at least according to Mother Jones, Richardson may have a history of this potentially sordid behavior. One would think Gov. Richardson could have rejected the offer of Commerce when it was first presented to him, not so very long ago.

At any rate, with Richardson now looking suspect, that means two of our 2008 Dem Final Four -- the other, of course, being John Edwards -- were harboring potential general-election-killing scandals that they didn't see fit to tell anyone about. (That number rises to two and a half if you count the recent brouhaha involving developer Robert Congel and the Clinton foundation, but that one sounds iffier to me, in part because Congel donated money well after the potential favors were bestowed.) Really, what's wrong with these people? Is it too much to ask that these so-called statesmen take their own shadiness into account before playing dice with our future?

Well, one would hope this and Blagojevich's recent antics will further press on our party the need for comprehensive lobbying, ethics, and campaign finance reform, and soon. These may be state-level scandals, but they're also indicators of a broken system that's awash in -- and often only responds to -- money. And, now that we'll soon be running both ends of Pennsylvania Ave. again, the last thing we need is to follow the GOP down their low road of avarice and ignominy.

"'It's just astounding -- the very arrogance,' said Cynthia Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform and a close observer of state politics. 'And yesterday he was saying there's not a cloud in the sky.'" Poised on the brink of a new Democratic era in Washington as we are, what better time to see the cobwebs cleared out of some our own party's shady corners? First indicted and pretty clearly crooked congressman William Jefferson, much like his GOP counterpart Ted Stevens, went down to a surprising defeat in Louisiana against GOP challenger Anh "Joseph" Cao. And, of course, in today's big news, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has been charged with all manner of crooked schemes by former Libby prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, including brazenly trying to pawn off Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder. ("[It's] a f**king valuable thing, you just don't give it away for nothing.")

Well, good riddance to both. Any way you cut it, this is addition by subtraction for our party. (And for the potential conspiracy theorists out there, Slate's John Dickerson has a good post on why the President-elect "comes off as good as he could possibly have hoped for: He's behaving well even when you don't think anyone is watching." And, with a tip of the hat to Al Smith and Tammany Hall, Politico's Ben Smith ably discusses how Obama kept his independence from the Chicago machine back in the day.)

"'In another state, he would be toast,' said Charlie Cook, editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. 'In Alaska, you gotta make him a significant underdog.'" How's this for a sign of the times? Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Republican in the Senate (and the only one to famously favor a Hulk tie), is very quickly found guilty on seven felony counts of lying on his non-disclosure forms. As you may remember, the indictments broke in July, and Stevens -- asking for a quick pre-election trial -- got one.

And yet, despite the desperate entreaties of Senator McCain and the governor of his home state, one Sarah Palin, Stevens has vowed to fight on for re-election next week, thus further boosting the chances of a Dem Senate pick-up in the Last Frontier...and beyond. "'It's a horrible year for Republicans, in a horrific fall, and this is yet another horrific event,' Cook said. 'This throws them off message; it puts them back on the defensive again. It makes it harder to separate themselves from the party.'" Well, thanks for that, at least, Senator.

"The court's five most conservative members have demonstrated that for all of Justice Antonin Scalia's talk about 'originalism' as a coherent constitutional doctrine, those on the judicial right regularly succumb to the temptation to legislate from the bench. They fall in line behind whatever fashions political conservatism is promoting." In the WP, E.J. Dionne eviscerates the Scalia wing of the Roberts Court for their 5-4 decision in D.C. v. Heller yesterday. As you've no doubt heard by now, the decision (penned by Scalia) parsed the Second Amendment in such a way as to overturn the handgun ban in the District (and seemed to simply ignore the existing precedent of US v. Miller.) As Slate's Dahlia Lithwick deadpanned, "today's decision 'will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.'"

As it turns out, the Court went 0-for-2 yesterday, also deciding 5-4 (Alito writing the majority opinion) that McCain-Feingold has been prejudicial against the wealthy. In response, Sen. Feingold noted that the millionaire's amendment was flawed anyway: "I opposed the millionaire’s amendment in its initial form and I never believed it was a core component of campaign finance reform." Still, the decision here may not bode well for campaign finance opinions down the pike. "'What's most significant here is what this means for the future,' said Rick Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School. 'It tells us that the long-standing limits on corporate and union campaign spending are in grave danger.'"

"'It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections,' Obama said in a video message to supporters, circulated by his campaign. 'But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system.'" Sen. Obama announces he will forego public financing for the general election.

Hmm. I was originally hoping the two candidates, based on their respective campaign finance reform bona fides, might come to an agreement that would make public financing work. But it's become painfully clear that Sen. McCain has been gaming the system thus far, and at this point I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw him. The McCain campaign is calling Obama's decision "a broken promise of staggering dimensions," but frankly that dog's not going to hunt. Sen. Obama has not only run a lobbyist-free campaign thus far, but has now even purged the DNC of their taint (give or take a few loopholes.) Meanwhile, the McCain bandwagon is absolutely crawling with lobbyists, and they apparently even feel free to conduct their business with impunity aboard the unfortunately-named "Straight Talk Express."

Plus, with its enormously successful small-donor, Internet-based model of financing, the Obama campaign has brought new meaning to the term "public financing" anyway. So, while I'd ultimately like to see a public financing system that works, Sen. Obama still has enough credibility on this issue, I think, that his opting out doesn't trouble me all that much. Put another way, Sen. Obama has a long way to go before he seems as full of it on campaign finance reform as McCain appears these days.

"'Both parties talk a good game on cutting earmarks, but at first opportunity, the House larded up,' said Stephen Ellis, vice president of the watchdog group. 'This is just another broken promise.'" With another big defense bill imminent, congressional earmarks are sadly back in vogue. "In the Senate, Lieberman led the way with his participation in 14 requests worth more than $292 million, some of them involving more than one lawmaker, the watchdog group data show. Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) made 48 requests, many with colleagues, worth more than $198 million. Sens. Jeff Sessions (Ala.) and Elizabeth Dole (N.C.) led Republicans by participating in requests totaling $188 million and $182 million, respectively."

"'We've come a long way from Harry Truman,' said Leon E. Panetta." At long last, the Clintons release their tax returns (to Drudge first), and the total post-White House tally amounts to $109 million, "with the former president collecting nearly half of that money as a speaker hired at times by companies that have been among his wife's most generous political supporters." The numbers are still being parsed, and the connections to key members of Clintons' post-presidential rogues gallery -- Ron Burkle, Vinod Gupta, the Quellos Fund, etc. -- itemized and assessed. Still, the news that leaps off the page here is [a] the Clintons have done very well for themselves since leaving the White House, and [b] speechifyin' pays top dollar in certain circles. "Sen. Clinton's financial disclosure forms have offered a glimpse into her husband's speaking career and the nexus between his clients and her campaign donors. The New York investment giant Goldman Sachs paid him $650,000 for four speeches in recent years...On one day in Canada, he made $475,000 for two speeches, more than double his annual salary as president."

Now, how 'bout those Foundation records?

"We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August." My, that's classy. A group of twenty top Clinton fundraisers (among them Robert Johnson, of BET, drug hysteria, and estate tax fame) attempt to blackmail Speaker Pelosi into backing the Senator's convention coup...or else!

Uh, did they not hear about Obama's $55 million haul, overwhelmingly from small donors, last month, or the $32 million he made in January? Welcome to the 21st century, y'all: Fatcat donors who think their money trumps the will of voters have gone the way of Betamax, HD-DVD, Pets.com, and the landline. But, way to embarrass yourselves, and your candidate, by wildly overstating the importance of your lucre. Honestly, you might as well take your checks over to the GOP -- I'm sure your credit's good with them.

"In Washington, there's no happier situation for a politician than to be doing absolutely nothing and getting great press for it. But let's be clear about one thing: keeping their powder dry profits the superdelegates, but comes at the expense of their party. It shouldn't take Solomon to see that." The Atlantic's Josh Green argues that the superdelegates should get cracking on their decision, if they're serious about a long race hurting the Dems.

And, in related news, Sen. Clinton picks up her first two superdelegates in a month: DNC rep DNC rep. Pat Maroney of WV and, more notably, Rep. John Murtha of PA. Murtha, a.k.a. "the Pork King," has not only been an enemy to ethics reform, but has a litany of shady scandals to his name, from Abscam to PAID. (Not for nothing did CREW name him one of the 20 most corrupt representatives in Congress.) And, of course, Murtha led the House in earmarks last year, clocking in at $162 million (thanks to his gig as the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee Chairman.) So, given that he's part of the problem and not part of the solution, I'm not at all surprised he's chosen to endorse the candidate who's rife in lobbyist money and who won't release her own earmarks. That's one super you can have, Sen. Clinton.

"'If you have a single ounce of self-preservation, you'll vote no,' implored Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) last night." The House creates a new independent ethics panel, 229-182. As the WP notes: "Even with two House members under indictment, two others sent to prison, and several others under federal investigation, nearly half the House did not want to submit the body to the scrutiny of a panel not under its control." Nevertheless, ethics watchdog groups seem pleased with the bill. Said Common Cause's Sarah Dufendach: "For the first time in history, you have nonmembers able to initiate investigations. They're doing oversight. They're the new police." (And to tie everything back to the current theme, Sen. Obama advocated an similarly independent Office of Public Integrity for the Senate in his ethics reform package. Sen. Clinton, someone with considerably more than "a single ounce of self-preservation," voted against it.)

"'What is the holdup?' said Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit group that tracks the role of money in politics. 'She hasn't exactly made it clear as to what process is making it so cumbersome to just release them." Campaign finance watchdogs wonder aloud why Sen. Clinton still hasn't released her tax returns for the past seven years. "'This is a level of disclosure the American people have come to expect and deserve from those in the White House, or those who aspire to the White House,' said Mary Boyle of Common Cause, a government reform advocacy group." And let's remember, we're not talking about her 2007 returns, which may not yet be complete. We're also talking about the previous six years, which should just be sitting on file, and would take all of five minutes to release to the public. That is, unless there's something shady therein...

"I think Barack Obama has a much stronger chance of beating John McCain in the general election. I think Hillary is flawed in many ways, and particularly if you look at her husband's unwillingness to release the names of the people who contributed to his presidential library. And the reason that is important -- you know, are there favors attached to $500,000 or $1 million contributions? And what do I mean by favors? I mean, pardons that are granted; investigations that are squelched; contracts that are awarded; regulations that are delayed." Former Senator Bill Bradley, who endorsed Obama back in January, asks some tough questions about the Clinton library's shady financing. (And before anyone accuses Sen. Bradley of raising a phantom scandal, consider Frank Giustra and Boratgate.) Update: In related news, USA Today reports that Clinton library archivists are blocking the release of papers involving the Clinton pardons.

"[It's] a humbling achievement, and I am very grateful for your support," Obama said in another fundraising appeal. "No campaign has ever raised this much in a single month in the history of presidential primaries. But more important than the total is how we did it — more than 90 percent of donations were $100 or less." The fundraising numbers for February are released, and Sen. Obama raised a record-breaking $55 million (i.e., a full $20 million more than Sen. Clinton.) In other good campaign news, Obama picked up three more supers today (to Clinton's one: Barbara Boxer.) And TPM's FlyontheWall explains why the 76 UADs (unpledged add-on delegates) further complicate Clinton's situation. Did I mention this was over?

"It's been a long, hard and difficult struggle to come to where I am now." I'll say...Rep. John Lewis officially switches to Obama. Also, North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan announced his backing of the Senator from Illinois today, bringing Obama's superdelegate total to 200. (He still lags behind Sen. Clinton by 56 in the supers category, but has picked up a net total of +34 since Super Tuesday.) Finally, if you're looking for more endorsements, there are at least 999,998 more of 'em out there: The Obama campaign reaches one million individual donors, and counting. Update: When Rep. Lewis says this was a tough decision for him, he wasn't kidding.

While the NYT's botched bombshell involving Maverick and Iseman has thus far only seemed to help Sen. McCain to make nice with his unreconstructed right flank, the WP posts an A1 follow-up showing how the story may bite McCain yet. To wit, his campaign is completely dominated by lobbyists. "[W]hen McCain huddled with his closest advisers at his rustic Arizona cabin last weekend to map out his presidential campaign, virtually every one was part of the Washington lobbying culture he has long decried."

Meanwhile, concerning the "other" McCain scandal at the moment, the Republican head of the FEC, David Mason, comes down against McCain's attempted gaming of the public financing system, and argues he can't duck out of public financing now. "'This is serious,' agreed Republican election lawyer Jan Baran. Ignoring the matter on the grounds that the FEC lacks a quorum, Baran said, 'is like saying you're going to break into houses because the sheriff is out of town.'"

Update: Newsweek's Mike Isikoff, one of the also-rans for the Iseman scoop, pokes a hole in McCain's denial. Regarding the Paxson letters to the FCC, McCain said yesterday that ""No representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC." The problem? This contradicts a sworn deposition by McCain taken in 2002, when McCain said: "I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue." D'oh!

Update 2: Now, Paxson says he met with the Senator, despite McCain's statement to the contrary. "Paxson also recalled that his lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, attended the meeting in McCain's office and that Iseman helped arrange the meeting. 'Was Vicki there? Probably,' Paxson said in an interview with The Washington Post today. 'The woman was a professional. She was good. She could get us meetings.'"

Speaking of Arizona Republicans in hot water, Rep. Rick Renzi is indicted on 35 counts of "conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering, extortion and insurance fraud." Kicked off the House Intelligence Committee when news of his shadiness emerged in 2005, Renzi also played a role in the persecuted prosecutors scandal, when it came out that both he and former AG Alberto Gonzales had pressured the US attorney to hold fire on him.

"Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers. A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself -- instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity."

Remember the hubbub back in December over a spiked NYT story about John McCain and some lobbyist shenanigans? Well, it finally dropped, and it involves possible favorable treatment for -- and a possible romance with -- a young female telecom lobbyist, Vicki Iseman (who, it must be said, looks eerily like Cindy McCain.) "In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman." So there's definitely smoke, but is there fire? This story doesn't quite stick the landing on either the romance (both parties deny it, although they did seem to spend some time together) or the lobbyist favors (it does mention McCain urging the FCC in 1999 (before my time there) to back an Iseman client, Paxson Communications, at her request, and it rehashes McCain's involvement with the Keating 5.) But perhaps there's more to the story? If there isn't, I don't really see this having legs. Update: The WP follows up with their own version, which notes that Iseman used to tout her McCain connections to other lobbyists. Still no smoking gun, tho'.

Update: The McCain campaign has responded here, calling the piece a "hit and run smear campaign." (This response, however, sidesteps the question of a possible affair. For what it's worth, McCain has admitted to extramarital affairs during his first marriage. And, while he voted to convict Bill Clinton during the impeachment fiasco, he also said then that "I do not desire to sit in judgement of the President's private misconduct. It is truly a matter for him and his family to resolve...I have done things in my private life that I am not proud of. I suspect many of us have.")

Update 2: It looks like release of the NYT piece was prompted by a TNR story about the Grey Lady holding back, which [Updated] came out today. (Apparently, other news outlets have been chasing the story too.) In the meantime, we can content ourselves with a better documented, albeit less sexy, McCain scandal, namely his obvious gaming of the public financing system: "What we know is that McCain found a way to use the public funds as an insurance policy: If he did poorly, he would use public funds to pay off his loans. If he did well, he would have the advantage of unlimited spending. There's a reason no one's ever done anything like this. It makes a travesty of the choice inherent in voluntary public financing, between public funds and unlimited spending...Legal or not, it should bring to an end whatever tiny thread of credibility John McCain still has as a straight-talker or reformer of the political process."

"We are very frustrated because we have a Supreme Court that seems determined to say that the wealthier have more right to free speech than the rest of us. For example, they say you couldn’t stop me from spending all the money I’ve saved over the last five years on Hillary’s campaign if I wanted to, even though it would clearly violate the spirit of campaign finance reform."

So said Bill Clinton only a little over a month ago. But, as per the norm with the Clinton campaign, things have now changed: Word leaks out that Senator Clinton is not only planning to self-finance her candidacy with personal "loans" (a la Mitt Romney), but that she already gave her campaign $5 million out-of-pocket last month. (Indeed, money's gotten so tight around the Clinton camp that, according to Time's Mark Halperin, senior staff are now going without pay.)

Meanwhile, Sen. Obama is on pace for another $30 million month and has room to grow, mainly because he's relying on a wider pool of small donors rather than (as per Senator Clinton) a smaller pool of maxed-out donors and an army of lobbyists. (Which reminds me, Senator Obama accepts donations here.)

I for one doubt Sen. Clinton's campaign will really run out of cheddar. If anything, the campaign probably put the story out there so as to encourage their supporters to donate in the same fashion as Obama's have. Still, this Clinton cash crunch further indicates how much of their election strategy was predicated on a Super Tuesday knockout punch. Having swung and missed, the Clinton camp is now nearing broke, and seriously hurting.

More to the point, even notwithstanding the inherent shadiness of self-financing, which no less than Bill Clinton attested to above, this move puts President Clinton's penchant for troubling deals -- such as his recent venture in Kazakhstan -- right in the thick of things. Hard to ignore in any event, now this story comes front and center. If the Clintons are breaking into their private stash to get Senator Clinton elected, where did the money come from?

"Obama's one-month tally is the most ever reported for January of a presidential election year, Federal Election Commission reports show...Plouffe said the Obama campaign counted 170,000 new donors in the last month, bringing its total to 650,000." Whatever happens Tuesday and thereafter, it looks like Sen. Obama has the money to play. "'Our strongest day of the whole month was the day after the New Hampshire primary,' which Obama lost to Clinton, Plouffe said. 'We took a lot of encouragement from that because it showed the resolve of our donor base.'" Update: As TNR's Christopher Orr deadpanned, 32 million? Pff. Bill Clinton can make that over dinner.

"I’ve been tested. I’ve been vetted. I have been in the political arena in our country very intensely for 16 years. There are no surprises." Ah. But, Senator Clinton, what about your husband? A front-page story in this morning's NYT -- a paper so resolutely anti-Clinton it recently endorsed her for president -- unearths what look to be some murky political dealings in Kazakhstan involving Bill Clinton and a top donor, former uranium-mining entrepreneur and Lions Gate Entertainment founder Frank Giustra. (He's the fellow at right.)

It's a long, convoluted article, but this seem to be the essence of it: Clinton said nice things publicly about the freedom-suppressing dictator of Kazakhstan -- in contradiction of US policy, the views of human rights groups, and even Senator Clinton's professed stance on his government -- so his buddy Giustra could land a lucrative exclusive mining contract. A much wealthier man as a result, Giustra later repaid Clinton in absurdly large donations to his Foundation, to the tune of $131 million. Both denied any quid pro quo, and both seem to have lied about at least some of the meetings that took place. This is all explained in more detail below:

"The feeding frenzy begins this week at the Senate Finance Committee. At least that's the hope of dozens of interests eager to get a free ride on the first must-pass piece of legislation of the year: the economic stimulus package." As the House passes its bipartisan economic stimulus package 385-35, lobbyists make a mad dash across the Capitol to get their hooks into any Senate tampering with the legislation. "That's why every lobbyist worth his e-mail address has trained his sights on the marble floors and wood paneling of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, home to the powerful finance panel."

"In Washington, Obama continued to work on ethics issues, teaming up with fellow Democrat Russ Feingold after a series of national scandals surrounding GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Their legislation required more disclosure of pork-barrel spending and the 'bundlers' who collect large campaign contributions. James Thurber, director of American University's Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, says Obama deserves much of the credit for the cleanup. 'I think he was one of the major forces behind the provisions that came out in the act,' says Thurber, who testified to Congress on the issues. 'He held meetings, a lot of cross-party ones. He was trying to find support where he could.'" A thoughtful Newsweek piece by Richard Wolfe and Karen Springen examines the consensus-building nature of Obama's leadership in both the Illinois and U.S. Senate. "Hillary Clinton says Obama's ethics reforms left too many loopholes...Yet Clinton herself was one of 20 Democrats who rejected the Office of Public Integrity idea."

"I do find the timing of this whole issue very interesting. And we're not going to stand for what happened to us in 2000. We're getting close to the primary." Matt Drudge's recent attempts to foist a December Surprise into the Democratic primaries seems to have whiffed. Will he draw more blood in the GOP? John McCain decides to respond forcefully to an unpublished Times story -- held up by editor Bill Keller and leaked to Drudge -- involving some sort of unspecified lobbyist malfeasance. Hmmm. I'm torn on this. Since the NYT story hasn't actually gone live, there may well be nothing to it. As such, this looks a bit like the Choose Your Own Scandal shenanigans that Clinton operatives attempted to unleash on Obama last month. But, then again, the NYT powers-that-be were idiotic enough to hold the NSA wiretap story through the 2004 election, so maybe their judgment about what constitutes newsworthiness around voting time should be in question.

"We don't agree with him on every issue. We disagree with him strongly on campaign finance reform. What is most compelling about McCain, however, is that his record, his character, and his courage show him to be the most trustworthy, competent, and conservative of all those seeking the nomination." In a boon to his flailing presidential hopes, which now rest squarely on a superlative showing in New Hampshire, the right-leaning Manchester Union-Leader endorses John McCain. (IMHO, of course, for all the wrong reasons.) "McCain is pro-life. Always has been." Uh, yeah.

"'There’s a growing sense, a growing probability, that the next administration could be Democratic,' said Craig L. Fuller, executive vice president of Apco Worldwide, a lobbying and public relations firm, who was a White House official in the Reagan administration. 'Corporate executives, trade associations and lobbying firms have begun to recalibrate their strategies.'" As a Democratic presidency in 2008 looks increasingly likely, business lobbyists scramble for deals under Dubya. "Few industries have more cause for concern than drug companies, which have been a favorite target of Democrats. Republicans run the Washington offices of most major drug companies, and a former Republican House member, Billy Tauzin, is president of their trade association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America." Well, for them to be really concerned, we Dems have to show more backbone in the face of lobbyists than we have thus far in this Congress. And, as Simon Lazarus recently pointed out anew in The Prospect, no matter who wins in 2008, corporate lobbyists will still have the Roberts Court to back their play for some time to come.

