Recently in Lobbying Reform Category

The case against him has been building for awhile...and, today, the Hulk tie finally failed him. Longtime GOP Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) -- he of the "Bridge to Nowhere," terrorist wife, cocaine-fighting Eskimos and "series of tubes" -- is indicted with seven counts of making false statements on his financial disclosure forms. "The indictment accuses Stevens, former chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, of concealing payments of more than $250,000 in goods and services he allegedly received from an oil company. The items include home improvements, autos and household items."

Sen. Stevens is up for re-election this year, but given that he was already losing in the polls against the Dem challenger, Mark Begich, it's a good bet his stepping down early will only help the GOP...if they can find someone to take his place in time (and if Stevens plays ball.)

"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.'"

"I need to know if Stayman is a career or a political appointee...I think we can do something about it, but I'm trying to figure out what is the best way to go about it. I don't want a firing scandal on our hands." An e-mail trail published by the Washington Post illustrates how Casino Jack Abramoff used the Dubya White House to remove his enemies, in this case a State Department aide advocating labor reforms in the Northern Marianas. (" Abramoff's clients wanted to keep paying immigrants less than the federal minimum wage to work in textile factories.")

"'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...

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?

"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."

Republican ex-Congressman and lobbyist Tom Siljander is indicted for money laundering, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy, based on his ties with the allegedly terrorist-connected Islamic American Relief Agency (IARA). "According to the indictment, the money was stolen from the U.S. Agency for International Development, and Siljander lied to federal agents about his role." He is apparently pleading not-guilty. "Siljander, a favorite of religious conservatives, declared war on abortion, pornography, the Equal Rights Amendment and school busing. But he lost his 1986 reelection bid after urging clergy members to support him in order to 'break the back of Satan.'"

"'People should be very careful to make sure that monitorships do not become political plums,' said Breeden, who stressed that he was not speaking about specific cases. 'The key is the person who is monitor has to have a very good understanding of the business they're dealing in.'" It's gotten so bad in Washington, even the government-appointed watchdogs might be on the make. According to a page 1 story in today's WP, "[f]ederal prosecutors are steering no-bid contracts to former government officials who earn millions of dollars by monitoring companies accused of cheating investors and other schemes...The lucrative arrangements are known as 'monitorships,' unusual contracts in which an outsider comes into a troubled company with vast power to expose corruption and change business practices."

Among the former officials in question, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was recently put in charge of a $25 million deal to clean up kickbacks happening at the medical supply company Zimmer -- no doubt because of his wide-ranging understanding of medical implant devices. "To prepare for the assignment and learn more about the business, Ashcroft said he recently watched as a replacement knee made by Zimmer was implanted in a cadaver." Well, now he's an expert...give him the check.

"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.

"'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.

Only one year after his re-election (and five years after his Strom Thurmond moment of candor), GOP Senator and former Majority Leader Trent Lott announces he's resigning from office at the end of this year. [Announcement.] Why so soon? "Lott said that he was going to move into the private sector after 35 years in Congress, but denied that he was getting out before a new two-year 'cooling-off' restriction takes effect on Jan. 1. The restriction bars lawmakers from taking lobbying jobs for two years after they leave public service."

"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."

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."

"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."

Where does the GOP's commitment to free market fundamentalism reach its limit? Where there's money to be made, of course. The Post looks into the rise of no-bid contracts under Dubya. "A recent congressional report estimated that federal spending on contracts awarded without 'full and open' competition has tripled, to $207 billion, since 2000, with a $60 billion increase last year alone."

It played its part against the Barksdale operation in Baltimore. Now it seems an undercover wire may have helped bring down GOP rep and Abramoff flunky Bob Ney. "'Heaton's substantial assistance in the investigation and prosecution of Ney was critical to Ney's decision to admit his involvement in the corrupt relationship with Abramoff,' Butler wrote. 'The tapes made by Heaton captured important circumstantial evidence that statements Ney had made to others about matters material to the investigation were false or intentionally misleading.'"

"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.'"

"'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.

"Given the State Department's $32 billion budget, an additional $1 million for food hardly ranks as a major scandal. But this tangled tale of how an Alaskan tribal company ended up in a South American tropical forest sheds an illuminating spotlight on the often-secretive world of federal contracting, an area