"But political success on television is not, unfortunately, limited only to those who deserve it. It is a medium which lends itself to manipulation, exploitation and gimmicks. It can be abused by demagogs, by appeals to emotion and prejudice and ignorance. Political campaigns can be actually taken over by the 'public relations' experts, who tell the candidate not only how to use TV but what to say, what to stand for and what 'kind of person' to be. Political shows, like quiz shows, can be fixed-and sometimes are."

By way of Ted at The Late Adopter, Senator John F. Kennedy ruminates on how television has changed politics in 1959, and much of it reads as presciently as Eisenhower's farewell address fourteen months later. "The other great problem TV presents for politics is the item of financial cost. It is no small item...If all candidates and parties are to have equal access to this essential and decisive campaign medium, without becoming deeply obligated to the big financial contributors from the worlds of business, labor or other major lobbies, then the time has come when a solution must be found to this problem of TV costs." Yeah, I'd like to say we were working on that.

Sigh...According to the NYT, a new ad for John McCain by a soft-money front, Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America, -- which McCain has disavowed -- exemplifies the rush of unregulated, undisclosed money expected in the 2008 race, thanks in part to the Supreme Court's gutting of McCain-Feingold over the summer. "The decision removed virtually any restrictions on [corporations'] ability to advertise, and made nonprofit corporations, with their few disclosure requirements, the tool of choice for big donors looking to influence elections...They can now run explicitly political advertisements that mention specific candidates right up to Election Day, as long as they have some other ostensible purpose -- even one that closely resembles a candidate’s campaign themes."

"On another tape, Pete Kott, the former Republican speaker of the Alaska House of Representatives, crowed as he described beating back a tax bill opposed by oil companies. 'I had to cheat, steal, beg, borrow and lie,' Kott said. 'Exxon's happy. BP's happy. I'll sell my soul to the devil.'" The WP surveys the sinkhole of corruption engulfing Alaska state politics, and the federal probe that threatens to swallow the state's long-serving Senator, Ted Stevens. "'It was common knowledge that everything was corrupt,' said Ray Metcalfe, a former Republican legislator...'It was common knowledge, but nobody wanted to talk about it.'"

"The White House has said that Jack Abramoff had very little contact with the President's staff and that it wanted all the relevant facts to be public. The 600 pages of documents it is withholding are directly relevant and should be produced." Remember Casino Jack? Henry Waxman does, and has asked the White House to produce 600 pages of information previously withheld from the House investigation into Abramoff's activities. (And this time, the White House might actualy play ball. Given an out by Waxman -- that the information might be shown only to committee staff rather than going public -- White House Counsel Fred Fielding pounced, "saying he was 'pleased that such a concept is proposed in your letter' and pledging to 'seek to accommodate our respective interests in the documents we have withheld.'")

"'The reputation of the American judiciary is in the hands of the state courts,' Breyer said. The rising demands on judges to raise money for their expensive campaigns -- plus the spending of outside groups -- could lead to the impression that the courthouse door 'is open to some rather than the door is open to all.'" Having managed to corrupt thoroughly our other two branches of government, unchecked torrents of campaign cash now work to undermine elected judgeships. "The spending increases in large part reflect a decision by business groups to get involved in the contests. The National Association of Manufacturers announced in 2005 that it was establishing the American Justice Partnership to promote tort reform in the states, and the resulting battles between trial lawyers and business groups such as the Chamber of Commerce have led to some of the most expensive campaign battles."

"The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans earn more than 21 percent of all income. That's a postwar record. The bottom 50 percent of all Americans, when all their wages are combined, earn just 12.8 percent of the nation's income...If the Democrats stand for anything, it's a fair allocation of the responsibility for paying the costs of maintaining this nation. So far, neither the Democratic candidates for president nor the Senate Democrats have shown much eagerness to advocate this fundamental principle. It seems the rich have bought them out." Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich laments the cooptation of the Democrats by the super-rich. "It turns out that Democrats are getting more campaign contributions these days from hedge-fund and private-equity partners than Republicans are getting. In the run-up to the 2006 election, donations from hedge-fund employees were running better than 2-to-1 Democratic. The party doesn't want to bite the hands that feed."

"After nearly 15 minutes of soul-searching, I have heard the call." Finally, the candidate we've all been waiting for...Charleston's own Stephen Colbert announces he's running for president in South Carolina, and South Carolina only, on both the Democratic and Republican tickets. (Sadly, Aragorn can't vote in the Palmetto State.) In The Atlantic, Joshua Green handicaps his chances. "I can’t point to anything other than truthiness, but I believe the 'drunken college student' demographic is being overlooked. Anecdotal evidence lends support. 'I’m surprised how many students seem to get their news from Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert,' Blease admitted. 'In the grand tradition of student mischief, you could see Colbert having a pied-piper effect.'" Update: But is he breaking the law?

Score another one for legalized corruption (and lament anew what passes for Democratic leadership these days): Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tells private-equity firms they don't need to fear a tax hike this year. "[P]rivate-equity firms -- whose multibillion-dollar deals have created a class of superwealthy investors and taken some of America's large corporations private -- hired dozens of lobbyists, stepped up campaign contributions and lined up business allies to wage an unusually conspicuous lobbying blitz [against a tax hike]...Several prominent lawmakers expressed surprise to find that the managers' profits, known as carried interest, were taxed as capital gains, for which the rate is usually 15 percent. That is less than half the 35 percent top rate paid on regular income."

Blackwater grows murkier: It seems the private security firm in Iraq has a long and sordid history of troubling incidents to its name, and that the initial State Dept. report on the firefight of a few weeks ago was originally written by a Blackwater contractor. (Indeed, the State Department tried to intervene in today's Congressional testimony by Blackwater head Erik Prince until forced to back down as a result of public pressure.)

How deep does this rabbit hole go? Salon's Ben Van Heuvelen traces the financial connections between Blackwater and the Bushies, while P.W. Singer, an expert on private contractors, explains what Blackwater has cost us all: "When we evaluate the facts, the use of private military contractors appears to have harmed, rather than helped, the counterinsurgency efforts of the U.S. mission in Iraq, going against our best doctrine and undermining critical efforts of our troops...According to testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Defense Contract Audit Agency has identified more than a staggering $10 billion in unsupported or questionable costs from battlefield contractors -- and investigators have barely scratched the surface."

Well, if the family business issue is bothering primary voters, it's not being reflected in the funding tallies. In the third leg of the all-important money primary, Hillary Clinton comes out tops in 3rd quarter fundraising with $27 million raised, with Obama clocking in at $20 million and Edwards -- who's announced he'll accept public financing -- coming in third at $7 million. "Overall, Sen. Barack Obama has raised slightly more than Clinton for the primary, and the two look to be fairly evenly matched financially as they head into the final stretch before the first electoral contests in January." And, whoever your primary candidate is, the real silver lining here is that Dems overall have raised twice as much as the GOP. "'This just shows the difficult political climate that Republicans are facing,' said Scott Reed, a Republican strategist. 'The bright side is that next spring, the Republicans will have plenty of money to give the candidate who goes up against Hillary Clinton.'" We'll see.

"I said after I was elected in 1996 that 12 years in the Senate would probably be enough. It is...I will not seek a third term in the United States Senate, nor do I intend to be a candidate for any office in 2008." Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) announces his retirement, which may just mean a return to the Senate for Bob Kerrey. (So, he's not running...I guess the trial balloon popped.) In any event, I thought Hagel maddeningly buckled to party pressure more often than not when the heat was on, and I still hold his attempted poison-pill amendment to McCain-Feingold back in 2000 against him. But, he also possessed a definite maverick streak on the war and a penchant for speaking-truth-to-power every so often that'll be sorely missed on his side of the aisle. So, farewell, Senator Hagel, and please give yourself at least a few weeks off before commencing the fundraising for 2012.

"They are trying to change the whole vernacular so that earmarks aren't earmarks anymore," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense." (Or, put another way, "When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.") Under the current Congress, it seems, "earmarks" have now become "congressionally directed spending" but, alas for real reform, the intent -- to get pet projects into the public agenda by roundabout means -- continues. "Members of Congress are now resorting to less obvious tactics that allow them to get money to favored beneficiaries without acknowledging support for what others consider to be earmarks...Government watchdog groups and a few dissident lawmakers have noticed these sleights of hand and have begun to complain. They say the approach deceives the public about how many special spending projects are being handed out, noting that lawmakers' contacts with agencies usually are conducted out of public view."

"So many concerns raised by the Abramoff scandals were enforcement issues. There is no change to that here." Heartened by the comprehensive ethics bill passed by the House last week, observers nevertheless argue that more stringent enforcement mechanisms are needed to make congressional reform real. "Government watchdogs and ethics lawyers generally agree that the bill would shed new light on the Washington influence game but wonder how those who don't play ball would be found and punished. Without an effective bureaucracy for managing the flow of new disclosures provided by the law, they say, the legislation won't mean much."

"'We have kept our promise to drain the swamp that is Washington, D.C.,' Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said, adding that the legislation is 'historic.'" "'These are big-time fundamental reforms,' said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21." Noted Common Cause president Bob Edgar: " If there is a positive side to Jack Abramoff and the wave of congressional scandal, this is it."

Yes, this could be big. In the wake of the broiling Stevens scandal, the House votes 411-8 to pass a comprehensive new ethics bill: "Secret 'holds' in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing his or her tactics, would end. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish convention parties thrown in their honor. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted." In addition, "bundles" -- small campaign contributions packaged together -- will now have to be disclosed, along with political contributions by lobbyists and the identities of the lobbyists themselves.

Of course, the bill still has to pass the Senate, where some conservatives are threatening to force a filibuster vote (in part due to the weakening of earmark rules, which is admittedly rather annoying.) But that was before Stevens' unfortunate run-in with the FBI, so we'll see. Right now, I'm cautiously optimistic that the right-wing will have to fall in line. As Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center put it: "It may not be a grand slam, but it's a home run...There is no credible excuse to oppose this legislation."

Is the longest-serving Republican in Senate history going the way of Casino Jack? FBI and IRS agents raid the home of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), he of the "Bridge to Nowhere," the "series of tubes" (remix), and the Inuit-Bolivian connection. (The Senator's son, a former Alaskan state senator, is already implicated in the probe.) "Stevens...is under scrutiny from the Justice Department for his ties to an Alaska energy services company, VECO, whose CEO pleaded guilty in early May to a bribery scheme involving state lawmakers. Contractors have told a federal grand jury that in 2000, VECO executives oversaw a lavish remodeling of Stevens' home."

"'We're sitting on the doorstep of a definitional moment,' said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus." Faced with their own low poll numbers, the Democratic Congress readies a flurry of late-term legislation involving homeland security (implementing most of the 9/11 commission recommendations), ethics (gift bans and increased disclosure requirements), and child health care (expanding insurance coverage for children of the working poor.) "Republican leaders plan to stand in the way...But against such philosophical stands, there is a stark political problem: How many Republicans are really going to oppose legislation expanding insurance coverage for children, tightening ethics rules and bolstering homeland security?" More than one might think, I'd wager.

"The issue: Feingold's recently signed campaign finance reform bill. Clinton, whose husband's leasing of the Lincoln Bedroom had helped inspire the new law, was accompanied by an attorney. The attorney's job: Look for loopholes, loopholes that would allow the Democrats to keep raking in soft money -- unregulated, unlimited contributions to the party coffers. When Feingold objected, Clinton scolded him like Empress Livia dressing down a courtier. 'You're not living in the real world,' she shouted. 'Senator,' Feingold responded coolly, 'I do live in the real world, and I'm doing just fine in it.'" Hey, Hillary...want to see what a real "modern progressive" looks like? Writer Edward McClellan reviews Sanford Horwitt's Feingold, a new biography of the Senator, for Salon, placing him in a long tradition of Wisconsin mavericks dating back to the inimitable Robert La Follette. "As Horwitt puts it, Feingold's campaign was in the tradition of La Follette's 'progressives, who "mostly thought of themselves as perpetual underdogs against the big-money interests.'"

Also concerning the NBA (and along the lines of this post last year), friend and colleague Ben of The Oak sent along this noteworthy article on which basketball players are contributing to what 2008 candidates. Supporting fan of the game Barack Obama: NY Knick Stephon Marbury, Shane Battier, Billy King, and Baron Davis. For Edwards (in the past): Charles Barkley, Mike D'Antoni, and Travis Best. For Clinton: many NBA owners, including Paul Allen and the Maloofs. For Mitt Romney: Celtic exec Danny Ainge. For the Dems in general: The Commish, David Stern.

Round 2 of the money game is in the books, and, surprisingly (or perhaps not), Barack Obama came out on top with $31 million to Hillary Clinton's (estimated) $27 million. (John Edwards pulled $9 million, Richardson $7 million.) "Obama's war chest in the second quarter was built on the strength of 154,000 new contributors, giving him well over a quarter-million donors since he started the race...[Clinton's] fund-raising team has been relying much more heavily on larger donors."

"'Conservatives got everything they could reasonably have hoped for out of the term,' said Thomas C. Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who specializes in Supreme Court litigation." Proving the crucial importance of the Alito-O'Connor switch (and, I'll continue to maintain as my answer to Emily Bazelon's line of questioning, the 2004 election), the Roberts Court flexed its muscle in depressing fashion this week, voting 5-4 (as feared) not only to gut the McCain-Feingold act in the name of "free speech" but also -- seriously, no lie -- to partially roll back Brown v. Board of Education. (In another well-reported case, the majority's inordinate fear of bongs trumped this stalwart commitment to free speech.) So, if you're keeping score, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy came down like this: money good, corruption good, drug hysteria good; clean politics bad, youthful irony bad, integration bad. Oh, wonderful. Suddenly, the announcement that the Court will take a look at the Guantanamo cases doesn't sound so appetizing. Update: Slate's slate of legal observers discuss.

"I think public officials need to know if they are going to step over the line, there are going to be consequences...[What Libby did] causes people to think our government does not work for them." A sadly necessary Capitol corruption update: As you no doubt heard, earlier in the week Scooter Libby was sentenced to thirty months in jail for his lies and evasions in the Valerie Plame case. (Libby has asked for a delay of the sentence, which probably won't happen. And E.J. Dionne evaluates GOP sentiment for a pardon here -- for now, the White House remains mum on the subject.) Meanwhile, on our side of the aisle, pretty obviously corrupt Democratic rep William Jefferson, he with the thousands of dollars stashed in the freezer, is indicted on 16 counts of racketeering, money laundering, and obstruction of justice, mostly involving bribes offered and taken from West African business and political officials. Jefferson is fighting the charges, but the House -- wisely -- has already moved against him, opening an ethics inquiry into him and setting the stage for his expulsion.

"'Everything has been skewed,' Clinton says, jabbing her index finger for emphasis, 'to help the privileged and the powerful at the expense of everybody else!' It's a rousing speech, though ultimately not very convincing. If Clinton really wanted to curtail the influence of the powerful, she might start with the advisers to her own campaign, who represent some of the weightiest interests in corporate America." In a cover story for The Nation, Ari Berman takes a gander at the corporate connections among Hillary's inner circle, concluding that "[i]t's hard to see how her advisers' corporate work doesn't reflect poorly on Clinton's progressive claims or create a liability for her with Democratic voters."

"Congressional Republicans have been renowned -- and often criticized -- for harnessing the clout of special-interest groups and lobbyists to advance their agenda...After the 2006 elections, left-leaning groups now conduct their own, similar meetings to advance the Democrats' cause." The WP delves into the new Democratic tinge of the K-Street lobbying world. Hmm. Well, I guess I'll take a left-leaning lobbyist over a right-leaning lobbyist any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but I would hope the Pelosi House keeps this new K-street bunch at further remove than did their predecessors. Both Democratic reps and liberal interest groups have displayed their reluctance to commit to real campaign finance and lobbying reform in the past when the tide's swinging their way, and I fear, once the cash starts flying around in earnest, that this liberal-leaning slope will get just as slippery in very short order. You don't wear the ring, people. You destroy the ring.

"'This is deja vu all over again,' said Justice Stephen G. Breyer. 'We've heard it.'" The Supreme Court hears oral arguments on McCain-Feingold...again, and word suggests the act's fate may now be in jeopardy with Roberts and Alito on the Court. "Those justices seemed open to a Wisconsin anti-abortion group's challenge of a provision that corporate-funded ads broadcast in the weeks before an election not mention a candidate by name." Update: Slate's Dahlia Lithwick was watching too, and agrees that it doesn't look good for McCain-Feingold, which she labels a "Dead Duck Walking."

"Americans are acutely aware of our problems, and their patience is at an end for politicians who value incumbency over principle, and for partisanship that is less a contest of ideas than an uncivil brawl over the spoils of power. I want my presidency to be an opportunity -- an opportunity to fix what we all know needs to be fixed. I'm running for president of the United States; not yesterday's country; not a defeated country; not a bankrupt country; not a timid and frightened country. I'm running for president of the United States, a blessed country, a proud country, a hopeful country, the most powerful and prosperous country and the greatest force for good on earth. And when I'm president, I intend to keep it so."

With an eye on Giuliani and a nod to Reagan's "Morning in America," John McCain officially announces his candidacy for president. Well, McCain is -- usually -- good on the question of getting money out of politics, which I still consider to be arguably the most important domestic issue in America, and the one that prevents real, pragmatic solutions from occurring on dozens of other issues, from health care to economic policy to alleviating child poverty. But, let's face it: McCain has proven time and time again by this point that his vaunted reputation for independence is a press-driven ruse, and that he'll fall behind the Dubya line when even slightly leaned upon. The line that keeps coming back to mind when I think of the Senator from Arizona, and I've used it before here, is Senator George Norris' description of the equally reputed maverick William Borah: He only "shoots until he sees the whites of their eyes." That seems to be John McCain in a nutshell, and it's been a long time since he's done anything to prove that sentiment wrong.

Some more fallout (and, in my opinion, auspicious signs) from the first money primary held recently: Hillary Clinton may have more in the bank, but Barack Obama raised more money, has more cap room to spare, so to speak, and has been peeling off some top Clinton donors to back his own efforts. "A list of Mr. Obama's top fund-raisers released Sunday showed the extent to which the Democratic Party establishment, once presumed to back Mrs. Clinton, has become more fragmented and drifted into her rival's camp, lending the early stages of the Democratic primary campaign the feeling of a family feud." Update: In related news, a new poll shows the race tightening on both sides. Clinton's up only eight on Obama, Giuliani has six on McCain (pending GOP reinforcements such as Fred Thompson.)

Yes, folks, this is how we choose a president in this country: Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash. The first primary is effectively over, and Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney lead the begging and scraping for loot at $26 and $21 million respectively. On the GOP side, Rudy came in second at $15 million, with McCain trailing at third with $12.5 million. Meanwhile, for the Dems: John Edwards has $14 million, Bill Richardson $6 million, Chris Dodd $4 million, and Joe Biden a clean, articulate $3 million. Still obviously missing, Barack Obama, who is rumored to be up around the 20 mark. While I hate to indulge this stupid financing system, I hope it's something like that, as I'm still rooting for he or Edwards over Sen. Clinton in the primary, and the Clinton money machine is, without a doubt, a sleek, well-oiled contraption. Update: Make that $25 million for Obama.

Exposed as a target in January, former Dubya Interior official J. Stephen Griles pleads guilty to lying to Congress about his connections with "Casino" Jack Abramoff's influence-peddling operation. "'Today's guilty plea clearly establishes that former deputy secretary J. Steven Griles was ready and willing to serve as Jack Abramoff's "man inside Interior," ' said Inspector General Earl E. Devaney, whose criminal investigators worked with the Justice Department and the FBI on the case."

"'This process has become to a great extent about money -- a lot of money,' Vilsack said at a news conference in Des Moines yesterday. 'And it is clear to me that we would not be able to continue to raise money in the amounts necessary to sustain not just a campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire but a campaign across this country. So it is money and only money that is the reason that we are leaving today.'" Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, the first entrant into the Democratic race, begs out of the 2008 presidential contest, citing money issues. Well, what did you think was going to determine the winner? Issues?

True colors, or just a victim of the money madness that afflicts our political process? As he gallops off to all-important Iowa (and tries to ignore the furor over Iraq that's gotten him linked inexorably with Dubya's failures), John McCain also appears to be neglecting his campaign finance bona fides in his attempt to gather loot for his presidential bid. "McCain's allies in the campaign finance reform movement seem resigned to the fact that he will not abide by many of the principles he advocated for a decade as a reformer, including public financing and its associated spending and fundraising limits."

Meanwhile, the probes continue: Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, the former #3 man at CIA who was linked to Randy "Duke" Cunninhgam's bribery operation last year, was indicted yesterday for steering CIA contracts to his GOP cronies and telling them classified information about other bidders. Also indicted, Foggo and Cunningham's co-conspirator, Mitchell Wade's business associate, and GOP fundraiser Brent R. Wilkes, who, among his other alleged crimes, arranged for paid prostitutes for Cunningham as part of the bribe package. "Wilkes, a Republican Party "Pioneer" who raised more than $100,000 for President Bush's reelection in 2004 [has also] donated -- in concert with his business colleagues -- $656,396 to 64 other Republican lawmakers and the national Republican Party committees in Washington from 1995 through the third quarter of 2005."

"And there is the irony in reading Schumer and McAuliffe's books back to back. For all the easy political rhetoric about 'fighting for the middle class' and 'the people vs. the powerful,' the Democrats depend heavily on the financial support of the wealthy, from New York hedge-fund managers to Hollywood producers to tort-shopping trial lawyers. The quid pro quos may not be nearly as naked as among the Republicans, but Bill Clinton did not fund two $100-million-plus campaigns (not to mention a presidential library) with bake sales and tip jars." In his overview of new memoirs by former DNC head Terry McAuliffe and New York Senator Chuck Schumer, Salon's Walter Shapiro reaffirms the importance of campaign finance reform.

"The first part of the Ackerman-Ayres plan calls on the government to give every voter $50 to donate to candidates running for federal office. The second part will sound almost as crazy, until it sounds brilliant: Make all campaign donations secret, so that nobody -- especially political candidates -- knows where any citizen's money is going. Anonymous giving means no quid pro quo." Salon's Farhad Manjoo talks up an overlooked outside-the-box proposal for reforming campaign finance, one made by two Yale professors in 2004. As Manjoo notes, at first I thought, "This will never work." But the idea kinda grows on you...

"'The stakes are enormous,' said Michael E. Toner, a Federal Election Commission member who served on President Bush's campaign in 2000. 'We're watching this case very closely.'" It was upheld 5-4 in 2003...can it withstand Justice Alito? The Roberts Court declares it will take another look at McCain-Feingold in the coming session, and opponents of reform are hoping Alito will help them reopen the floodgates. "Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the Supreme Court challenge is 'going to be a prime opportunity for opponents of campaign regulations to make some headway in watering down the standards.'"

Federal prosecutors build out their case against Bob Ney, and disclose that the disgraced former GOP rep had possibly shady dealings with Abramoff and DeLay's Russian connections at Naftasib. "Abramoff's lobbying team got the congressman to intervene with the U.S. Consulate in Moscow to help resolve a passport issue for the daughter of Abramoff client Alexander Koulakovsky, the e-mails show...A charity sponsored by DeLay received a $1 million check from a London law firm linked to the two. Former charity officials told The Washington Post last year the donation originated with Russian oil and gas executives, and was intended to influence DeLay's vote on an issue affecting the Russian economy."

Meanwhile, over in the newly Democratic Senate: With Wednesday's House cleaning spurring similar ethics reform in the upper chamber, a progressive dream team of Russ Feingold and Barack Obama unveil the Senate Dems' ethics reform package, which includes a provision for an independent Office of Public Integrity, a key element of reform which failed 67-30 last year on the GOP's watch.

"For our daughters and granddaughters, today we have broken the marble ceiling. To our daughters and our granddaughters, the sky is the limit." On a day marked by celebration and the temporary cooling of partisan rancor, the Speaker Pelosi era officially begins in Washington. And, true to their word, the Democratic House got an early start on their "100 Hours" platform, passing a comprehensive ethics reform package 435-1 on Thursday (right-wing nut-job and former Clinton nemesis Dan Burton was the sole opposing vote) and a "pay-go" commitment to a balanced budget (as well as an end to anonymous earmarks) on Friday. "'The one thing we can say about George Bush and his economic policy is: "We are forever in your debt,"' Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) told his colleagues on the House floor. 'On day number two, Democrats have said, "Enough is enough with running up the debt of this country. We're going to put our fiscal house in order."'"

"'It's a real tangled web between the congressman, the nonprofit, the defense contractors and the lobbyists,' said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group. 'It's hard to say where one stops and the others start.'" In troubling news that should test the commitment of the incoming Dem majority to real lobbying reform, the WP takes a long hard look at John Murtha's lobbyist-tinged relationship with the Pennsylvania Association for Individuals with Disabilities (PAID...an unfortunate acronym, to be sure). "'It sounds like DeLay Inc.,' said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the Democratic-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington."

Unfortunately, crooked Dem congressman William Jefferson won his runoff in Louisiana, forcing Speaker-elect Pelosi into another touchy committee assignment situation. And, in related ethics news, the Dems put a moratorium on earmarks and extend current funding levels on various spending bills until next fiscal year (Oct. 1), so as to avoid a nasty budget fight right out of the box in January. ""We will work to restore an accountable, above-board, transparent process for funding decisions and put an end to the abuses that have harmed the credibility of Congress."

"'If John Murtha was running for dog-catcher or President of the United States, Nancy Pelosi would support him,' one Pelosi ally told TIME." Not a week after Election Day, the battle for the No. 2 spot in Congress roils top Dems, with Speaker-elect Pelosi drawing consternation for her endorsement of John Murtha as House Majority Leader (over more conservative rival Steny Hoyer.) More troubling than the leadership fracas, it seems that Murtha, for all his clarity on Iraq, has apparently been no friend of ethics reform in the past: "Murtha...has battled accusations over the years that he has traded federal spending for campaign contributions, that he has abused his post as ranking party member on the Appropriations defense subcommittee, and that he has stood in the way of ethics investigations. Those charges come on top of Murtha's involvement 26 years ago in the FBI's Abscam bribery sting." Nope, that's not good.

Remember when Boehner and the GOP banked on their widespread corruption not playing on Election Day? Well, they chose poorly. Among the many seats lost by the GOP last night were those of Abramoff flunkies Conrad Burns, Richard Pombo, and Bob Ney, notorious friend-of-pages Mark Foley, the recently-FBI-implicated Curt Weldon, mistress-beater Don Sherwood, and the fatcat architect of it all, Boss DeLay. (Surviving the corruption purge: the Foley-connected Tom Reynolds, Duke Cunningham's replacement, Brian Bilbray, and -- though a runoff hopefully won't shake his way -- corrupt Dem William Jefferson.)

"By himself, Cunningham had no authority to or ability to award a contract to MZM...[He] needed to secure the cooperation, or at least the non-interference, of many people: the appropriators and authorizers in Congress...the various Department of Defense (DOD) officials responsible for execution of the money...and officials of the agencies for which the contracts were to be performed. This was a lot of people to persuade, cajole, deceive, pressure, intimidate, bribe or otherwise influence to do what they wanted." A new report by the House Intelligence Committee delves into Randy "Duke" Cunningham's bribery operation on the Hill (or at least, it does what it can given that the GOP, acting sketchy as usual, refused to subpoena Cunningham. Can we please get a little oversight up in here?)

"Before I liberate the speaker so he doesn't have to stand up here for that long, Speaker, I want to say this to you...I am proud to be standing with the current speaker of the House who is going to be the future speaker of the House." Hmm...I wouldn't be so sure. As Dubya bequeaths a "heck of a job, Denny" upon an increasingly embattled Hastert, the GOP moneymen are nevertheless hedging their bets, and are pulling cash out of several races around the country to try to hold the (Maginot?) line in Ohio, Missouri, and Tennessee. The financial "jousting will continue into the final days, but what is clear at this point is that Democrats are playing very little defense in the House and the Senate."

"As a former Abramoff assistant, Ralston played intermediary between the lobbyist and Rove. The congressional report found 66 Abramoff contacts with the White House, more than half of them with Ralston. In addition, Abramoff's lobbying colleagues contacted Ralston 69 times." The Casino Jack affair claims another White House victim in Rove deputy Susan Ralston, who, it was recently discovered in a House report, made the mistake of accepting Abramoff swag -- choice tickets and such -- without paying for it. Illegal, no doubt, but somehow I suspect her procuring courtside Wizard tix is the least of the Abramoff-related corruption going on in Karl's outfit.

Iraq, Abramoff, torture, wiretapping, energy, the economy, Delay, Foley...In a perfect world, of course, the GOP would be dead in the water right now. But, as Bob Dylan famously noted, money doesn't talk, it swears. And, with a month to go before the election, the GOP are rolling out their dough machine, and the loot is awash over everything. Some system.

A new report by the House Committee on Government Reform finds that Casino Jack and his associates billed the White House for 485 visits, ten of which were with Karl Rove. The White House says he's lying, but really now: 485 sounds closer to the mark than two.

Missed this last week: Recently released visitor logs show Abramoff allies held court at the White House over 100 times. The most frequent visitors were disgraced strategists Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed, but Neil Volz and Tony Rudy, both of whom have pled guilty in the Casino Jack case, also racked up more than a dozen visits each.

In related news, as the battle for control of the House tightens, the GOP's K-Street cronies find they've been put on hold to make way for terror terror terror schtick. "This bottleneck has disappointed and angered organizations that have worked closely with the GOP and have won many legislative benefits. Oil and gas producers, for instance, had high hopes of adding to their legislative gains the opening of drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf."

"Sen. Conrad Burns gazed at a debate audience and asked if anyone could guess who was blocking efforts in Washington to control health-care costs. 'Abramoff?' shouted a heckler." Taking a look at the Montana Senate Race, the Post argues that the Casino Jack scandals still aren't making much of a dent in the midterm elections. Nevertheless, the case continues to play out in official Washington: After agreeing to plead guilty last Friday to corruption charges stemming from the Abramoff investigation, the GOP's Bob Ney -- recently the recipient of a Republican standing O for his flouting of the law -- is forced to give up his House chairmanships. Ney hasn't given up his seat yet, but either way, he's out in November.

Oof, it's been a bad 24 hours for Casino Jack's cronies in the House. With the public in an increasingly unforgiving mood towards congressional incumbents, GOP fave and Abramoff flunky Bob Ney drops out of his Ohio House race. And, one day after losing a bid to get his name off the ballot in Sugar Land, Boss DeLay announces he'll step aside for a write-in candidate. Update: It appears Ney's leaving will cause some ballot trouble as well for the GOP.

Can Congress solve the Abramoff-Dubya riddle where Judicial Watch failed? Let's hope so. The House Government Reform Committee subpoenas Casino Jack's former law firm for information regarding his White House visits.

"'There's confusion among the Christian conservatives,' Mr. Towery, the pollster, said. 'I'm not going to say Cagle's taking the base, but he's picking away at it.'" In related news, the NYT surveys the ailing political fortunes of Abramoff accomplice Ralph Reed, now fighting for his political life in a GOP primary for Georgia Lieutenant Governor that takes place this Tuesday. "Mr. Reed's critics seized on the scandal as proof that he had deployed his Christian supporters for profit. 'Ralph Reed sold out our values,' Mr. Cagle's advertisements say, calling him 'hypocritical and immoral' and accusing him of 'manipulating Christians for casinos.'" Yep, sounds about right.

Boo hiss. The Supreme Court decides 6-3 to strike down a Vermont campaign finance law, which was conceived in part as a challenge to Buckley v. Valeo. "The result appears to doom any future efforts to impose spending limits on state or federal campaigns, legal analysts said." And, in related news, Slate's Dahlia Lithwick and Walter Derringer discuss recent Supreme Court decisions, with special attention to the recent capital punishment case, Kansas vs Marsh.

"In the fall of 2004, Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) told Senate investigators that he was unfamiliar with a Texas Indian tribe represented by lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Days later, evidence emerged that the congressman had held numerous discussions with Abramoff and the Indians about getting Congress to reopen their shuttered casino." A new Senate report on tribal lobbying catches Abramoff flunky Bob Ney in a lie. Hmmm. Hopefully, that'll cut into his GOP standing O next time 'round.

"The sound bites from politicians have always been that they're doing what's best for their districts, but we're starting to see a pattern that looks like they might be doing what's best for their pocketbooks." As part of their continuing series on earmarks, the WP examines how several GOP reps seem to have been profiteering from their pork projects, including Ken Calvert (R-CA), Gary Miller (R-CA), and Speaker Denny Hastert. To wit, "House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) made a $2 million profit last year on the sale of land 5 1/2 miles from a highway project that he helped to finance with targeted federal funds."

We've seen several guilty pleas and resignations -- Now, the ballad of Casino Jack has brought a conviction the hard way. Former White House procurement head and Abramoff flunky David Safavian is found guilty on 4 of 5 counts of lying and obstruction of justice. "Each count carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine." So that takes care of Safavian...which GOP luminary will face trial next? Ralph Reed, perhaps? Or will it be Bob Ney?

"'[I]t kept failing to solve any problems the Navy had,' Lowell said. 'It looked at first as if it might have some merit. But we found out quickly it didn't really solve the problems. And the company wasn't very responsive and wasn't very robust. . . . It was living entirely' on grants from Congress." The WP examines Project M, a Pentagon research project kept alive on congressional earmarks (to the tune of $37 million) well past its potential usefulness. "Once begun, promising but speculative programs like Project M are hard to kill, sustained by members of Congress who want to keep jobs in their districts, military officials who want to keep their options open and businesspeople who want to keep their companies afloat."

Update: In a related story, the Post finds Rumsfeld at the switch when it comes to the Pentagon's antiquated military procurement system. "'DOD is simply not positioned to deliver high-quality products in a timely and cost-effective fashion,' the comptroller general of the United States, David M. Walker, said in a little-noticed April 5 critique. The Pentagon, he said, has 'a long-standing track record of over-promising and un-delivering with virtual impunity.'"

"The forms show that about 2,300 trips cost $5,000 or more. At least 500 cost $10,000 or more, 16 cost $25,000 or more, and the cost of one exceeded $30,000. There were $500-a-night hotel rooms, $25,000 corporate jet rides and other extravagant perks. Almost three-quarters of all trips were taken by aides, who often influence how their bosses vote, negotiate in committee and interact with other government officials. All told, the travelers were away from Washington for a minimum of 81,000 days -- a combined 222 years." A new report by the Center for Public Integrity scrutinizes the massive epidemic of congressional boondoggles, and, folks, it ain't pretty: "Offices that accepted more than $300,000 worth of trips include (in alphabetical order), Rep. Barton (R-TX), Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Miss) Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX), and Speaker Hastert (R-IL)."

"Mr. Safavian's lawyer, Barbara Van Gelder, said the government's case was based on 'guilt by association.' The Justice Department, she said, 'is trying to take Jack Abramoff's state of mind and say that everybody who dealt with him had that same state of mind.'" Casino Jack flunky and former top White House procurement official David Safavian prepares for his day in court, later this week. Speaking of guilt by association, "Ms. Van Gelder said in a telephone interview that the defense case had been complicated in recent days by the refusal of some defense witnesses to testify, citing their constitutional rights against self-incrimination." Update: It has begun.

How deep runs the culture of corruption among the GOP? While House Republicans have been sniping at their Senate colleagues of late, most of them have nothing but praise for "dead man walking" Bob Ney. When Ney -- despite having four big-name witnesses arrayed against him -- recently vowed not to resign his seat, "an overwhelming majority of the members present, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), gave Ney a standing ovation." And, in related news, The Hill finds that the anti-earmark provision of the recent phantom reform bill is riddled with loopholes big enough to drive a pork-truck through.

The myriad inquiries into Republican corruption, particularly those involving the network of convicted felon Randy "Duke" Cunningham, start circling a few more names this week. FBI agents searched the home and office of Dusty Foggo, the former #3 man at CIA (handpicked by Porter Goss) who's been rumored to be a major reason for Goss' downfall, this morning. Similarly, and apparently as another tangent to the Cunningham case, the Justice Department has begun investigating House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA), and particularly his relationship to a lobbying firm specializing in earmarking. Is Duke the new Casino Jack?

As the Bunk would say, this is great po-lice work. Prosecutors flip another Casino-Jack-implicated GOP congressional aide in Neil Volz, former chief of staff to Delay/Abramoff flunky Bob Ney, meaning that -- despite handily winning his Ohio primary last week -- the "Mayor of Capitol Hill" is as good as gone. "Volz...is the fifth cooperating witness, including Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty and agreed to provide evidence against Ney in the ongoing criminal investigation."

"'It clearly shows some members live in a dream world of high-class living and fictional accounting. DeLay's office was part of the public deception. It makes you wonder if there are more filings as fictional as this one is turning out to be,' said Kent Cooper, the former chief of public disclosure for the Federal Election Commission." Prosecutors disclose an e-mail trail indicating that Boss DeLay's office knowingly filed false reports about Abramoff-paid boondoggles and were "concerned 'if someone starts asking questions.'"

"Their bill...is an insult to voters who the GOP apparently believes are dumb enough to be snookered by this feint. The procedures under which it is to be debated, allowing only meaningless amendments to be considered, are an insult also -- to the democratic process." Neverthless, despite the Post's pleading yesterday, the House makes a bet that Abramoff won't stick and passes the GOP's phantom reform bill 217-213. "Joan Claybrook, president of the liberal group Public Citizen, said the measure is 'a fraud on the American public.'" A fraud...and hopefully a fatal error for the GOP majority, should Casino Jack's travails remain front-page fodder from now through November.

In related news, federal authorities expand their probe into Casino Jack flunky and former House GOP higher-up Bob Ney. "Court papers filed in recent months show that prosecutors have lined up at least four cooperating witnesses against the Ohio congressman: Abramoff, former congressional aides Michael Scanlon and Tony C. Rudy, and businessman Adam Kidan. All have pleaded guilty to various conspiracy, fraud or public corruption charges."

"Up until now, you have probably thought that when you saw Democrats dumping their traditional principles in order to run pallid, market-tested campaigns appealing to swing voters with rhetoric borrowed from the G.O.P., they were doing so because they had been listening to consultants, pollsters, focus groups and so on. Well -- according to Mr. Klein, you have it precisely backwards. In Joe's world, the consultants and the pollsters and even the money are all on the other side, forever driving the cowardly politicians to the partisan extremes. Consultants on the Democratic side seem always to turn out to be liberals in Mr. Klein's telling, and liberalism itself is usually the sad result of a candidate listening to consultants." By way of Ted at The Late Adopter, Thomas Frank of What's the Matter with Kansas? eviscerates Joe Klein's new book Politics Lost. I liked the TIME excerpt decently enough, but Frank pretty much takes the book apart here.

After a deal is reached with irate Republicans on the House Appropriations committee (who were piqued by a rather tame anti-earmarking measure that has since been broadened beyond appropriations bills), the House GOP pass a cosmetic "lobbying reform" bill 216-207 that emphasizes disclosure of donations, gifts, and earmarks rather than outright bans. "A solid phalanx of Democrats and 12 Republicans, including House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (Wis.) and Republicans pushing for stronger measures, cast votes against the legislation...Rep. Christopher Shays (Conn.) said the bill was less than a window dressing and should be rejected. Later, to reporters, he called the bill 'pathetic.' On the House floor, he added: 'We're losing our moral authority to lead this place.'"

"Nobody's happy with gasoline prices being where they are." As GOP congressional leaders experience buyer's remorse over the oil industry tax breaks they passed last year, Jacob Weisberg (who, it should be noted, could take the Metro to work if so desired) argues the virtues of more expensive gasoline: "To be sure, oil at $70 a barrel causes hardships for working people and delights some of the world's worst dictators. But cheap gasoline imposes its own costs on society: greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution and its attendant health risks, traffic congestion, and accidents...Sustained high prices will bring about behavioral and political changes: energy conservation, public transportation, less exurban sprawl, and eventually the economic viability of alternative fuel sources such as biomass, fuel cells, wind, and solar power, which may one day undermine the power of the oil oligarchs. Are politicians too stupid to understand this, or just smart enough not to say it aloud?"

Feeling the heat from his nose-diving poll numbers (and spurred by GOP congressional leaders' desperate pleas for political cover), Dubya announces a probe into high oil prices (and sings the praises of ethanol like it was a week before the Iowa primary.) Ok, but if our oilman-president (who, to be fair, failed at both callings) really wants to get the bottom of the situation, it'd be nice if he'd look into not only oil company price-gouging but also exactly what went on at Cheney's infamous Energy Task Force meetings...

I'm a bit late on this one: In an ugly confluence of several of this administration's shady dealings, CheneyCo.'s KBR/Halliburton -- its attempts at continued war profiteering faltering -- recently won a $385 million contract to build immigrant detention centers for the Dept. of Homeland Security. "The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs." Um, new programs? (By way of Supercres.)

"The Bull Moose has temporarily turned into a performing elephant. But the Moose will be back -- around March 2008, if everything goes according to plan." As much of the press hammers John McCain for his blatant re-positioning maneuvers of late, Slate throws a lovefest of sorts for the mythical maverick today, with Jacob Weisberg arguing he's really a TR progressive and John Dickerson promoting him as the happy crusader. I've used this line before, but it fits to a tee. Given McCain's frequent bouts of water-carrying for the Dubya administration, my view of the Senator's vaunted independence -- until proven wrong -- is the same as Sen. George Norris' take on his progressive colleague William Borah, who indulged a similar maverick reputation back in the teens, twenties, and thirties: He only "shoots until he sees the whites of their eyes."

"Roger Ailes was right when he predicted at the beginning of the television era that in the future all politicians would have to be performers. But politicians are, for the most part, lousy performers.Their advisers are pretty awful at what they do too. In the absence of inspiration, they have fixed upon the crudest, most negative and robotic forms of communication. They've made moments like Robert Kennedy's in Indianapolis next to impossible." TIME's Joe Klein laments the dawn of the soundbite-heavy, market-tested-within-an-inch-of-its-life consultants' republic.

In somewhat related news, the administration's freefall in the polls continues, with even conservatives now admitting that Dubya is quacking like a lame duck. Meanwhile, some congressional Republicans begin to hear strains of 1994 in their own corruption and excess. And, with the Christian Coalition also nearing the End of (its) Days to boot, one has to wonder: Could we Dems ask for a more favorable electoral terrain against the Dubya-DeLay GOP heading into this November? And when are our party leaders going to rise to this opportunity and start offering a vision of leadership the American people can get behind?

By a virtual party-line vote, the House Republicans pass a campaign finance reform bill that caps "527" contributions while raising the limit on coordinated party spending -- both measures that greatly advantage the GOP over the Dems in the current campaign finance climate. "Organizations such as Common Cause, Democracy 21 and Public Citizen, past legislative adversaries of the GOP, were allied with Republicans in yesterday's floor fight. Democrats had the backing of a long list of conservative leaders opposed to regulation, including Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform and Paul M. Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation." Well, they may have been right for the wrong reasons...still, I gotta say, the party spending aside, I'm actually with the GOP on this one. 527 organizations represent a blatant loophole in the McCain-Feingold act, and some 527 reform is clearly necessary if we're going to be serious about restricting the influence of money on the electoral system. That so few House Dems voted for principle over their party pocketbooks is, to my mind, deeply troubling (but, so, for that matter, is McCain's possible side deal to buttress his 2008 war chest.)

"''Any rational person in [DeLay's] position would be very concerned,' said Kendall Coffey, a former federal prosecutor who is now a prominent defense lawyer in Miami. 'Whether it's working up the ladder at Enron or a drug organization, it's classic strategy to work up by getting plea agreements and cooperation at each level.'" As the GOP preps for a DeLay-less future, it seems that, for Boss DeLay -- despite having theoretically left "on his own terms" -- the legal woes are just beginning.

Another crack emerges in the DeLay-Abramoff Ring: The Feds flip Tony Rudy, a former top flunky of Boss DeLay's, which is particularly bad news for the former "Mayor of Capitol Hill," Bob Ney. "According to papers filed today, Rudy will provide key corroborating information regarding the case prosecutors are building against [Ney], who was taken by Abramoff on a lavish trip to Scotland in 2002." Update: The Post profiles Rudy. "'How did Abramoff and Rudy meet, through JDate? No, they met through DeLay,' Frank said."

A new report by Rep. Henry Waxman discloses some of Halliburton/KBR's billing shadiness in Iraq. "In one case, the government's contracting officials reported that KBR attempted to inflate its cost estimates by paying a supplier more than it was due. In another, KBR cut its cost estimates in half after it was pressed on its true expenses. In a third, KBR billed for work performed by the Iraqi oil ministry."

"Abramoff, for his part, once boasted that he had invested a million dollars in Buckham, according to a former Abramoff colleague...Abramoff expressed confidence that the funds would bring a good return for his clients, the colleague said." Good news/bad news for Boss DeLay: While DoL Robert Novak reports that Casino Jack is not implicating the Hammer as part of his plea bargain, the WP finds that former DeLay Chief of Staff Edwin Buckham skimmed over a million dollars from the US Family Network, a "pro-family" nonprofit funded by Abramoff clients. [Graphic] "In addition, Buckham and his wife, Wendy, acting through their consulting firm, made monthly payments averaging $3,200-$3,400 apiece to DeLay's wife, Christine, for three of the years in which he collected money from the USFN and some other clients." (Boss DeLay, it bears remembering also paid his wife and kids a half mill in PAC funds.) Well, I guess if by "pro-family" you're talking about the Buckham and DeLay families, this is all money well spent.

"[Ralph Reed] has damaged Christian political work by confirming for some the stereotype that evangelicals are easily manipulated and that evangelical leaders use moral issues to line their own pockets." In related news, former Christian Coalition head and current candidate for Georgia lieutenant governor Ralph Reed also finds it hard to shake the taint of Abramoff, and even finds himself persona non grata among evangelical conservatives such as Melvin Olasky of WORLD magazine.

"The congressman's tastes were eclectic and a little ostentatious. The man drove a Rolls (a bribe). His furnishings have a similar plea for attention: They shout 'antique,' even when they are reproductions." So pass the wages of sin: As Randy "Duke" Cunningham's ill-gotten lucre is auctioned off, the Pentagon announces an investigation into how Duke managed to wrangle earmarks for MZM. (Speaking of the demise of Dukedoms, I think my NCAA bracket is now officially busted.)

"These are just slush funds for conservative interest groups...These organizations would not be in existence if not for the federal dollars coming through." The Post looks into the Dubya's administration's social spending priorities, and finds that during Dubya's tenure the government has "funneled at least $157 million in grants to organizations run by political and ideological allies." Says Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.): "I believe ultimately this will be seen as one of the largest patronage programs in American history."

(Like I needed to another reason to think less of A-Rod.) By way of my friend Mark, here's an interesting list of campaign contributions made by sports figures since 1978. Some of the bigger Democratic donors include Hank Aaron, Andre Agassi, Michael Jordan, Robert Kraft, Alonzo Mourning, Bud Selig, Dean Smith, and David Stern. As for athletes buttressing the GOP, they include several football (Troy Aikman, Bobby Bowden, Mike Ditka, Peyton Manning, Roger Staubach) and racing (Mario Andretti, Brian and Bill France, Jeff Gordon, Dale Jarrett, Richard Petty) stars, along with Jerome Bettis, Clyde Drexler, Karl Malone, Lute Olson, Rafael Palmeiro, A-Rod, and Marge Schott.

"I wouldn't classify those changes as major...Between charitable events and fundraising events, there will still be lots of ways to get in front of members [of Congress]." Abramoff, Schmabramoff...The lobbying industry remains unperturbed by the GOP reform bill making its way through the Senate. In related news, the Post delves into both the shady use of campaign treasuries by reps in solid seats and the inner workings of MZM's lobbying-bribery machine. And, under its well-traveled new leader, the House plans to meet for less than 100 days this year to accommodate reps' need to beg for money full-time.

"There is a growing sense that there is going to be a $100 million entry fee at the end of 2007 to be considered a serious candidate." Yes, Virginia, you too can be President someday...if you drop out of kindergarten and start begging for cash right now. The Post looks into the 2008 presidential campaign fundraising race, already in full swing (especially, this weekend, on the GOP side.) And, if he or she brings nothing else to the table, it seems the next leader of our country will be really good at prostrating before wealthy people.

"A player who has the ability to make it to the NBA can come from anywhere...In very much the same way, politics should give all of our gifted and talented citizens an equal chance to compete to serve in political life." Wow, you learn something new every day. Before entering the NBA, Golden State Warriors center Adonal Foyle began an organization called Democracy Matters, dedicated to getting college students more involved in the fight for campaign finance reform. You can read Foyle's speech about the connection between the NBA and the issue here. (By way of his adopted brother at Crooked Timber.)

"For the past two years, the Arizona senator has seen his institutional adversaries in the Republican establishment brought low, one by one, clearing away the obstacles to his likely presidential bid in 2008. In some cases, their well-earned misfortune can be attributed directly to him; in others, he has merely observed their fortuitous ruin. What matters is that his worst, most effective enemies are distracted, disgraced or endangered by criminal investigations, and will be in no condition to threaten him in the foreseeable future." Salon's Joe Conason thinks John McCain has his party's green light for 2008 (and sounds more excited about the prospect than I am.)

The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, which has recently been looking into lobbying reform, votes 11-5 on an amendment by George Voinovich (R-OH) to prevent the creation of an independent ethics office. (Three Dems joined the Republicans, minus Chair Susan Collins, to kill the plan.) While Voinovich claims an independent office would be redundant given the Senate Ethics Committee (which he chairs), watchdog groups such as Public Citizen are livid, and John McCain has already suggested he'll likely renew the idea on the Senate floor.

Still, reformers face a serious challenge in the growing audacity of the GOP, who are banking on the Casino Jack story not catching fire outside the Beltway: "[A]s the legislation has evolved and Abramoff has faded from the headlines, calls for bans have grown scarce, and expanded disclosure has become the centerpiece of the efforts underway." Nevertheless, the Republicans are playing with fire: The ballad of Casino Jack plays on, as attested by prosecutors recently subpoenaing travel agency records of a 2000 DeLay-Abramoff boondoggle to Britain.

In round one of the Senate legislative response to Casino Jack, Trent Lott circulates a reform bill that would stifle earmarks and mandate the disclosure of meals paid for by lobbyists. Well, it's a start...but for now, Dems seem wary of the bill, "which seemed to be less stringent on several points than legislation they have proposed."

Unbelievable. Nothing if not brazen, former GOP official Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who recently pled guilty to several bribery and fraud charges, actually kept a "bribe menu" with the varying prices it took to buy him off. "The card shows an escalating scale for bribes, starting at $140,000 and a luxury yacht for a $16 million Defense Department contract. Each additional $1 million in contract value required a $50,000 bribe. The rate dropped to $25,000 per additional million once the contract went above $20 million." $140,000? Who do you think you are, Boss DeLay? C'mon, Duke, I could get a Ney or two Frists for that.

"'This audit was political retaliation by Tom DeLay's cronies to intimidate us for blowing the whistle on DeLay's abuses,' McDonald said. 'Enlisting the IRS to intimidate critics is a dirty trick reminiscent of Richard Nixon...It is not a crime to report a crime, as we did with DeLay.'" Texans for Public Justice, a non-profit organization critical of the DeLay ring's hold over their home state, has been cleared of any wrongdoing in an IRS audit -- one seemingly triggered, it was discovered after a FOIA request, by Boss DeLay's minions. "The [instigating] lawmaker, House Ways and Means Committee member Sam Johnson (R-Tex.), was in turn responding to a complaint about the group...from Barnaby W. Zall, a Washington lawyer close to DeLay and his fundraising apparatus, according to IRS documents."

"There is a cancer on the body politic: money." Former Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC) argues for a campaign finance constitutional amendment -- Worth reading in its entirety. "[I]n 1998 I had to raise $8.5 million to be elected senator. This meant I had to collect $30,000 a week, each and every week, for six years. I could have raised $3 million in South Carolina. But to get $8.5 million I had to travel to New York, Boston, Chicago, Florida, California, Texas and elsewhere. During every break Congress took, I had to be out hustling money. And when I was in Washington, or back home, my mind was still on money." ...

"What the court did in 1976 was to give the rich, who don't have to raise money, a big advantage -- in effect, a greater degree of freedom of speech than others have. No one can imagine that in drafting the First Amendment to the Constitution, James Madison thought freedom of speech would be measured by wealth. The Supreme Court, which has found constitutional other limits on speech, has rendered Madison's freedom unequal. Congress must make it equal again."

Surprise, surprise: When it comes to cleaning the money out of Congress, the GOP are playing to form. "The rush to revise ethics laws in the wake of the Jack Abramoff political corruption scandal has turned into more of a saunter...The primary holdup is in the House...[where] progress was slowed by the election two weeks ago of a new majority leader, Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who has a different notion of what 'reform' should entail."

The Justice Department, along with Casino Jack's lawyers, ask for a delay of sentencing for Abramoff in the Suncruz case, so that he can continue working with the Feds on the bigger picture of GOP corruption. "'Mr. Abramoff has been working very hard in terms of his cooperation,' said Neal Sonnett, Abramoff's attorney in Miami." Let's hope so.

"'I look around,' Mr. Lott said, 'and think, "Am I the only one who thinks this is stupid?"'" Hearings into Katrina, foreign affairs, and other matters of state are postponed as the Senate commits to a day of stunt votes by both parties, mainly because Catkiller Frist had more pressing business -- a fundraiser, of course -- the prior evening. "Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, said, 'It's sort of arrogant of us, isn't it, scheduling them and then not keeping our appointments?'"

"'I can't believe I'm in a conservative hall listening to him say [Bush] is off course trying to defend the United States,' Sorcinelli fumed." As a result of his questioning Dubya's NSA powergrab, right-wing civil libertarian Bob Barr finds himself persona non grata at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference. Similarly in the doghouse with the powers-that-be is right-wing pollster Frank Luntz, due to a longstanding feud with John Boehner -- Luntz backed the wrong horse in '98. And, speaking of Boehner, the new Majority Leader is apparently causing mild tremors along another GOP faultline, the one between evangelicals and pro-business stooges. (Boehner numbers among the latter.) Could this all be the prelude to a '06 crack-up of '94 proportions?

"'For people who were really strong for Bush, I feel like this was a dating meeting...He's not quite ready to ask us to go steady. But I was a little surprised at the reaction, including my own reaction. I was much more positive than I thought I'd be going to the meeting.'" Anyone wondering why McCain has been spending recent days badmouthing Obama (and showing up on 24), look no further. Now he's courting the Bush financiers for his own 2008 bid. Well, McCain had best be careful playing the insider, or Chuck Hagel just might steal his maverick crown come the primaries. Then again, the GOP likely prefers mythical mavericks anyway.

Little ditty about Jack and Dubya: "Bush 'has one of the best memories of any politicians I have ever met,' Abramoff wrote to Kim Eisler of Washingtonian magazine. 'The guys saw me in almost a dozen settings, and joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids.'" Confiding to a reporter friend (and contrary to the White House's protestations,) Casino Jack complains that Dubya has forsaken him. In related news, as David Safavian, one of Abramoff's White House men, is formally charged with obstruction of justice, TIME Magazine publishes the first pic of Dubya and Abramoff together, although it's not what you'd call a slam dunk. Casino Jack (and Karl Rove) merely lurk in the corners while Bush presses the flesh of Abramoff's clients. Ok, they're in the same room together -- that's a start. But there's undoubtedly better pics of the two out there...it's only a matter of time.

The continuing probe into the Abramoff morass yields up more possible quid pro quo corruption, this time between mining firm lobbyist Duane Gibson and GOP Congressman Richard Pombo (R-CA). "Last fall, Rep. Richard W. Pombo (R-Tracy), chairman of the House Resources Committee, attached an amendment to a budget bill -- without hearings or floor debate -- that would have opened national forest and other public land to mining...Three months before Pombo inserted the amendment, Gibson and his lobbying firm had a $1,000-a-head fundraiser for the congressman." As for Gibson, he -- as you might expect -- is a real class act: "In 2000, he was part of the so-called Brooks Brothers Riot in which young Republicans descended on the Miami-Dade County polling headquarters in Florida during the presidential recount, chanting 'Stop the fraud!'"

My, what a coincidence. New majority leader John A. Boehner is "renting his Capitol Hill apartment from a veteran lobbyist whose clients have direct stakes in legislation Boehner has co-written and that he has overseen as chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee." That's Strike 3: Coupled with his stonewalling on lobbying reform and his passing out Big Tobacco checks on the House floor in 1995, it's becoming abundantly clear that Boehner is just another corrupt GOP party boss in the DeLay mold. I wonder, will that sword of righteousness, John McCain, have anything to say about Boehner's behavior?

In a fit of misplaced pique, John McCain goes house on Barack Obama over his relatively innocuous decision to skip McCain's proposed "bipartisan" task force on lobbying revisions (and, by extension, Obama's point that the Ballad of Casino Jack is primarily a GOP scandal.) I've been generally sympathetic to McCain's work for campaign finance and lobbying reform throughout his career, but, frankly, the outrage of this letter is way outta line. I just posted on this in the comments at National Journal, so I'll just repost here:

"I'd be more impressed with McCain's alleged commitment to bipartisan reform if (a) he could find Dems other than Joe Lieberman and BILL Nelson* -- not exactly the Democratic mainstream -- to back his "task force" play, (b) he didn't consistently allow himself to be used as the "mythical maverick" smokescreen for GOP lobbying abuses, and (c) he displayed half as much righteous outrage when the Dubya administration eviscerated his anti-torture legislation, violated both the FISA Act and the National Security Act of 1947 with their illegal wiretaps, and generally stood in the way of serious campaign finance reform. Sure, McCain talks tough at Barack Obama, but everytime Dubya comes a-knockin' at his door, he folds like an accordion, even despite the ugly incident in the South Carolina primary six years ago.

The Republican Party controls the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and -- arguably -- the Supreme Court at this moment. Is it really McCain's contention that Barack Obama, a freshman Senator in the minority party, is the one stopping real lobbying and campaign finance reform from happening? Please. If McCain wants real reform, he should be directing his wrath at the people in charge. Otherwise, he's even more guilty of putting the partisan game above the public interest than is Obama." Update: Obama answers.

"In the past, when these scandals have erupted, what's happened is Congress has overreacted, and two days later nobody knew what happened...taking actions to ban this and ban that, when there's no appearance of a problem, there's no foundation of a problem, I think, in fact, does not serve the institution well." No appearance of a problem?(!) New GOP Majority Leader John Boehner may have brought a new cadre of GOP leaders to the fore, but, when it comes to lobbying reform, they may as well be the Old Guard. And with Boehner, who has his own corporate masters, now actively working to prevent any real changes in lobbying practices, the fate of real reform may now lie in the hands of none other than Casino Jack: "If disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff drops the dime on a bunch of lawmakers and several of them are indicted, Congress won't be able to say no to even the harshest anti-lobbying measures...But if Abramoff dawdles and not much happens, lawmakers will take their sweet time moving legislation through committee."

Behind closed doors, the Republicans talk amongst themselves about lobbying reform, with the status quo beating back a challenge by reformers to vote on new GOP leadership across the board (except for Hastert.) "'All we were doing was asking us to look in the mirror,' Rep. Daniel E. Lungren (R-Calif.), a co-sponsor of the motion, said after the vote. 'The shadow of [Jack] Abramoff is not a mere distraction but a serious problem to address.'" Meanwhile, in the race for Majority Leader, while Blunt might be on the threshold of maintaining the DeLay ring's hold over the House GOP, Boehner apparently proved himself no friend to reform either. Speaking on the GOP's anti-lobbying package, he "scoffed that Congress knows how to do just two things well -- nothing and overreact, according to witnesses." And Boehner leads the candidates in former-staffers-turned-lobbyists.

But, give 'em credit -- the GOP have at least succeeded in kicking lobbyists out of the House gym. "The rule change passed overwhelmingly, 379 to 50, but not before Democrats -- and some Republicans -- ridiculed it as meaningless. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) suggested that lawmakers compromise and change the rules so that lobbyists must yield to lawmakers who want to use the gym equipment they are on. 'I'm a gym guy; I've never seen anybody lobbied there,' said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.). 'I've never seen any nefarious plots hatched on the treadmill.'" Just in case, though, Boss DeLay voted against the change.

Update: It's Boehner on the second ballot over Blunt, 122-109. (Looks like the Shadegg-Boehner deal went through -- On the first ballot, Blunt, who will remain Majority Whip, was only 7 votes shy of winning.)

"'Clearly, Blunt has demonstrated great leadership; Cantor has, too,' Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) said. 'Are we saying we don't trust anyone in our leadership? That makes the case that everybody in Washington is on the take, that we're all corrupt.'" Yeah, that sounds about right...Sensing electoral doom in the growing public perception that the GOP is rife with corruption, Boehner and Shadegg contemplate joining forces to knock off Boss DeLay's heir apparent, Roy Blunt, in the House leadership race.

With a tip-off from the Progressive Patriots Fund, I had the opportunity yesterday to catch Sen. Russ Feingold speak on the Patriot Act and the NSA wiretapping scandal over at Cardozo Law School. (Their pics are a lot better than mine -- I forgot to charge my batteries, and thus only got in 2 or 3 shots before my camera died on me.) And how was he? Well, all-in-all, he came off as a convincing candidate for the election ahead, as well as an impressive, informed, and personable fellow. To be honest, I found his remarks a bit lawyerly (then again, he's a lawyer speaking before a law school, so that's not really a fair criticism), but, taken in full, he seemed a committeed progressive and a refreshingly candid leader, the type of dynamic, independent thinker the Senate should be teeming with, if the system came anywhere close to working these days.



The gist of Sen. Feingold's remarks was thus: Al Qaeda is the central threat facing America and has been since 9/11. Yet, instead of bringing the nation together to eliminate this terrorist organization, the Dubya White House has chosen time and time again to endanger our national security and compromise our most fundamental American values for their own ideological or power-hoarding purposes. (Iraq, Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, secret gulags, you name it.) Along those lines and as we now all know, the Patriot Act, which only Feingold voted against in 2001, contains some terrible provisions therein, the most notorious example affecting Middle America being Section 215 (which gives law enforcement, among other things, the right to see what you've been reading.)

Yet, as per the norm, Dubya has refused to admit that it's even possible that something might be wrong with the Patriot Act now that it's up for renewal -- only that it's necessary to defeat the evildoers and that any microscopic change in the statute could rend the fabric of freedom irreparably. (Despite this now-somewhat hoary ploy, Feingold and others have succeeded in blocking a permanent blanket extension for now, as y'all know if you've been visiting here lately.) And, of course, Dubya has taken this same tack of obfuscation and fear-mongering to cover up his brazen wiretapping power-grab -- which, according to Congress's own research arm, broke at least two laws and counting.

Again, this story is not news to many Dems out there, but Feingold laid it out in clear, comprehensible, and systematic fashion. (The only "breaking news" made was the Senator announcing this letter to Gonzales, asking him why he, in effect, lied to the Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings about the NSA wiretaps.) And he had some good lines throughout -- In reply to Rove's ridiculous claim that Dems were "pre-9/11", Feingold quipped that the GOP suffered from a "pre-1776" mentality these days. (He also retold the recent Patrick Henry exchange.) To be honest, I'd liked to have heard more in this vein -- In terms of breaking down the legislative legerdemain and legal issues at hand, Feingold was superb. But I thought the speech needed more narrative sweep and rhetorical grandeur, more explanation of why this battle matters so much to the workings of the republic. He doesn't have to turn into Robert Byrd overnight. Still, I thought the remarks could have benefited from more dramatic heft and historical resonance: Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Lincoln, Wilson...they're all relevant here. (Then again, as I said above, I was an historian sitting in a room full of lawyers, so I was a tougher sell than most.)

Along those lines, if there was a problem with this presentation, it's that the Senator, while clearly outraged, at times seemed much less livid about all this than many in the audience, who occasionally sounded ready to hoist the black flag. (In fact, many will no doubt be happy to hear that Feingold was asked twice "why Democrats are so lame." As he noted (and as the blogosphere can attest this week), if a crowd in New York City is this irate with the party, the Dems might be in serious trouble nationwide in November. Still, he also emphasized that the Democrats could be more effective fighters if they actually controlled a house of Congress -- You can't hold hearings if you're in the minority.

In terms of other questions, Feingold said he supports and will take part in the very late-developing (and now already defunct) Alito filbuster (Roll Call.) In fact, he thought the Dems made a crucial mistake in capitulating to the original "Gang of 14" compromise, arguing cogently that Dems have seen nothing for it and may well have had the votes to win Catkiller's game of nuclear chicken. Since Casino Jack and lobbying reform seemed too big a subject to address competently in the time allotted, I asked him a question about his thoughts on the NYT decision to spike the NSA story for a year, his general view of the mass media's performance in serving as a check on these types of executive abuses, and ('cause it seemed apropos) his thoughts on the burgeoning blogosphere's role in all this. He didn't really go after the Times decision, and said that, in terms of the recent Patriot Act debate, he thought the press had actually done an ok job. Regarding blogs, he called the Internet "a miracle for populist politics," which was a good enough soundbite that everyone in my row dutifully wrote it down at the same time.

And, of course, Sen. Feingold was asked -- a couple of times -- whether or not he was running for President in 2008. Naturally, he played it coy -- After all, we still have just under two years before the Iowa caucus. But, for what it's worth, I was impressed by him -- He's not a first-class emoter like Edwards or Clinton, of course. Instead, he comes across as a highly intelligent, capable, and nuanced thinker, a la Bradley, Kerry, or Gore on his better days. But unlike those three, he also seemed much more comfortable in his own skin, more naturally himself at the podium, and -- most importantly -- more content to play the maverick if his lefty principles dictate thus. (Although, as I said, I'd like to see him tone down the lawyer-ese and rev up more Wellstone-ish fire if he does make a White House run.) I suppose there's a small, bordering-on-infinitesimal chance that Rodham Clinton, Biden, Warner, or someone else might drop all the "New Democrat" protective camouflage this time around and begin loudly and undefensively proclaiming progressive principles to the Heavens. But, until that unlikely event, my candidate in the 2008 Democratic primary is Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. (Update: 1776 link via Medley.)

"So what does real reform look like? There is no simple answer or silver bullet. If history is any judge, each round of ethics reforms lasts only a few years before lobbyists, lawyers and lawmakers pierce it full of holes. But ethics crusaders still hope to capitalize on this rare political moment, hurled forth on a powerful wave of corruption scandals plaguing the Republican Party." Salon's Michael Scherer outlines five lobbying reforms that'll determine whether Congress is serious about cleaning up the system in the wake of Casino Jack.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes." That flaming liberal Dwight Eisenhower's somber farewell address to the nation is the historical and thematic anchor for Eugene Jarecki's documentary Why We Fight, a sobering disquisition on American militarism and foreign policy since 9/11. In essence, Why We Fight is the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 should have been. Like F911, this film preaches to the choir, but it also makes a more substantive critique of Dubya diplomacy and the 9/11-Iraq switcheroo, with much less of the grandstanding that marred Moore's earlier documentary (and drove right-wing audiences berzerk.)

Sadly, the basic tale here is all-too-familiar by now. Ensconced in Dubya's administration from the word go, the right-wing think-tank crowd (Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol, etc.) used the tragedy of 9/11 as a pretext to enact all their neocon fantasies (spelled out in this 2000 Project for a New American Century report), beginning in Iraq. Taken into consideration with Cheney the Military-Contractor-in-Chief doling out fat deals to his Halliburton-KBR cronies from the Vice-President's office, and members of Congress meekly signing off on every military funding bill that comes down the pike (partly because, as the film points out, weapons systems such as the B-1 or F-22 have a part built in every state), it seems uncomfortably clear that President Eisenhower's grim vision has come to pass.

To help him rake this muck, Jarecki shrewdly gives face-time not only to learned critics of recent foreign-policy -- CIA vet Chalmers Johnson, Gore Vidal (looking unwell) -- but also to the neocons themselves. Richard Perle is here, saying (as always) insufferably self-serving things, and Bill Kristol glows like a kid in a candy store when he gets to talk up his role in fostering Dubya diplomacy. (Karen Kwiatkowski, a career military woman who watched the neocon coup unfold within the corridors of the Pentagon, also delivers some keen insights.) And, when discussing the corruption that festers in the heart of our Capitol, Jarecki brings out not only Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity but that flickering mirage of independent-minded Republicanism, John McCain. (In fact, Jarecki encapsulates the frustrating problem with McCain in one small moment: Right after admitting to the camera that Cheney's no-bid KBR deals "look bad", the Senator happens to get a call from the Vice-President. In his speak-of-the-devil grimace of bemused worry, you can see him mentally falling into line behind the administration, as always.)

To be sure, Why We Fight has some problems. There's a central tension in the film between the argument that Team Dubya is a corrupt administration of historical proportions and the notion that every president since Kennedy has been party to an increasingly corrupt system, and it's never really resolved satisfactorily here. Jarecki wants you to think that this documentary is about the rise of the Imperial Presidency across five decades, but, some lip service to Tonkin notwithstanding, the argument here is grounded almost totally in the Age of Dubya. (I don't think it's a bad thing, necessarily, but it is the case.) And, sometimes the critique seems a little scattershot -- Jarecki seems to fault the Pentagon both for KBR's no-bid contracts and, when we see Lockheed and McDonnell-Douglas salesmen going head-to-head, for bidding on contracts. (Still, his larger point is valid -- As Chalmers Johnson puts it, "When war becomes that profitable, you're going to see more of it.")

Also, the film loses focus at times and meanders along tangents -- such as the remembrances of two Stealth Fighter pilots on the First Shot Fired in the Iraq war, or the glum story of an army recruit in Manhattan looking to turn his life around. This latter tale, along with the story of Wilton Sekzer, a retired Vietnam Vet and NYPD sergeant who lost his son on 9/11 and wants somebody to pay, are handled with more grace and less showmanship than similar vignettes in Michael Moore's film, but they're in the same ballpark. (As an aside, I was also somewhat irked by shots of NASA thrown in with the many images of missile tests and ordnance factories. Ok, both involve rockets, research, and billions of dollars, but space exploration and war are different enough goals that such a comparison merits more unpacking.)

Nevertheless, Why We Fight is well worth-seeing, and hopefully, this film will make it out to the multiplexes. If nothing else, it'll do this country good to ponder anew both a president's warning about the "disastrous rise of misplaced power," and a vice-president's assurance that we'll be "greeted as liberators."

"'In 1994, when the Congress was taken over by Republicans, there were 4,000 earmarks on appropriations bills,' [McCain] told the committee. 'Last year there were 15,000. It's disgraceful, this process.'" A Senate Committee chaired by Susan Collins and Joe Lieberman began discussing the Senate's post-Abramoff cleanup today, with McCain, Feingold and others calling for systematic and comprehensive reform, including the end of "earmarking" (i.e. adding pork to appropriations bills.) "McCain said he was especially bothered that at the end of the last congressional session, various extraneous appropriations were 'larded onto the money that was supposed to be devoted to the men and women in the military and their ability to conduct the war on terror.'"

"The water expert said he told company officials at the base that they would have to notify the military. 'They told me it was none of my concern and to keep my mouth shut,' he said." Ah, the perks of a no-bid contract. As e-mail records prove, those patriots at Halliburton, Dick Cheney's favorite corporate cronies, have been knowingly exposing some soldiers to contaminated water, despite being warned by their own employees about the danger. "Another former Halliburton employee who worked at the base, Ken May of Louisville, said there were numerous instances of diarrhea and stomach cramps."

"'I don't get the sense many people are paying attention,' said Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.), who has been hoping party activists would lead demands for a shake-up. 'Corruption is still 90 percent an inside-the-Beltway' issue." According to the WP, the GOP are finding that the Ballad of Casino Jack isn't playing in Peoria just yet, at least among the conservative base. "'The question is, is this a climate where an actual reform candidate could be elected to a leadership position?' [GOP Rep Zach] Wamp asked. An initial pulse-taking of voters suggests that the answer is no, he and others said.'" Well, I'd expect the issue will muster more enthusiasm among Democratic and independent voters, and particularly after the indictments start rolling in.

This just about drives me up the wall. Threatening to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again, Minority Leader Harry Reid loses his nerve and apologizes to Senate Republicans for daring to insinuate they've been on the make. "The release [since edited down], titled, 'Republicans cannot be trusted to end the culture of corruption,' triggered sharp complaints from GOP officials, who said it violated Senate decorum and brought campaign-style mudslinging into the Capitol." Aw, shucks. Really? As the WP pointed out: "As partisan attacks go, the statement was hardly the most scathing seen on Capitol Hill lately."

If anything, the problem with this release is that it used a blunderbuss when it should've used a stiletto -- It's clear somebody on Reid's staff just spent a day cutting-and-pasting old DNC talking points. The George Allen noose anecdote or Inhofe-on-Global-Warming, for example -- both are reprehensible, but both have nothing to do with Abramoff-style corruption. (While I'm at it, the line "I thought I'd seen the last of corruption when I helped clean up Las Vegas thirty years ago" is an unbelievable groaner. I know you faced down car bombs and all, but really, Vegas is hardly a beacon of purity nowadays.)

That being said, these charges, however off-topic, are true and in the public record, so what's the problem? And when was the last time you heard Senate Republicans apologize for anything? Catkiller Frist owes us at least two sorrys by this point, and that's right off the top of my head. For Pete's sake, Sen. Reid, you're supposed to be our leader. Start acting like it. At the very least, don't even bother posting tough-minded press releases if you feel you're going to have to disavow them within 48 hours. If you don't want to get your hands dirty, then pass the reins to someone else.

Still trying to get ahead of the Abramoff story, the House GOP unveil their new anti-lobbying bill. The package includeds "the banning of privately sponsored travel" (so long, Scotland boondoggles), as well as "a virtual ban on gifts, except for inconsequential items like baseball caps, and a provision that will affect few people: elimination of congressional pensions for anyone convicted of a felony related to official duties...One important part of the GOP plan would increase -- from one year to two years -- the waiting period before former lawmakers and senior staff members could lobby Congress." Common Cause's response: Sounds like a good start, but let's talk enforcement. As for the Dems, they'll announce their own plan -- with a stricter gift ban -- later this week.

Update: "Today we as Democrats are declaring our commitment to change, change to a government as good and as honest as the people that we serve." The Dems announce their own reform plans, which "go further than the Republicans' proposals. Rather than limiting the value of a gift to $20, as House Republicans are considering, Democrats would prohibit all gifts from lobbyists....Lawmakers would have to publicly disclose negotiations over private-sector jobs...House and Senate negotiators working out final versions of legislation would have to meet in open session, with all members of the conference committee -- not just Republicans -- having the opportunity to vote on amendments. Legislation would have to be posted publicly 24 hours before congressional consideration." And, as bc posted in the comments, James Carville and Paul Begala have offered their own comprehensive campaign finance-ethics plan, which involves public financing of candidates and a total ban on incumbent fundraising. Now that's the type of bold, outside-the-box thinking I'd like to see more of right now. Particularly given that, as the Washington Post pointed out, the GOP ethics bill won't work at all unless it's coupled with serious campaign finance reform.

Casino Jack's plea deal claims another Congressional victim: Over the weekend (when I discovered his name sounds like "neigh" and not "knee") and as expected, "Freedom Fries" sponsor and DeLay flunky Bob Ney agreed to step down as House Admin chair. And now, a few Congress-watchers are starting to take a closer look at Speaker Hastert's role in the Abramoff scandals, and in perpetuating the DeLay Ring's rule. "'I suppose that DeLay was simply a much more inviting target for the [Democrats], so Hastert is left alone,' said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). 'Maybe people will start focusing on Hastert now.'"

Meanwhile, as DeLay's numbers plummet in his home district, things aren't looking so hot either for former GOP wunderkind Ralph Reed, an old Abramoff college friend with a long and troubling e-mail evidence chain to Casino Jack. "'After reading the e-mail, it became pretty obvious he was putting money before God,' said Phil Dacosta, a Georgia Christian Coalition member who had initially backed Reed. 'We are righteously casting him out.'"

"'The Ney situation has changed after the plea agreement,' said a House Republican insider close to the talks. 'There are people that have pled guilty who have conspired to bribe him.'" As part of the post-Abramoff GOP clean-up/cover-up, Speaker Hastert pressures DeLay flunky Bob Ney to resign as chairman of the House Administration Committee. And conservative Arizona Republican John Shadegg joins the House Leadership race, hoping to benefit from his lack of lobbying ties compared to Blunt and Boehner, the two frontrunners.

In the continuing Abramoff fallout department, a disgraced Boss DeLay has picked up a primary challenger, Tom Campbell, in his home district. "'If we don't clean house in March, we'll lose the House in November,' Campbell said." Meanwhile, as the GOP tries to choose between two K-Street darlings for their new majority leader, the House looks to the McCain-Shays bill of last month as a template for new lobbying restrictions."The McCain bill would beef up lobbying disclosure considerably and cover grass-roots lobbying campaigns, which now go unreported. It would also require lobbyists to report each fundraising event that they host or sponsor for candidates for federal office, including the amount raised. In addition, the McCain bill would require lobbyists to report the donations they give to lawmakers directly and at events that honor lawmakers or entities that they created or control. It would also require lobbyists to disclose quarterly -- which would be twice as often as they file now -- any gift worth more than $20 that they give to lawmakers or their aides, including meals and tickets to events." Sounds like a start...but it'll take more than increased disclosure to transform a Washington culture that's turned rancid in recent years thanks to overwhelming lobbyist influence.

More bad news for Boss DeLay: Once again, a Texas court has refused to dismiss money-laundering charges against him. Meanwhile, Speaker Dennis Hastert taps David Dreier to pen new lobbying rules for the House (ignoring the fact that Dems, with the aid of Republican Chris Shays, composed stricter lobbying legislation months ago.) And GOP insiders (and, basically, DeLay flunkies) Roy Blunt and John Boehner scramble to take DeLay's place as majority leader, despite both being tainted by Abramoff contributions. Two days after the Hammer's fall, and it's already becoming clear: The only real way to cleanse Congress of this current wave of corruption is the ballot box, come November.

"The job of majority leader and the mandate of the Republican majority are too important to be hamstrung, even for a few months, by personal distractions." Whether it be due to Abramoff's encroaching testimony, the uprising of GOP moderates, Duke Cunningham's wire, or all of the above, Boss DeLay has admitted defeat and given up his post for good. While this is excellent news, there's still much work to do: The ringleader may be dethroned, but the DeLay Ring persists. Hopefully prosecutors in Texas and the Justice Department, as well as members of Congress shamed by the rampant corruption characterizing DeLay's reign, won't rest until the Hammer is thrown out of the House and taken to the woodshed. In fact, with any luck, Boss DeLay will be a featured member of the Big House before long.

"In the short run, members of Congress will get allergic to lobbyists." As Casino Jack enters a second plea and the fatcats of K St. begin to panic, many top GOP officials burn their Abramoff cash (and for good reason), including Ney, DeLay, Hastert, Blunt, and Dubya. "Abramoff raised at least $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney '04 re-election campaign, earning the honorary title 'pioneer' from the campaign. But the campaign is giving up only $6,000 that came directly from Abramoff, his wife and one of the Indian tribes that he worked to win influence for in Washington." Update: According to the NYT, the Abramoff plea may have put the dagger to Boss DeLay's comeback hopes.

Happy 2006, y'all. Today's a travel day for me (from San Diego back to Norfolk), so updates will be sparse. That being said, amid the grim news in West Virginia, I'd be remiss if I didn't post this glint of light for the new year: As rumored, the Feds have flipped Jack Abramoff, meaning trouble ahead for the DeLay-driven GOP corruption machine. While the inquiry into Boss DeLay, who just picked up a Dem opponent in the 2006 midterms, "could take up to a year and require the cooperation of other witnesses before issues are resolved," it seems prosecutors will move more quickly against DeLay deputy and GOP official Bob Ney, who corresponds to a "Representative #1" referred to in the plea agreement. Let's get this show started!

"'Jack would say, 'I gave that guy 10 grand and he voted against me!'" Previewing "what could become the biggest congressional corruption scandal in generations" when it fully erupts in 2006, the Washington Post offers a brief overview of the meteoric rise and sordid fall of Casino Jack Abramoff.

It's Boss DeLay's worst nightmare: the Feds might be close to flipping Abramoff. "Abramoff would provide testimony about numerous members of Congress and their staffs if he and the Justice Department reach an agreement, the sources said." Great...my only concern is that Casino Jack might try to pull a Wee-Bay (from The Wire), and take the fall for the higher-ups in his organization. Then again, with Abramoff, Adam Kidan, Michael Scanlon, and David Safavian all on the hook, one of the rats should likely squeal.

"The legislation would allow states to impose new fees on Medicaid recipients, cut federal child support enforcement funds, impose new work requirements on state welfare programs and squeeze student lenders." Although a tie-breaking vote by Cheney got the deficit bill passed -- meaning people on Medicaid, welfare recipients, and students with loans will soon be paying for Dubya's millionaire tax breaks -- the Dems do succeed in beating back ANWR drilling, much to the chagrin of Ted Stevens, who gambled that the Senate wouldn't vote down a defense bill.

In an interview with FOX News's Brit Hume, Dubya backs Boss DeLay, saying he is innocent of money laundering. "It is highly unusual for a president to express an opinion on a pending legal case. Richard M. Nixon, for instance, was widely criticized for declaring Charles Manson 'guilty, directly or indirectly' of murder while Manson's trial was ongoing." Also in the interview, Dubya tried to pin Casino Jack on both parties and gave Rumsfeld the Brownie thumbs up. Update: The backlash begins.

Ten days after the Post unearthed a Justice Department memo deeming the recent Texas redistricting a violation of civil liberties, the Supreme Court says it will review the DeLay plan. "The panel stressed that it was deciding 'only the legality' of the redistricting plan, 'not its wisdom.'"

The Washington Post offers some handy graphs on the comings-and-goings of Casino Jack Abramoff's donation operation. Looks like, while the GOP has a 2-1 advantage in obtaining Abramoff and the tribes' money, some prominent Dems -- particularly Patrick Kennedy -- have seen their share of the loot as well. Update: Another Dem -- Byron Dorgan -- returns his Abramoff-tainted money.

More trouble for Casino Jack and his GOP shakedown operation cronies: Federal prosecutors are on the verge of flipping Abramoff associate Adam Kidan. "Kidan, who has known Abramoff since their student days when they were members of the College Republicans, has agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy and wire fraud...'Adam will testify against Abramoff and Ney if he is given an opportunity to do so,' said Joseph Conway, an attorney for Kidan."

In a blow to the Hammer's hopes of regaining his seat of power in the near future, the judge in Boss DeLay's Texas trial offers up a split decision, dismissing a conspiracy charge against DeLay (the law apparently wasn't on the books when he broke it) while upholding the "far more serious allegations of money-laundering." Update: As a result of the judge's decision, DeLay's GOP opponents start to balk under his regime.

The NYT examines yet another front in the widening Abramoff investigation: the quid pro quo hiring of GOP flunkies on K Street for legislative favors. "Investigators are said to be especially interested in how Tony C. Rudy, a former deputy chief of staff to Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, and Neil G. Volz, a former chief of staff to Representative Bob Ney of Ohio, obtained lobbying positions with big firms on K Street."

Slate's John Dickerson and Bruce Reed try to disentangle Dubya and McCain, with Dickerson arguing McCain's rationale for publicly supporting the prez and Reed explaining why Bush needs the mythical maverick.

Another week, another Republican goes to jail. Today, it's Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA), who once invoked 9/11 to push a flag-burning amendment and whom prosecutors have been eyeing for months. ("Duke," "Hammer," "Casino Jack," "Scooter," "Mayor of Capitol Hill"...really, the fact that every high-ranking GOP official has a street name should tell you something.) At any rate, Cunningham pleaded guilty 'to charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud and wire fraud, and tax evasion for underreporting his income in 2004.'...[P]rosecutors said Cunningham admitted to receiving at least $2.4 million in bribes paid to him by several conspirators through a variety of methods, including checks totaling over $1 million, cash, rugs, antiques, furniture, yacht club fees and vacations."

Update: In related news, The Onion has more on the continuing GOP meltdown: "As of [last] Tuesday, Topeka mayor William Bunten, 74, is the nation's highest-ranking Republican official not facing indictment or public reprimand. 'I have always prided myself on running a clean campaign, a clean office, and cleaning house when necessary,' Bunten said. '"However, I have no comment on the charges facing my party's leadership, fundraising apparatus, known associates, or advisory staff.'"

Update 2: Via War Room, here's Boss DeLay on his lieutenant back in June: "Duke Cunningham is a hero...He is an honorable man of high integrity." Uh, yeah, if you say so.

"'You know what bothers me?' [Sen. Byron] Dorgan asked at the end of the hearing. 'It's pretty clear that this is one of the most disgusting tales of greed and avarice, and perhaps fraud and stealing. It's unbelievable what we have uncovered here. It's almost sickening to see what we have uncovered. And you come to our table and say, "Oh, gosh, this is just about friendships."'" Salon surveys the recent Senate testimony of Abramoff flunky Italia Federici, she of the quarter-million-dollar bribe. And it isn't just the Dems disgusted by the flimsiness of her defense. "'Since your answers are so bizarre, I won't continue," said McCain...'I will let others make the judgment.'"

Update: In related news, Abramoff/DeLay aide Michael Scanlon is charged with fraud. "The filing of a criminal information, rather than an indictment, often means prosecutors have reached a plea agreement with a defendant." Does that mean Scanlon, so eager to turn on the Religious Right, will roll up on Boss DeLay? One can only hope.

Well, I guess that explains why the GOP didn't swear 'em in. The Post obtains a smoking gun document that proves, contrary to their statements last week, big-time oil executives met with Cheney's energy task force to determine the nation's energy policy in 2001. No big surprise there -- While Cheney has been trying to hide records of the meetings for years, we've known that 62 of 63 members of the task force had ties to the coal, nuclear, or oil industries, with nary an environmental group in sight. Plus, it was clear at the time that the final energy plan was tailored by Enron for Enron, and their ilk. Still, this does mean that Big Oil lied bald-faced to Congress (and specifically Sen. Frank Lautenberg, who asked them about this directly.) And, while perjury's not on the table, "a person can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years for making 'any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation' to Congress."

A true Dubya conservative? Aside from the usual Federalist Society wingnuttery, Judge Samuel Alito also appears to have some considerable conflict-of-interest problems on his record. "Alito had at least $390,000 in Vanguard mutual funds when he ruled in a 2002 case that favored the company. After a party to the suit complained, he stepped aside and another panel of judges reheard the case. Alito also ruled in a 1996 case involving Smith Barney, which was his brokerage firm." This probably won't derail his nomination by itself, but, still, Judiciary Committee members Kennedy and Feingold, among others, want answers.

Well, so much for the Blame the Dems defense. As it turns out, Boss DeLay not only considered a misdemeanor plea deal to evade his money laundering indictment, he also seems to have incriminated himself. "DeLay acknowledged that in 2002 he was informed about and expressed his support for transfers of $190,000 in mostly corporate funds from his Texas political action committee to an arm of the Republican National Committee in Washington and then back to Texas." Whoops.

"It must be on the basis by which I travel anywhere, being in a private aircraft, which bears a substantial cost unfortunately...I am confident that we will have a long, productive and warm relationship, but good relationships are built on firm understandings at the outset." Among his many other shady dealings, it seems "Casino Jack" Abramoff tried to bilk the President of Gabon for $9 million, in order to set up a meeting with Dubya. Apparently, Gabon didn't take up his offer...I wonder if they considered it spam.

In the political theater department, Congress invites the heads of five major oil companies to testify -- not under oath -- about their recent upsurge in profits and concerns about price gouging. (No questions, of course, about the huge subsidies and tax breaks the GOP have granted them of late.) "The hearing opened with Republicans refusing a request by Democrats that the five executives take an oath before testifying. That avoided an embarrassing photo akin to when tobacco executives raised their right hands at a 1994 congressional hearing and swore cigarettes were not addictive."

"'What I think is breathtaking is DeLay taking yet another first step...And now he's extending the permanent campaign to one's own trial,' Mann said. 'That sets a new precedent. This is not a man who lacks chutzpah.'" The Post surveys Boss DeLay's campaign strategy to beat his money laundering charge. Not surprisingly, he's making heavy use of his K-Street lobbying empire and the conservative talk radio circuit.

DeLay flunky and high-ranking GOP rep Robert Ney, whom the Washington Post earlier implicated in the Abramoff scandals, is subpoenaed by the grand jury examining Casino Jack's shakedown operation. Apparently, Ney, among other likely misdeeds, allegedly took what appear to be several bribes from one of Abramoff's clients, SunCruz Casinos, including $32,000 in campaign contributions and a golfing boondoggle to Scotland (with Abramoff, former White House procurement head David Safavian (already arrested), and former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed (clearly in deep himself).) "Abramoff stated in an e-mail to tribal officials that 'our friend' -- later identified in Senate testimony as Ney -- sought the Scotland trip after he agreed to help Abramoff's Texas Indian clients...Ney's official report to Congress listed a purpose of the trip as 'speech to Scottish Parliamentarians.' However, there is no record of Ney's speech in the Scottish Parliament's register of official visits. In addition, at the time of Ney's trip, the Scottish Parliament was out for its August recess."

"Using backdoor tactics to destroy America's last great wild frontier will not solve our nation's energy problems and will do nothing to lower skyrocketing gas prices." And yet, by a 51-48 vote, the Senate refused to remove ANWR drilling from an upcoming budget bill (which cannot be filibustered), making it increasingly likely that oil derricks will be populating the Alaskan wilderness in very short order.

Speaking of oil, today the Dubya administration came out against a plan put forth by Republican Charles Grassley "that oil companies donate some of their record profits to a federal fund to help poor Americans pay winter heating bills." So, yet again, Dubya puts the profit margin of his corporate cronies over the welfare of struggling people...one more reason why America has given up on this president.

"'The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees,' Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. 'Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them.'" Senate hearings delve further into the exploits of "Casino Jack" Abramoff and former Boss DeLay aide Michael Scanlon, as well as the cynicism and hypocrisy driving the GOP machine.

Meanwhile, more DeLay flunkies are found to be greasing the wheels for Abramoff, and the stench of corruption spreads to Interior Secretary Gail Norton's office. There, it seems an aide, Italia Federici, received a $250,000 bribe from Abramoff clients (in the form of a payment to an environmental group she co-founded with, natch, Grover Norquist), in return for White House access. Says Senate panel chairman John McCain, it's "a complex and tangled web...a story alarming in its depth and breadth of potential wrongdoing. It is breathtaking in its reach."

"'Ethics is everything,' Shays said. 'If you don't have a strong moral standing, if you don't have an ethical foundation, you just crumble.'" To the consternation of several moderate Republicans (including longtime DeLay foe Chris Shays), Boss DeLay (who recently procured a new judge -- and then another -- for his money laundering trial) is still hanging around the leadership office despite his indictment and subsequent resignation as Majority Leader. Creepier still, "[c]ountering [the moderates] are DeLay's ardent House supporters, dozens of whom now sport hammer-shaped lapel pins evoking DeLay's nickname, 'The Hammer,' to proclaim their allegiance." Dozens? Sadly, it appears our nation's House of Representatives is infested with more assholes than a proctologist's office.

"It was unfortunate political timing for House Republicans: On Friday, as the Agriculture Committee was drafting budget-cutting legislation that could knock 295,000 people off food stamps, the Agriculture Department released findings that 529,000 more Americans went hungry last year than in 2003." As is their wont, the House GOP cut food stamps, student loans, Medicaid, and child support enforcement in the name of preserving Dubya's tax breaks for millionaires. Whatsmore, "[a]ccording to the Congressional Budget Office, neither the House nor the Senate bills will actually trim projected budget deficits, since they will be followed by a package of tax-cut extensions that would cost the Treasury $70 billion over five years."

In something of a preemptive strike, Boss DeLay admits he underreported contributions to his legal defense fund in 2000. "It was not an ethical lapse, it was a bookkeeping lapse. I did not review the reports thoroughly enough," says Brent Perry, trustee of the fund. Too little, too late, Boss Delay. This piddling and delinquent admission won't help you in Texas, or dissuade the Abramoff investigation at your door.

"'I think really for our viewers it should be understood that I put this into a blind trust,' Frist replied [in January 2003.] 'So as far as I know, I own no HCA stock.'...Two weeks before that interview, M. Kirk Scobey Jr., a Frist trustee, informed the senator in writing that one of his trusts had received HCA stock valued at between $15,000 and $50,000." Fifteen trustee letters obtained by the Post, describing sales and purchases of HCA stock, indicate Frist's been lying about his "blind" trust for years. Poor Catkiller...I bet Iowa suddenly seems a million miles away...

As Washington waits for the Plamegate endgame and the administration prepares for a possible White House without Rove and Libby, the Post offers brief primer on the major figures in the scandal. Meanwhile, fresh off his felon photo-op, the Hammer tries to get a new judge in his Texas money-laundering case, and seems to be trying every trick in the book to turn his trial into a partisan sideshow. But remember, Boss DeLay, the Abramoff case is closing in fast...

The Washington Post introduces yet another GOP mercenary that's heavily implicated in the DeLay-Abramoff ring: Congressman Robert Ney of Ohio. "A six-term congressman from rural eastern Ohio, Ney, 51, does not have a national profile...But to members of Congress, Ney is known as the mayor of Capitol Hill. Ney is Administration Committee chairman, a powerful position that doles out budgets, equipment, offices and parking spaces to House members. These perks are used by House Republican leaders to keep their rank and file in line. Ney became chairman of the committee thanks to his political patron, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.)."

Kickbacks, bribes, forgery, money-laundering...it's all in a day's work for Casino Jack and his band of conservative cronies. In a must-read piece of reporting, the Washington Post tells the sordid tale of Jack Abramoff's shilling for eLottery Inc in full. Along with paying off both Boss DeLay and a senior aide on his payroll to spike an anti-gambling bill, "Abramoff quietly arranged for eLottery to pay conservative, anti-gambling activists to help in the firm's $2 million pro-gambling campaign, including Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, and the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition. Both kept in close contact with Abramoff about the arrangement, e-mails show. Abramoff also turned to prominent anti-tax conservative Grover Norquist, arranging to route some of eLottery's money for Reed through Norquist's group, Americans for Tax Reform."

Has Operation Offset been enacted? "Beginning this week, the House GOP lawmakers will take steps to cut as much as $50 billion from the fiscal 2006 budget for health care for the poor, food stamps and farm supports, as well as considering across-the-board cuts in other programs." There's today's GOP in a nutshell for you. When the going gets tough, their first instinct is to keep the Dubya tax breaks for millionaires and crack down instead on food stamps and Medicaid. Really, who put these assholes in charge of the public purse? You couldn't find a more detestable gang of bandits and thugs if you tried.

"'The one that people are most worried about is Abramoff because it seems to have such long tentacles...This seems to be something that could spread almost anywhere...and that has a lot of people worried.'" As Rove testifies for a fourth time before Patrick Fitzgerald's inquiry into Plamegate and Boss DeLay's phone records are subpoenaed by Texas DA Ronnie Earle, the WP surveys the political fallout from the many GOP corruption scandals currently in play.

The Frist SEC probe moves along, with a subpoena forcing the Senate Majority Leader to turn over documents related to his HCA holdings. In addition, it now appears Catkiller made tens of thousands of dollars from HCA stock outside of his "blind" trust, through a partnership controlled by his brother. So much for avoiding a conflict of interest.

"There is no reason for Rove to make this appearance unless he and his counsel believe he is at serious risk of indictment. None." On the day after former White House procurement chief David Safavian is indicted on five counts of lying and obstruction of justice, Karl Rove decides to testify for a fourth time before the grand jury delving into the felonious unmasking of Valerie Plame (presumably to stave off his indictment, or that of someone above him.) So...Rove, Safavian, Libby, Abramoff, Frist, DeLay...how many investigations and indictments can the GOP leadership rack up? Is the whole rotten edifice of GOP corporate cronyism threatening to topple? One can only hope.

"Thus began [in 1994] what historians will regard as the single most corrupt decade in the long and colorful history of the House of Representatives...[N]ever before has the leadership of the House been hijacked by a small band of extremists bent on building a ruthless shakedown machine, lining the pockets of their richest constituents and rolling back popular protections for ordinary people" By way of Cliopatria, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter surveys the corruption of Boss DeLay's ring, with an eye to history. Update: And, wouldn't you know it, Boss DeLay has been indicted again, this time for money laundering.

(Ring-)Breaking news: As with two of his Texas cronies, John Colyandro and Jim Ellis, Boss DeLay has been indicted on criminal conspiracy charges this morning, in connection with the grand jury probe into money laundering at TRMPAC. (TRMPAC itself was indicted a few weeks ago.) As a result, DeLay will be forced to step down as Majority Leader, to be replaced by (corrected, after a possible last-minute switcheroo) Roy Blunt of Missouri. (Of course, even if he beats this indictment, Boss DeLay is also being investigated by federal authorities for his role in the Casino Jack story.)

In 1994, the Republican Contract with America stated that the GOP would "restore accountability to Congress [and] end its cycle of scandal and disgrace." Today, with the Republicans controlling both sides of Congress and the Oval Office, their leader in the House has been indicted as a criminal, their leader in the Senate is under dual investigations for insider trading, and the top moneyman in the White House was arrested only last week for lying and obstruction. (And that's not even counting the inquiries into footsoldiers like Casino Jack Abramoff and Randy "Duke" Cunningham, or the continued investigation into Karl Rove's role in Plamegate.) Simply put, the GOP leadership have broken their promise and embarrassed the nation with their rampant cronyism and illegality. It is time for them to go.

Update: While a vituperative Boss DeLay calls the charges "one of the weakest, most baseless indictments in American history," (now that's a bold statement), the GOP look to Roy Blunt of Missouri (who will share power with Dreier) as their new leader.

Sorry, Catkiller, no help there. New SEC Chairman Christopher Cox recuses himself from the probe into Bill Frist's suspicious stock dump, leaving four commissioners -- two Dems and two GOP -- to head the inquiry. Update: A blind trust? Not hardly. "Documents on file with the Senate show the trustees for Frist and his immediate family wrote the senator nearly two dozen times between 2001 and July 2005. The documents list assets going into the account and assets sold. Some assets have a dollar range of the investment's value and some list the number of shares."

Curiouser and curiouser...Already inexorably tied to Boss DeLay and Grover Norquist, "Casino Jack" Abramoff also boasted of a direct connection to Karl Rove two years ago, while helping Tyco and other corporate conglomerates try to avoid tax penalties for moving their operations overseas. Boy, pull at one brick in this rotten edifice of right-wing cronyism and the whole darned structure threatens to topple.

By way of Looka, did Catkiller Frist pull a Martha? "Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a potential presidential candidate in 2008, sold all his stock in his family's hospital corporation about two weeks before it issued a disappointing earnings report and the price fell nearly 15 percent...To keep the trust blind, Frist was not allowed to know how much HCA stock he owned...but he was allowed to ask for all of it to be sold." Update: The Post has more: "The notion that you have a blind trust but you can tell your trustee when to sell stock in it just doesn't make any sense. It means you have a seeing eye trust and not a blind trust. It's ridiculous." Update 2: The SEC steps in, and subpoenas start flying.

So apparently it was Follow-the-Money-Monday in Washington yesterday, which nine times out of ten will mean trouble for the GOP. On the same day that the FEC filed suit against the pro-Republican political group Club for Growth (in what may well be the first of many actions taken against soft money groups in both parties), David Safavian, the top federal procurement official at the White House, is arrested for lying about his involvement with -- and obstructing the investigation into -- "Casino Jack" Abramoff. Safavian, who as of last week was not only "setting purchasing policy for the entire government" but active in Katrina relief efforts, has a history of crooked behavior -- he was earlier a bagman for Utah Rep. Chris Cannon. So, naturally, Dubya put the guy in charge of the nation's pursestrings in 2004.

And here's an interesting triangle for you. Safavian is also "a former lobbying partner of anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, he of the "drowning goverment" and "bipartisanship is date rape" quips, at a firm they co-founded called Janus Merritt (It was acquired in 2002.) As it turns out, Norquist was also -- and I can't believe I hadn't heard this before -- none other than Casino Jack's college roommate. Hmmm...you think maybe the shredder was working overtime this weekend at Americans for Tax Reform? Update: Upon further review, the article calling Norquist and Abramoff college roommates was probably wrong. However, their close college connection as leading Reagan Youth in Massachusetts (along with Christian Coalition guru Ralph Reed) is without question -- more in the comments.

Clearly missing the good ole days of business-as-usual, the GOP Congress will sidestep Katrina-related matters next week to fast-track instead a plan to gut the Endangered Species Act. The proposed GOP bill "would make it more difficult for the federal government to set aside land it deems crucial to the health of endangered species...[and] also increase the obligation of government agencies to tell landowners quickly if the law limits their development options, and to compensate them." Update: The bill makes it out of committee.

The Commission on Federal Election Reform, headed by former President Jimmy Carter and longtime Bush consigliere James Baker, delivers a set of proposals for fixing our tottering election system. Among the recommendations included are the adoption of a standard photo ID [which former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) has likened to a "modern-day poll tax,"] full electronic voting paper trails, free TV time for political candidates, the implementation of a regional primary system, and the non-partisan administration of future elections. Well, I'd like to see more strictly campaign-finance-related initiatives here, but, if nothing else, these sound like a good starting point for debate. After all, it should be clear to all by now that the current system has major issues, to say the least. (Just ask Ohio.)

As Dubya's numbers hit a new low and TIME Magazine starts digging deeper into "Brownie's" resume, Dubya's flak at FEMA belatedly gets the hook. Better late than never. By the way, can you guess to whom the White House is doling out the clean-up contracts? Here's a hint: It starts with an H and ends with an Alliburton.

Yet another investigative front into the corruption of the DeLay ring opened up Thursday with the indictment of TRMPAC for $120,000 in illegal campaign contributions. Although DeLay himself wasn't indicted, D.A. Ronald Earle "said at a news conference that he was hampered in bringing charges by a provision of the election law that gives him direct authority only over residents of Travis County."

"We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did." Seemingly devoid of the empathy enzyme in any case, many key Republicans -- not just Dennis Hastert and Barbara Bush -- seem to be having trouble mustering up a way to discuss Katrina that doesn't reflect their party's general lack of Christian compassion. When meeting with young New Orleans evacuees at the Astrodome, Boss DeLay "likened their stay to being at camp and asked, 'Now, tell me the truth, boys, is this kind of fun?'" Meanwhile, Rick Santorum blames Katrina on...the National Weather Service (to help out his donors at Accuweather).

"Known as a stickler for the rules on competition, Ms. Greenhouse initially received stellar performance ratings...But her reviews became negative at roughly the time she began objecting to decisions she saw as improperly favoring Kellogg Brown & Root, he said. Often she hand-wrote her concerns on the contract documents, a practice that corps leaders called unprofessional and confusing." Via a colleague in the department, an Army contracting official is demoted for questioning no-bid contracts given to Halliburton, proving once again that Cheney conservatism has less to do with competition or capitalism than it does sheer, unmitigated cronyism.

"''The entire fiscal landscape has been transformed in the last week...The entire Republican agenda of tax cuts, Social Security reform and big spending on pet Republican projects is over. Events do eventually have an impact on Capitol Hill.'" The Congressional GOP confront the realization that they'll likely be forced to postpone their ill-advised tax cut dreams in light of Katrina. Nevertheless, Catkiller Frist is undeterred, and still plans to attempt a repeal of the estate tax when Congress convenes next week...cause, y'know, the nation's millionaires are suffering. Update: Frist backs down (for now.) AP and the NYT has more.

Bush's poll numbers, low since early summer, just keep on plummeting and might soon reach Carter-like proportions. Somehow, I don't think calling the Iraq War the moral equivalent of WWII is going to stem the tide. Nor, I'll hazard, will his making it easier for his corporate cronies to pollute at will. But hey, keep trying, guys. Update: Slate's Fred Kaplan blows further holes in the WWII analogy.

As big-time progressive donors get to institution-building, the Dems try to work out a coherent strategy on the Roberts confirmation hearings and the war in Iraq. Right now I think Russ Feingold's strategy -- taking the heat off Roberts to focus on matters in Baghdad -- is probably the right one, although the party should also try to keep the public eye trained on the misdeeds of Mssrs DeLay, Rove, etc. There should be no wriggling off the hook this time for these well-placed GOP criminals.

"The film was to be a manifesto for Abramoff; a Rambo-like morality tale and a grand indictment of communism -- his Reagan Doctrine parable in action-packed Technicolor. And in the process of conceiving of and making it, Abramoff helped groom an African despot, rose to high levels in the K Street food chain, and got to play international spy." Salon's James Verini discloses the sordid tale of Red Scorpion and GOP bagman Jack Abramoff's brief flirtation with the movie biz.

"What they're looking for is how many names can they give -- and by names I mean members of Congress or other prominent people -- and what kind of message do they want to send." Republican lobbyist and Boss DeLay flunky "Casino Jack" Abramoff is indicted for conspiracy and wire fraud, paving the way for further inquiries into congressional criminality. Let's hope the prosecutors are able to sidestep the GOP powers-that-be and ascertain just how deep this rabbit hole goes...

"'I fully recognize that I showed poor judgment when I sold my home in Del Mar to a friend who did business with the government,' Cunningham told supporters." Um, yeah, for starters. As federal investigators close in on his several shady dealings (re: kickbacks and bribes) with defense contractors before his committee (as well as other ne'er-do-wells), Six-term congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA), who recently invoked the fallen of 9/11 to flog his flag-burning amendment, has announced he won't seek re-election in 2006. Good riddance...and take a gander, Boss DeLay.

"All the hand-wringing among Democrats about why liberals don't go to NASCAR races or duck hunts misses the fact that Tom DeLay and Bill Frist don't go to monster-truck night with the guys from Deliverance either. They hit the links at exclusive country clubs with rich donors and corporate lobbyists." Slate's Michael Crowley surveys the implications of the GOP's predisposition for golf. In related news, apparently Republicans aren't all that bad at baseball, either (which may help explain this.)

"The number of registered lobbyists in Washington has more than doubled since 2000 to more than 34,750 while the amount that lobbyists charge their new clients has increased by as much as 100 percent." One thing you can say about Dubya's tenure in the White House -- It's been gold rush days for corporate lobbyists. Among the cats getting fat in the GOP influence-peddling industry of late are Casino Jack Abramoff and DeLay flunky Michael Scanlon, who, as it turns out, had a special "gimme five" relationship they used to scam their clients and fraudulently line their pockets. Give 'em five-to-ten. Update: Tim Noah has more.

"In what Republican strategists call 'the DeLay effect,' questions plaguing House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) are starting to hurt his fellow party members, who are facing news coverage of their own trips and use of relatives on their campaign payrolls." Under fire from Dems around the country, the GOP begin to understand that their rampant ethical lapses may well carry a heavy political price. Will they cut Boss DeLay loose or sink with him into electoral ignominy come 2006? Either way, it's a win-win for the Dems, provided they start getting their own house in order and stop their dalliances with crooks like Casino Jack.

So, apparently Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA), Dubya's new pick to head the SEC, is -- wait for it -- yes, yet another right-wing freakshow, this time of the corporate stooge variety. "Mr. Cox - a devoted student of Ayn Rand, the high priestess of unfettered capitalism - has a long record in the House of promoting the agenda of business interests that are a cornerstone of the Republican Party's political and financial support. A major recipient of contributions from business groups, the accounting profession and Silicon Valley, he has fought against accounting rules that would give less favorable treatment to corporate mergers and executive stock options. He opposes taxes on dividends and capital gains. And he helped to steer through the House a bill making investor lawsuits more difficult."

After 30 years of funding all manner of right-wing agitprop, the John M. Olin Foundation closes its doors, thus answering the question, "What if It's a Wonderful Life had been about Old Man Potter instead of George Bailey?" "Without [Olin], the Federalist Society might not exist, nor its network of 35,000 conservative lawyers. Economic analysis might hold less sway in American courts. The premier idea factories of the right, from the Hoover Institution to the Heritage Foundation, would have lost millions of dollars in core support. And some classics of the conservative canon would have lost their financier, including Allan Bloom's lament of academic decline and Charles Murray's attacks on welfare."

So much for the Republican Revolution...The WP delves into Speaker Dennis Hastert's life high on the hog. "[U]nlike a long line of big spenders before him -- including such masters of pork-barrel politics as the late speaker Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill Jr. (D-Mass.) -- Hastert is a conservative Republican who favors smaller government and leaner domestic budgets. He has led the fight to enforce tough White House spending limits for the highway program and domestic spending bills, sometimes over the objections of GOP committee chairmen." Do as he says, not as he does.

In a civil case brought by ousted Texas Dems, a judge finds Bill Ceverha, treasurer of Tom DeLay's TRMPAC, in violation of state election laws by not reporting over $680,000 in campaign contributions. This case doesn't specifically involve Boss DeLay (although the related criminal proceedings well might), but it may bring public focus back to the Hammer, now that the nuclear standoff has been temporarily defused.

Speaking of "corporate lobbyists with close ties to House leaders," there's apparently a lot of them. So many, in fact, that in order to avoid an ethics meltdown that could ravage both parties (particularly, of course, the party in power), the House GOP is now looking to tighten up lobbying restrictions. "The officials stressed that the proposed rule changes and amnesty would not alter plans for...an investigation of reports that lobbyists paid for overseas travel by DeLay in violation of House rules."

As DeLay-connected Republican lobbyist "Casino Jack" Abramoff attempts some modicum of damage control in both Time and the Sunday NYT Magazine, the WP delves into the details of another federal investigation involving Abramoff, casino ships, and likely bank fraud.

"A House Republican leadership aide said that the automatic-dismissal rule is 'the rule that is most commonly believed to be designed to protect Tom DeLay' and that it was 'impossible to win the communications battle' on it." Sensing that the (lack of) ethics issue was causing them real damage, and perhaps perturbed by the recent revelations involving Casino Jack's credit card and gift-giving streak, the House GOP plan to rescind the recent rule change passed in January to protect Boss DeLay from any real ethics inquiry. Looks like palling around with Dubya yesterday didn't change the Hammer's fortunes much. Update: Hastert officially announces the rules changes.

"[I]f DeLay goes, there will be people in Washington congratulating themselves on having been part of a system that, once again, 'worked,' fumigating itself of an intruder who went too far and didn't accept the rules. Nonsense. The system isn't working by a long shot. If the system had worked, DeLay would have been exposed long ago -- first by the media, which would have done far more to reveal the ethical and procedural corruption of his regime, and second by moderate Republicans, who could have made a difference if they'd had the nerve, en bloc, to stand up and say something." The American Prospect's Michael Tomasky explains the sad structural reasons why Boss DeLay has managed to stick around for so long.

Another Smoking Gun? Casino Jack's credit card (and that of another prominent DeLay-connected lobbyist, Edwin A. Buckham), apparently paid for Boss DeLay's recent boondoggles to Britain, contradicting what the Hammer has earlier said about them being covered by non-profit organizations. The situation being what it is, this likely won't knock DeLay out by any means, despite its obvious and flagrant illegality...but it will add fuel to the fire? Inquiring minds want to know...

In the face of Boss DeLay's "Blame the Dems" PR offensive, Slate's Tim Noah once again spells out the Hammer's confessed bribery of Rep. Nick Smith step-by-step.

Meanwhile on the House side, Boss DeLay has responded to his recent problems by continuing to act like an inveterate jackass, including calling in the NRA as armed backup and badmouthing Justice Anthony Kennedy to anyone who'll listen on right-wing talk radio. Yet, instead of taking the Hammer to the woodshed, Dubya consigliere Karl Rove has taken Delay to his breast, calling him "a good man, a close ally of this administration." Well, ok, then, Karl, but don't complain when further inquiries into DeLay's corruption redound upon the White House, then.

Behind closed doors, Boss DeLay implores his fellow Republicans to blame all his problems on "the Democratic agenda." Yeah, that'll work.

"Tom's conduct is hurting the Republican Party, is hurting this Republican majority and it is hurting any Republican who is up for re-election." Calling Boss DeLay "an absolute embarrassment to me and the Republican Party," moderate Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) calls for the Hammer's removal. And even right-winger Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), forced to shore up his centrist cred for a tough 2006 reelection bid, now says DeLay has some questions to answer.

And here's even more trouble for the Hammer: The investigatory noose is tightening around "Casino Jack" Abramoff, a sleazeball GOP lobbyist of the first order and one of DeLay "closest and dearest friends." Can the DeLay Ring be saved? While the Dems may even want him around at this point, it doesn't look like it, not with Dubya already suffering terrible poll numbers. "'Within six months, Karl will force him out,' a senior administration official from the first term says."

American Airlines is not alone. "'Neither the House nor Senate offices responsible for keeping records on K Street's activities have audit or investigative powers,' said Roberta Baskin, the center's executive director. 'It is impossible, for example, to determine how many lobbyists there actually are in Washington.'" A report by the Center for Public Integrity finds that, while lobbying expenditures have doubled in the past six years, nobody in DC is minding the store.

Need a loan? Call American Airlines. By way of Drop the Hammer, a spokesman for the company rationalizes its $5000 donation to the Tom DeLay defense fund on the grounds that, despite laundering half a mill of PAC-money through his family over the past three years, the Hammer is "facing substantial legal bills that he was unable to pay personally because of their size and his limited resources." Aw, shucks, how nice of 'em. It's like something out of a Capra film, ain't it? Hopefully, American will be equally generous to the 500 workers they just laid off in Kansas City.

By the way, if you haven't been keeping up with Boss DeLay's recent shenanigans, Lou Dubose offers a concise overview in today's Salon, with further comment by David Paul Kuhn on the political fallout for the GOP and Joe Conason on previous DeLay family boondoggles.

Sorry, GOP'ers, you really should have dropped him when you had the chance. The WP unearths yet another lobbyist-financed boondoggle taken by the Hammer in recent years, while the NYT finds that Boss DeLay's PAC has paid his wife and kid over $500,000 since 2001. Didn't the 1994 Contract with America say something about restoring "accountability to Congress" and ending "its cycle of scandal and disgrace"? Well, if the Republican Party had any shred of credibility left, they'd start working on phasing out Tom DeLay immediately. But, sadly, no.

Update: DeLay's response? "[I]t's just another seedy attempt by the liberal media to embarrass me." Nice. Liberal media or no, I'd say you're doing a pretty bang-up job of embarrassing yourself, Tom. Unfortunately, you're bringing down the country with you...so it's time to go.

Speaking of the GOP pyramid, and in a move that should leave principled conservatives aghast, the right-wing base begins to organize behind Boss DeLay. The more you tighten your grip around a corrupt and hypocritical goon like the Hammer, y'all, the more voters will slip through your fingers.

"It is not quite the 'right wing conspiracy' that Hillary Clinton described, but it is an impressive organization built consciously, carefully and single-mindedly. The Ann Coulters and Grover Norquists don't want to be candidates for anything or cabinet officers for anyone. They know their roles and execute them because they're paid well and believe, I think, in what they're saying." By way of Blotter Spotter and The Late Adopter, Bill Bradley emerges from hiding to dissect the organizational problems of the Democratic Party. "If Democrats are serious about preparing for the next election or the next election after that, some influential Democrats will have to resist entrusting their dreams to individual candidates and instead make a commitment to build a stable pyramid from the base up. It will take at least a decade's commitment, and it won't come cheap. But there really is no other choice." I agree wholeheartedly...but to help build this pyramid, Senator Bradley, we need to hear much more from you more often.

"The point is, the other side has figured out how to win and to defeat the conservative movement, and that is to go after people personally, charge them with frivolous charges, link up with all these do-gooder organizations funded by George Soros, and then get the national media on their side." Boy, I wish it were that simple. Boss DeLay comes out swinging against the Dems, who he blames for everything from Terri Schiavo to the separation of church and state...oh, yeah, and his multiple ethics and fund-raising violations too.

It's been Extreme Makeover time lately for the GOP, with Antonin Scalia acting chummy in hopes of landing the Chief Justice spot, Boss DeLay dismissing the recent allegations of incessant boondogglery, Karen Hughes coming out of mothballs to sell the Islamic world on Dubya, and the administration trying to sell the rest of us on pre-packaged news. I'm not buying any of it.

"'If death comes from a thousand cuts, Tom DeLay is into a couple hundred, and it's getting up there,' said a Republican political consultant close to key lawmakers." Wait, isn't he with you? As the ethics charges mount, including another recently unearthed boondoggle paid for by gambling interests, GOP leaders start looking askance at The Hammer. It's all murmuring right now -- in public, the Republicans are circling the wagons. Still, these things have a way of turning quickly...

"'We always knew Tom DeLay was involved...but we never realized the extent to which he was involved in fund-raising directly with corporations.'" There doesn't seem to be a smoking gun just yet -- still, documents unearthed in the Ceverha trial in Texas suggest Boss DeLay was more involved than his cronies suggest in the daily procuring of corporate contributions for TRMPAC. Who would've thunk it? Update: The Ceverha trial aside, DeLay now also seems to be in a spot of trouble regarding an all-expenses-paid boondoggle to South Korea in 2001.

John McCain, to many the face of campaign finance reform in Washington, struggles to avoid the appearance of impropriety regarding recent donations by Cablevision to the Reform Institute, an independent group with ambiguous ties to the Senator. After his awful performance prostrating himself before Dubya in 2004, I've run sour on the mythical maverick -- to paraphrase Progressive era Senator George Norris (R-NB) speaking of his colleague William Borah (R-ID), McCain "shoots until he sees the whites of their eyes." But, still, he's campaign finance reform's biggest blue chip, and he should know better than to endanger the cause with this type of shadiness...particularly with anti-reform forces gunning for him. What would be plausible deniability for anyone else seems rather implausible coming from McCain, given his place at the head of the movement.

By way of Uncorked/Medley, a Federal Election Commissioner warns that political blogging may have to be regulated under the McCain-Feingold bill. Hmm. Well, obviously that wouldn't work. But, I get the sense that Bradley Smith, a GOP anti-campaign-finance ringer, knows this, and is raising the black flag of Internet Regulation just to get the blogosphere up in arms over McCain-Feingold in particular and campaign finance regulation in general. Well, I'm not biting. Sure, the FEC needs a new direction when it comes to addressing the Internet, but I highly doubt Agent Smith here is the guy to provide it. Better someone who at least recognizes the utility of and need for comprehensive campaign finance reform.

It may not get the press of the Michael Jackson case; nevertheless, the trial of Bill Ceverha, treasurer of Boss DeLay's Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC), began yesterday. So far, like a good little Pentangeli, Ceverha and his attorneys are distancing themselves from the Hammer...but we'll see what shakes out.

"'It's a bill that's going to significantly harm small consumers who want to hold large companies accountable for defrauding them,' said Frank Clemente, director of the Congress Watch division of the consumer group Public Citizen." So guess which side Dubya and the GOP were on? In the name of "tort reform" (and at the behest of their corporate overlords), the Senate GOP pass the Class Action Fairness Act, which moves state class action suits into the (less favorably disposed) federal court system. They did so after gunning down a series of Democratic amendments that tried to strike a more stable balance between private power and public accountability. Or would it have been too litigious to exempt cases brought by state attorneys general? We wouldn't want some aspiring Mr. Smith cutting in to Old Man Potter's profit margin, now, would we?

With the exit (Stage Right) of Martin Frost and multiple endorsements (including that of Clinton consigliere Harold Ickes), it now seems to most observers that Howard Dean has the DNC chair in the bag. (For their part, the GOP were already relentlessly on message: Said Rich Bond, "I think it's a scream.") While I'll admit that I can't speak knowledgably about all of the candidates' positions, to my mind Dean seems like a great choice for the post, one that will stir enthusiasm among the grass roots and move the party where it needs to go: towards an independent and progressive message that doesn't reek of Republican-lite, and a take-no-prisoners feistiness in every political race across the country. So, congrats to the Governor and his supporters -- now, the real work begins...

After the general post-election gloominess began to wear off near the end of last year (of course, it hasn't completely subsided -- at times, I think you can still see the cynicism emanating off me like little cartoon lines), I made it a resolution of sorts to start getting more involved in Dem organizing for this upcoming political cycle. So when some friends of mine (and founders of Concerts for Change) alerted me to their forum this evening on "Net Roots and the DNC," which included A-list lefty bloggers Atrios and Afro-Netizen, former Dean director Zephyr Teachout, Personal Democracy Forum editor Micah Sifry, and NY Dem Party higher-ups Judith Hope and Mark Green, I very quickly decided to go check it out.

All in all, it made for a partial yet intriguing glimpse into the State of the Party 2005, and one I found at turns dispiriting and encouraging (and far more often the latter.) The panel itself was decently engaging, with most of the discussion centered around the imminent battle for DNC chair. (While there were a number of Simon Rosenberg buttons among the attendees, the panel seemed to split between Dean enthusiasts and DNC agnostics, who felt the upcoming election wasn't of much import regardless of who wins.) There was also some discussion of the role left-leaning bloggers might play in helping to keep the media more attuned to right-wing spin jobs, but, alas, no one figured out how to square that circle just yet.

Former mayoral candidate and Nader Raider Mark Green, charismatic enough in that politico way, closed out the forum part of the evening with some clever but clearly canned remarks for the Young People into that Newfangled Technology stuff. (For example, he advised the crowd to "choose your mentors well," which, c'mon now, is the same hoary advice Strom Thurmond gave 1000 of us at Boys' State when I was 17 years old.) He also regaled us with a short US history lesson, which I'll give him a B+ on -- he was spot-on with George Washington plying his constituents-to-be with rum and George McGovern and direct mail, less so with the Lincoln the "real Log Cabin Republican" quip.)

As I said, I found some elements of the evening somewhat discouraging (and not just because I soon realized that my limited socializing skills at these sorts of things had further atrophied since entering academia.) For one, at times I felt the discussion seemed on the verge of degenerating into the worst kind of New Left-era identity politics, whereby the gender and ethnicity of the new DNC chair was somehow more important than his or her vision for the party. [This was driven home by a (white) fellow in the back hijacking the conversation at one point (does this sort of thing happen at GOP events? I always wonder) and loudly enumerating the few minorities in the room (By which he meant black people -- Latinos and South Asians went under the radar), all to suggest that the event was somehow a charade and a farce for its lack of proportional representation.]

This is not to say that issues of gender and ethnicity aren't absolutely central to our party's core principles, or that the all-white-male slate for DNC chair isn't a disappointment -- to suggest otherwise would be both neanderthal and imbecilic to the extreme...even, dare I say it, Summers-esque. But, to my mind, it's a question of focus. White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, male, female, straight, gay, or bisexual...we Dems just got our asses handed to us by the predominantly white male GOP. At a certain point -- hopefully soon -- we're going to have to learn to deemphasize these differences among us and reemphasize our commonality as left-leaning citizens of the republic, rising up together against the corporate-sponsored avarice, imperial ambitions, and narrow-minded bigotry of today's Republican Party. In other words and IMHO, rhetorically we need to start thinking 1933, and at times I heard way too much 1972 tonight.

(Also, and I know this is a goofy history-geek semantic distinction that I'll just have to get over, but people kept throwing around 'progressive' when they meant 'liberal.' Not the same, y'all.)

All that being said, however, my general impression of the evening was quite favorable, mostly because of the energy, exuberance, and organizational acumen on display from the attendees. We may have lost the recent battle in 2004, but much of the online community-building infrastructure seems intact...and, indeed, seems to be here for the duration. I was reminded of the recent scholarship on the rise of the New Right (by Lisa McGirr, Rick Perlstein, and Matthew Dallek, among others), which ably demonstrates how conservatives, soundly defeated in 1964, managed to capture the California governorship only two years later, once Reagan had replaced Goldwater at the top of the movement. For now, the wheels are definitely churning at the grass-roots level...if we can just get the party machinery in order, find a standard-bearer willing to abandon the protective camouflage, and, most importantly, work on a way to articulate our democratic values against the corporate ministrations of the GOP, we might actually get somewhere.

If nothing else, it speaks volumes that conservative direct-mail pioneer Richard Viguerie is worried about what he sees from the online left -- he's a guy who knows a thing or two about political organizing, and how quickly the worm can turn. Matt Drudge and GWB, we're coming for you.

Monica who? On the eve of Dubya II, Salon's Peter Dizikes offers a short but comprehensive list of this administration's scandals thus far. Thirty-four and counting...not that you'd know it from watching the evening news.

Just when it seemed the House GOP might be doing the right thing on the ethics question, the truth comes out -- Boss DeLay's boys have decided to work the system rather than explicitly subvert it. Case in point, the imminent ousting of DeLay opponent Joel Hefley (R-CO) from the House Ethics chair. "'I'm not naive enough to not know that there are some folks that are very upset with me because they think we were too harsh with DeLay,' Hefley said."

No doubt anticipating some kickback-heavy sessions in 2005, Tom DeLay and the Congressional GOP aim to eliminate several House ethics rules, among them the procedures for investigating complaints and the restrictions on free trips for relatives. "Government watchdog groups called the proposals startling and unjustified. If the proposed rules are adopted next week as GOP leaders suggest, they would amount to 'the biggest backtracking on House ethics rules that we have seen,' said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21." Update Sensing a PR nightmare on Day 1 of the new Congress, the GOP back down and void the recent Save-DeLay rule. Good for them.

"If establishment Democrats still fear Howard Dean, they ought to elect him chairman of the Democratic National Committee..." Following in the footsteps of such insightful political blogs as Value Judgment, Slate's Chris Suellentrop warns Dean to stay away from the DNC. "Ed Rendell was so frustrated with his job as DNC chairman during Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign that he complained to the New Republic, 'I basically take orders from 27-year-old guys in Nashville who have virtually no real-life experience. All they've done is been political consultants living in an artificial world, and basically their opinion counts more than mine.'" Heh.

"For years, the party has been led by elite Washington insiders who are closer to corporate lobbyists than they are to the Democratic base. But we can't afford four more years of leadership by a consulting class of professional election losers." While kicking Terry McAuliffe out the DNC door, MoveOn.org lays claim to the Democratic party. "We bought it, we own it, we're going to take it back."

A recent study by PoliticalMoneyLine confirms what we all know: corporations love them some GOP. "While many corporate PACs in the 1970s and 1980s sought to split campaign contributions between candidates of both parties, the new study found that more than a quarter of the large corporate PACs gave at least $3 to Republican candidates for every $1 to Democrats."

Hope is on the...wait, what's this? Oops, sorry about that. Turns out Hope took a wrong turn and got lost somewhere back there in Idiotville. Welcome to Despairtown, baby.

So, that's that, then...the Idiot Wind blows anew. The American electorate has spoken and -- despite all the shadiness and incompetence of the past four years -- has given Dubya and his cronies the imprimatur to go hog-wild. 51-48%...this is pretty much a mandate, folks. (Big of those Red Staters to ensure that we will be woefully unprepared for the next terrorist attack on a Blue State.) Y'know, H.L. Mencken's whole Tyranny of the Booboisie schtick has always grated on my lefty sensibilities, but at this point I have to admit he may have been on to something.

Ugh. I'm too young to remember 1984 very well, but I'm curious as to how last night and this morning compared for America's Left. (I've since been reminded by several people I trust that 1968 and 1972 were much more grievous blows.) Thing is, 2004 started out with such promise over here. But, right around the time I ended up on crutches in May, events personal and political took a nasty turn, and the past few months have been some of the most dismal I can remember. Now, it seems, I may just look back on this time as relatively calm and worry-free.

But, ok, enough wallowing...let's start taking it frame-by-frame. Given the war, the economy, and Dubya's obvious incompetence, how on Earth did we lose this election? Well, give credit where credit is due...all this exit-talk of "moral values" proves that Karl Rove pulled off his gambit: He got the extra 4 million evangelical votes he was targeting, partly, it seems, by judiciously invoking rampant anti-gay hysteria. Yet, for some reason or another -- a lousy ground game, perhaps? -- the Dems inexplicably didn't counter with extra votes of our own.

Where do we go from here? The Dems are facing an ugly Rule of Four...We lost four seats in the Senate, at least four seats in the House, and likely four seats in the Supreme Court. Whatsmore, we now appear officially dead in the water in the South and Midwest. And, with Kerry and Daschle gone, our standard-bearers now appear to be Hillary Clinton (about whom the country has already made up its mind), John Edwards (whom I still admire, but he couldn't carry his home state), and Barrack Obama (who's probably too inexperienced to make much headway in 2008.)

Obviously, it's now well past time for the serious party overhaul we should've began last cycle, when Al Gore had an election stolen from him that he should have won hands down. Daschle & Gephardt are already in the dustbin of history, and Terry McAuliffe should probably follow them there. I for one don't think Howard Dean was or is the answer, but he's one of the only people injecting new blood and enthusiasm into the party right now, so he should have a seat at the table. Right now, I think Edwardsian populism is our strongest ideological card, but as I said, it didn't seem to make much headway last night.

Silver lining? Yeah, right. Well, as this Washington Monthly forum noted in September, second terms are notoriously scandal-prone (Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica), partly out of press boredom, and Dubya's ilk seem particularly scandal-worthy...perhaps we'll finally hear a little more about Halliburton. I'm sure there'll be no shortage of horrifying policy decisions emanating from this administration that'll keep lefty blogs like this one in business. And, on a purely selfish note, my likely dissertation topic on the fortunes of progressivism in the twenties is now seeming much more sexy in the wake of last night's 1928-like cultural divide. Of course, none of these are really any consolation at all.

At any rate, I generally believe that America tends to get the president it deserves. So, God help us, we've brought this upon ourselves. And now, for we 48%, the hard work begins...we have to lick our wounds, get our act together, and figure out how we can best combat the rightward drift that's afflicting our nation. Alas, I fear Dubya will do much of the heavy lifting for us, by running the nation further into the ground over the next four years. Still, we gotta keep on keeping on, y'all. I do not believe this darkness will endure.

"'There's not a chance in the world, I don't think, of the House turning over,' political analyst Charles E. Cook Jr. said last week." The Post examines Democratic prospects in the House and finds that "the combination of Republican firepower, Democratic miscues and a controversial Republican redistricting plan in Texas virtually assures the continuation of GOP rule."

"Senator Charles E. Grassley needed every possible vote to pass his mammoth corporate tax bill. So he was more than willing to accept Zell Miller's plea on behalf of imported ceiling fans...[This] provision is just one tiny example of how the need to solve a narrow tax problem in 2002 gave birth to the biggest free-for-all in corporate lobbying that Congress has experienced in nearly 20 years." The NYT conducts a post-mortem of the pork-bloated corporate tax legislation passed by Congress on Monday.

Looking to recess in time for some electioneering, the House and Senate both pass a pork-swollen corporate tax measure by comfortable margins. "[C]ritics -- including budget watchdogs, liberal activists and Treasury Secretary John W. Snow -- decried what they saw as a cornucopia of special-interest tax cuts that would complicate the tax code, favor companies doing business overseas and ultimately worsen the budget deficit. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) pronounced it 'disgraceful' and 'a classic example of the special interests prevailing over the people's interest.'"

Tim Noah of Slate continues to connect the dots of Tom DeLay's attempted bribery of fellow congressman Nick Smith.

"The 50-50 split is not between Democrats and Republicans, but those who vote and those who don't. That's right: nearly 50% of eligible voters chose not to vote in 2000. The underlying challenge of our democracy is to change this non-participation and to ensure that the core values of citizenship and active participation in the electoral process overshadow the domination of big money and corporate power." Sent to me by Chris at Do You Feel Loved, the inimitable Bill Bradley emerges from hiding to admire the Vote for Change tour in USA Today.

No more DeLay? As allegations of corruption swirl closer to the House Majority Leader's roost, Salon reports that the Exterminator's empire may soon be ending.

"In recent weeks, federal agencies across the vast Washington bureaucracy have delayed completion of a range of proposed regulations from food safety and the environment to corporate governance and telecommunications policy until after Election Day, when regulatory action may be more politically palatable." Apparently, the Bushies have prepared an onslaught of awful legislation that they're hiding from us until November 3. While this tends to happen every to some extent every election year, notes Consumers Union director Gene Kimmelman, "'[w]hat is unusual this time...is the clear pattern of holding back regulatory decisions that will benefit the largest industry players and will drive up prices and market place risks for consumers, ranging from telephones to drugs to the risks of contaminants of food. The pattern of slow rolling will ultimately benefit the largest players and hit consumers in the pocketbook.'" Oh, swell.

At the behest of McCain-Feingold's backers, a federal judge eliminates 15 of 19 FEC rules designed to gut the 2002 campaign finance law. "'We began to wonder what law they were implementing,' [Congressman Chris] Shays said. "They were simply trying to rewrite the law to weaken it and put in loopholes.' Obviously, this decision is coming too late to affect this election cycle much, but perhaps we'll be able to get a honest sense of McCain-Feingold's impact in stemming corruption during the 2006 midterms. Update: As you might expect, the FEC will appeal the decision.

"What has emerged is the outline of an effort to use corporate contributions to control representative democracy in Texas." You think? Three members of the DeLay machine are indicted for illegal fundraising, and the Exterminator is -- naturally -- blaming it all on the Democrats. "'This is 41 days before the election. You do the political math,' DeLay said. 'People see this for what it is.'" Well, I see it as the first step in you going down, sucka. Update: The GOP circle the wagons.

"The system's key vulnerability is that county election workers or others with access to the machines could type in a two-digit code and create a second set of results that would then be forwarded to the state as the county's official tally, said Bev Harris, one of the activists who filed the case." The State of California joins a lawsuit against Diebold Election Systems, the voting machine maker whose chief executive declared in 2003 that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." Now, doesn't that seem like a strange Easter Egg to include in your voting machine? Between this and the Omega-DoD fiasco, the GOP endgame is starting to sound shady.

"Democracy matters are frightening in our time precisely because the three dominant dogmas of free-market fundamentalism, aggressive militarism, and escalating authoritarianism are snuffing out the democratic impulses that are so vital for the deepening and spread of democracy in the world. In short, we are experiencing the sad American imperial devouring of American democracy." By way of Rebecca's Pocket and DangerousMeta, Princeton philosopher (and Matrix Elder) Cornel West weighs in on the dangers of Dubyaism.

Of course, there are some New Yorkers happy to see the GOP here, namely the finance types. "[T]he firms, which lean Republican in their political giving, are eager to show their gratitude to President Bush and GOP lawmakers for enacting legislation providing billions of dollars in tax and other benefits to their industry and for Bush's pledge to seek even deeper tax cuts." Yeah, I bet they are. Well, at least the GOP does in fact support their corporate "values"...In fact, Wall Street may be one of the few groups of self-professed Republicans around the country that aren't being lied to constantly by the Bushies.

"You are the heirs of one of the country's great traditions -- the progressive movement that started late in the l9th century and remade the American experience piece by piece until it peaked in the last third of the 20th century...Its aim was to keep blood pumping through the veins of democracy when others were ready to call in the mortician...While the social dislocations and meanness that galvanized progressives in the 19th century are resurgent, so is the vision of justice, fairness, and equality. That's a powerful combination if only there are people around to fight for it. The battle to renew democracy has enormous resources to call upon - and great precedents for inspiration."

By way of a friend of mine, Bill Moyers recounts the Progressive Story of America. The whole thing's worth a read...and I for one think it's great to hear the Progressives get their due. (Along the same lines, this month's Prospect has a special report entitled "A New Progressive Era?", with contributions from, among others, Sean Wilentz, James MacGregor Burns, and John Podesta.) Progressives take a lot of flak in the Academy, some justified (they were silent on lynching and generally really lousy on race), some not (ridiculous amounts of ink has been spilled lambasting them for being middle-class, bureaucratic, and/or unSocialist.)

"This is a fight about freedom--the freedom of independent entrepreneurs to start and run a media business, and the freedom of citizens to get news, information, and entertainment from a wide variety of sources, at least some of which are truly independent and not run by people facing the pressure of quarterly earnings reports. No one should underestimate the danger." Fed up to the gills, Ted Turner takes on Big Media in the Washington Monthly.

Well, thank goodness the GOP Congress has finally done something to alleviate the financial burden of sports team ownership in this country. When I think of all the pain, misery, and degradation that Mark Cuban, George Steinbrenner, and other multi-millionaires have been subjected to by the tax code of late, my heart just sickens. Now hopefully Congress will turn their attention to eliminating the IRS entirely, and I'll be able to sleep knowing that no corporate CEO or energy baron will ever again be unduly harrassed in this great nation.

Speaking of the conservative fringe, investigations into Enron have produced more evidence of corporate fundraising shadiness by the DeLay machine in Texas. This guy has got to go, already.

Meanwhile, Dubya has less to say about a sweetheart corporate tax package being pushed through Congress by the GOP, one that offers ridiculous handouts to various Republican-leaning business special interests. "[W]hat started as an effort to repeal a $5 billion-a-year subsidy has grown into one of the most significant corporate tax measures in years. The Senate bill, 980 pages long, includes more than $167 billion in business tax cuts over 10 years, handing out favors to NASCAR racetracks, foreign dog-race gamblers, Oldsmobile dealers and bow-and-arrow makers, to name a few." Hmmm...might be time to invest in bow-and-arrow futures. Update: The bill passes the House.

Typical. Despite being oversight-crazy during the Clinton era, the Congressional GOP refuses to hold hearings about the "smoking gun" e-mail connecting Cheney's office to a sweetheart Halliburton deal in Iraq. (And, as with the energy probe, Cheney's office is stonewalling.) Good lord, what shadiness...is there no level below which these guys won't stoop? Once again, the Bush administration and its Congressional cronies have proved themselves a national embarrassment of historic proportions.

Continuing his recent spate of bizarre pronouncements, Zell Miller calls for repeal of the 17th Amendment, as apparently the direct election of senators is the primary cause for the domination of special interests in Washington these days. Well, the principle of federalism aside, it's hard to take seriously any such special interest prescription from a guy like Zell, who's gone so far out of his way to prostrate himself before Dubya and his cadre of corporate cronies. Sorry Zell...it's Miller time no longer.

Clandestine oil deals with the Saudis, secret (and quite probably) illegal misappropriation of anti-terrorism funds, Bob Woodward's confirmation that Richard Clarke was right despite the Bushies' smear machine...no matter how you cut it, the news coming out of the White House these days looks grimmer and grimmer. Now Dubya is actually running on the Patriot Act, of all things, and yet his poll numbers are rising?! I'm going to chalk up this latest bounce to sheer GOP cash flow (a funding discrepancy soon to change) and the post-primary press lull for Kerry. But, still, I find it hard to believe that anybody of an independent disposition can look at what's going on in Washington these days and in good conscience vote for Dubya. This joker can't handle the 9/11 commission without Cheney by his side, and he can't even face the national press without begging to see the questions in advance. Why on Earth would anyone think this fool should stay in office? Inept and corrupt, Bush is easily the worst president America has seen since Warren G. Harding. In fact, he's probably worse. Where's the outrage?


Dubya and his cronies have coasted on the "soft bigotry of low expectations" long enough...let's vote out these guys, already.

Tom De Lay's homegrown PAC, Texans for a Republican Majority, comes under scrutiny for misusing corporate donations. I never would have guessed. In semi-related news, the Senate GOP feels the heat from the soon-to-be-concluded investigation into stolen Dem documents. Lie, cheat, steal...all in a day's work for today's Republican Party.

Reformers rejoice as interest groups on the left and right sputter to make sense of the brave new McCain-Feingold world. Everyone seems to agree that McConnell v. FEC is both a surprisingly bold decision and bad news for the Dems in the short term. Well, so be it. With the Supreme Court finally admitting that dollars debase democracy, the door is now open for tougher campaign finance laws in the very near future.

By a vote of 5-4 (Justice O'Connor the swing vote as expected), the Supreme Court upheld the McCain-Feingold soft-money ban today in McConnell v. FEC. Well, Scalia may call this a "sad day for the freedom of speech," but I for one think this is great, great news. "Money, like water, will always find an outlet," as the majority put it, but at least the highest Court in the land has now recognized the corrosive impact of unregulated loot on the political process. This decision will hopefully do much to disentangle the pernicious conflation of speech and money in Buckley v. Valeo, and set the stage for continued meaningful campaign finance reform in the years to come. While McConnell v. FEC doesn't eliminate the bad taste of Bush v. Gore, it is a huge step in the right direction by this Court.

As Dubya continues to fill his coffers to combat the growing threat posed by Howard Dean, George Soros rides to the rescue of the Dems once again. As with Dean's recent decision, I'm feeling a bit ambivalent about what all this means for campaign finance (particularly at a time when some states are cancelling primaries), but I think most of the time Soros is on the side of the angels, and it is good to have someone to stand against the Montgomery Burnses and Richard Mellon Scaifes of this world.

As Dean tries to move on by belatedly apologizing for his confederate flag snafu, he is rewarded with an endorsement from the SEIU (and likely the AFSCME), some of the largest unions in the AFL-CIO. (At this point, that sucking sound you hear is Dick Gephardt's campaign folding in on itself.) Dean -- now indisputably the front-runner, and one who's starting to flirt with inevitability -- has also started weighing whether or not to opt out of public financing. Well, while it's hard to envision a scenario where Dean (or any other Dem) could remain competitive in the general if they do accept public financing (unless they struck a deal with Dubya, which is unlikely to the extreme), this moment does in some way sadly represent the death knell of the current campaign finance system. Perhaps something for the Court to consider in their McCain-Feingold deliberations.

John McCain handicaps the Democratic field, and balks at comparisons to Dean. I dunno...a real "straight-talker" would call out Dubya a little more, I should think, particularly given the President's recent lapses in foreign affairs. Elsewhere, Wesley Clark gets in hot water for giving paid campaign speeches. What with yesterday's resignation, this is another indicator of a troubling lack of oversight over in Camp Clark. While he's still getting good press for the moment, I'd think that eventually these types of avoidable gaffes are going to add up to trouble for the General.

In other campaign news, Bush outtpaced Dean -- the leading Democratic fund-raiser -- by a factor of three in the past three months, and has now raised $82.5 million for his 2004 campaign. No money for jobs, no money for rebuilding Iraq...but plenty to go around for Dubya's re-election. Go figure.

As noted yesterday, the Court heard arguments this morning on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold). And, in spite of reformers' earlier hopes, it seems Chief Justice Rehnquist was predisposed against the law, meaning that the fateful decision is probably in the hands of Justice O'Connor, as per usual. Politically speaking, I'd think this Court would have to uphold reform after thrusting themselves so deeply into the Bush v. Gore fiasco, but I guess we'll see. (Speaking of which, on a side note, conservative zealot Ted Olsen apparently referred to his friend and fellow Richard Mellon Scaife patron Ken Starr as "Justice Starr" during the proceedings, telling him he'll "have to wait" for his spot on the bench. Sorry, Ken, not in a million years.)

Tomorrow, McCain-Feingold finally gets its day in court. For the plaintiffs (aiming to kill the legislation for Big Money), our old friend Ken Starr. For the government (nominally committed to the bill), Ted Olsen. For the reforms, former Clinton Solicitor General Seth Waxman. All in all, it should be a doozy..if I had my druthers, of course, the Court will not only uphold McCain-Feingold but revisit the "money = protected speech" formulation drawn in Buckley v. Valeo. In terms of constitutional principle, it's one person, one vote...dollars shouldn't enter the equation.

As McCain-Feingold nears its day in court, advocates and opponents of reform look to Chief Justice Rehnquist as a major swing vote (along with Justice O'Connor). Hmmm...I have to say I don't have much faith in Rehnquist's jurisprudence at this point, but perhaps he'll surprise me.

Hmmm. Apparently FirstEnergy, the Ohio company at the heart of the blackout investigations, is headed by major Dubya donors. Why am I not surprised?

Campaign Update: While Howard Dean enjoys a very good press week, a flailing Joe Lieberman rails against the Left (and calls Dean a "ticket to nowhere.") How utterly self-serving. Meanwhile, although it's nothing compared to Dubya's, John Edwards prepares to capitalize on his own considerable war chest.

"Tom DeLay is the king of congressional influence-money. In DeLay's world, the operating rule is you have to pay to play." Democracy 21 takes a comprehensive look at the Exterminator's money machine, and it ain't pretty.

So that's how Dubya raised so much loot. According to a front page story in tomorrow's Post, at least six GOP Attorneys General apparently used their clout to extort campaign contributions from corporations under their thumb. Looks like the Republicans learned a thing or two from Tammany Hall...this behavior reeks of bossism.

Campaign finance reformers, among them McCain, Feingold, Shays, and Meehan, set their sights on the FEC. If nothing else, a commission with an even-number of members seems designed to benefit the status quo.

Good news for Team Dean - The Vermont Governor has entered the top tier of Dems in campaign fundraising, and he's done it without prostrating himself before fatcats. However one feels about Dean, he's a candidate who should be taken seriously by the Dems - it's good to know that, whatever happens, he can't be priced out of the nomination battle by a Kerry, Gephardt, or Lieberman. Ideas, not money, will hopefully decide the day.

The Supreme Court votes 7-2 (Scalia and Thomas dissenting, of course) to reject non-profit exemptions from campaign finance laws. While critics of reform are arguing otherwise, I'd think this bodes very well for McCain-Feingold, which will be taken up in the fall.

This is not good. Apparently, Chellie Pingree, the President of Common Cause, is being investigated for campaign finance shenanigans. I have to agree with the FEC attorney on this one - even on the off-chance that Pingree didn't try to circumvent the law, why on earth was the president of CC soliciting soft money anyway? It sounds like the organization is backing Pingree, when the best thing would be to let her dangle. If you're trying to eliminate soft money from politics, it's probably best to choose a leader who hasn't begged for it in the past.

Speaking of the Exterminator, his successor as Majority Whip - Roy Blunt - has recently illustrated De Lay-levels of corruption with his attempt to protect Phillip Morris from terrorism in the Homeland Security Act. "Blunt's attempt became known only to a small circle of House and White House officials. They kept it quiet, preferring no publicity on a matter involving favors for the nation's biggest tobacco company and possible claims of conflicts of interest." Strange how the GOP always seems to promote its sketchiest members to the whip.

In suspending their recent convoluted ruling on McCain-Feingold today until the Supreme Court has a go, the DC District Court once again puts a halt to soft money fundraising for the time-being. No word yet if this stay will accelerate the timetable for the Supremes hearing the case.

Exhibiting yet again the Dubya administration's flair for hypocrisy, recent documents reveal that Dubya's top three fundraisers in 2000 were made Ambassadors of Switzerland, the Slovak Republic, and France respectively. Well, as long as they didn't take tea in the Lincoln bedroom, I'm sure everything checks out.

In the longest and most complicated opinion in its history, the US District Court for DC struck down some of the McCain-Feingold bill yesterday, while still upholding some of its key legal premises. While this convoluted decision opens the door for the rapacious campaign days of yore, it also sets the stage for a definitive Supreme Court decision in the Spring. Looks like Rehnquist and co. will get a chance to atone at least partially for Bush v. Gore.

A Texas D.A. has achieved what once seemed impossible: getting the Exterminator to shut up. GOP freakshow and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay remains mum on reports that one of his PACs is on the wrong side of the law. Another story that hopefully doesn't get lost in the crevasses between war coverage.

Much to their chagrin, political party ops and fundraisers go to "school" to try and figure out how to navigate (around) McCain-Feingold. It's kinda sad how many reps are quoted as saying variations of "Wow, if I had known this bill was really going to stop us from getting all that money, I never would have voted for it."

Follow the money...as it turns out, a six-figure GOP donor stood quite a bit to gain from Tom Ridge's recent hawking of duct tape. (Via Medley.) Of course, if this type of thing had happened during Clinton's watch, Dan Burton would have already opened a House investigation by now.

After eight years of (theoretical) belt-tightening, Congress guts its own gift ban, allowing congressional and corporate fatcats to frolic anew at golf courses and Wizards games all over DC. I mean, what's the point of being a Congressperson if you can't get all kinds of free schwag?

In related news, John Kerry currently leads the fundraising race among Democrats, although the as-yet-unannounced Dick Gephardt is relatively close. Like Daschle, I'd think Gephardt would serve the party better as a much-needed progressive flak, taking the heat off more viable candidates like Kerry and Edwards. But Gephardt has desired the Presidency for so long that I doubt he'll let the race pass him by this time.

The legal battle over McCain-Feingold began today, with some strange bedfellows fighting for and against the soft money ban. I bet you can guess which side Ken Starr is on, though.

Six weeks before McCain-Feingold is enacted, Republicans and Democrats are begging for money like it's going out of style.

Dubya sets a new (and dubious) record for raising midterm campaign cash. "There's some senators up there who would rather listen to special interests in Washington, D.C., than listen to the voice of the people," Bush told Republicans in Little Rock. "There are senators who would rather give us a rule book this thick about how we have to behave, and what we must do to protect the homeland than to trust any administration for protecting America." THAT's his speel? I've heard better, more plausible stuff on late-night infomercials. I guess if you're a GOP bigshot and you've already thrown lots of money Dubya's way, all you can really do at this point is protect your investment.

Despite the recent economic travails and the passage of McCain-Feingold (which takes effect after this election cycle), both the GOP and the Dems are awash in campaign cash for 2002. I'm curious to see what kind of dent McCain-Feingold puts in this sort of behavior, if only for a while.

Congressional Quarterly analyzes the possible impact of McCain-Feingold.

Frustrated by the FEC gutting of campaign finance reform last week, John McCain promises to hold up FEC appointments in the Senate until a more reform-sympathetic panel is appointed. Turns out Dubya's kept a ringer on the panel a year beyond his term, Democrat Karl Sandstrom, expressly for the purpose of stifling reform. (He appointed a new Republican to the FEC in March.) Hmmm...why am I picturing Karl Rove and Mitch McConnell in a smoke-filled room?

"You have so tortured this law, it's beyond silly," Let the gutting commence. By a vote of 5-to-1, the FEC approves exemptions in McCain-Feingold that already have the interest groups smiling. This is not good.

A study by Public Citizen finds that McCain-Feingold will benefit liberals in the short-term more than anyone else. I'm sure the GOP will have something to say about that.

McCain-Feingold draws fire from liberal interest groups for choking off their money supply. Well, that was kinda the point, wasn't it?

Speaking of the man in question, special-interest PACS look to carve their niche after McCain-Feingold. Alas, according to this report, they'll still do quite swimmingly.

The Democratic Party prepares for the McCain-Feingold era.