Recently in Lobbying Reform Category

"'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.

"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.

"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?

"As a society, we trust doctors to be more concerned with the pulse of their patients than the pulse of commerce. Yet the American Medical Association is using that trust to try to block a robust public insurance option as part of health reform. In fact the A.M.A. now represents only 19 percent of practicing physicians...Its membership has declined in part because of its embarrassing historical record: the A.M.A. supported segregation, opposed President Harry Truman's plans for national health insurance, backed tobacco, denounced Medicare and opposed President Bill Clinton's health reform plan."

And don't forget Sheppard-Towner: In his column this week, Nicholas Kristof take aim at the powerful American Medical Association. "'They've always been on the wrong side of things,' Dr. Scheiner told me, speaking of the A.M.A. 'They may be protecting their interests, but they're not protecting the interests of the American public.'"

"When 22 senators started working over the first health care overhaul bill on June 17, the news cameras were pointed at them -- except for NPR's photographer, who turned his lens on the lobbyists. Whatever bill emerges from Congress will affect one-sixth of the economy, and stakeholders have mobilized. We've begun to identify some of the faces in the hearing room, and we want to keep the process going." Clever, clever: Also on the health care front, an NPR photographer initiates a game of find-the-health-care-lobbyist. "Know someone in these photos? Let us know who that someone is."

"'Taxpayers are subsidizing a legislative agenda that is inimical to their interests and offensive to what the whole TARP program is about,; said William Patterson, executive director of CtW Investment Group, an activist group affiliated with a coalition of labor unions. 'It's business as usual with taxpayers picking up the bill." Sigh. The WP's Dan Eggen reports on GM and a host of financial firms using bailout money to lobby for the status quo. "Major recipients of federal bailout money spent more than $10 million to lobby lawmakers in the first three months of 2009, including arguing against pay limits for corporate executives, according to newly filed disclosure records."

"'It's the deepest kind of corruption,' said a recently retired longtime national security official who was closely involved in the AIPAC investigation, 'which was years in the making. It's a story about the corruption of government -- not legal corruption necessarily, but ethical corruption." In a fascinating (and depressing) must-read, Congressional Quarterly's Jeff Stein lays bare a byzantine corruption scandal involving AIPAC, the Dubya WH, and Jane Harman, former Democratic chair of the House Intelligence Committee and, some grumbling aside, basically a "team player" for Dubya during the illegal and warrantless wiretaps episode. (Irony of ironies, it appears Harman's misdeeds were caught on -- a court-approved -- wiretap.)

Talking Points Memo offers a handy timeline of the case here. Basically, on one level it's your basic political quid-pro-quo. Harman told an unnamed suspected Israeli agent that she would "waddle into" a federal espionage case then extant against two members of AIPAC and gum up the works somehow. In return, "the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi...to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections." (It didn't take: Pelosi instead chose Silvestre Reyes.) "Seemingly wary of what she had just agreed to, according to an official who read the NSA transcript, Harman hung up after saying, 'This conversation doesn't exist.'"

Sordid enough. But what's a mid-oughts scandal without the Dubya angle? After she had been caught on said wiretap, a federal investigation into Harman was approved...for awhile. But it seems Attorney General Alberto Gonzales now knew he had Harman in his pocket, and took advantage accordingly. "According to two officials privy to the events, Gonzales said he 'needed Jane' to help support the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to be exposed by the New York Times. Harman, he told [CIA Director Porter] Goss, had helped persuade the newspaper to hold the wiretap story before, on the eve of the 2004 elections. And although it was too late to stop the Times from publishing now, she could be counted on again to help defend the program. He was right. On Dec. 21, 2005, in the midst of a firestorm of criticism about the wiretaps, Harman issued a statement defending the operation and slamming the Times, saying, 'I believe it essential to U.S. national security, and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.'"

Not that I need to remind anyone here, but Dubya's use of illegal and warrantless wiretaps would, in more cases, be recognized as an impeachable offense. As it was, the Senate GOP (then in the catbird seat) held firm against hearings, and many of our congressional Dems -- Feingold, Leahy, and a few other lonely souls notwithstanding -- folded like a house of cards. Now, at least in the case of Harman, we know why.

Update: The NYT weighs in with their side, and it's TLDR'ed by TPM. And Salon's Glenn Greenwald has a good bit of snarky fun with Harman's recent "road to Damascus" moment regarding wiretaps.

"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."

"Mr. Holder said in a statement that 'I have concluded that certain information should have been provided to the defense for use at trial.'" Hmmm. Why does Clay Davis come to mind? After discovering that agents at Justice and the FBI tried to frame a guilty man, as it were, Attorney General Eric Holder drops the prosecution of 85-year-old former Senator Ted Stevens. "The collapse of the Stevens case was a profound embarrassment for the Justice Department, and it raised troubling issues about the integrity of the actions of prosecutors who wield enormous power over people they investigate." Uh, ok...but why aren't we seeing this judicious, otherwise laudable commitment to fair play when it comes to state secrets and victims of extraordinary rendition?

At any rate, as official Washington rushes to embrace Stevens once more, let's keep the big picture in mind: "[E]ven leaving criminal wrongdoing aside, no one disputes that Stevens accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of home renovations and gifts (remember that massage chair?) from a supporter who had a slew of business interests that Stevens was in a position to affect as a powerful federal lawmaker and appropriator. That's what we call 'corrupt'. As Melanie Sloan of Citiziens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington put it, according to The Hill's paraphrase: 'Holder's decision in no way should be viewed as a vindication of Stevens but rather as an indictment of the Justice Department's inability to do one of its most important jobs.'" True, that.

Here's one to grow on: If you're looking to represent the little people by taking on a cabinet position in our nation's government, please deign to pay the taxes you owe on your chauffeurs, nannies, sinecures, and assorted other luxuries. Thanks much.

Also, for what it's worth, I guess it's possible that Tom Daschle was really God's Gift to Health Care Reform, as he was recently made out to be when his nomination tanked. (His ideas seem solid, but, his book aside, we didn't see that much of that side of him when he was Harry Reid 1.0 for years and years.) But I think it's just as likely that his strong lobbyist ties would've made him ineffectual in the post, and the Daschle-friendly administration -- a lot of candidate Obama's core people were Daschle hand-me-downs -- wouldn't ever have been able to cut him loose. So, all the recent teeth-gnashing aside, this might very well have been a blessing in disguise.

"'We are here as public servants, and public service is a privilege,' Obama said, addressing his White House staff and Cabinet on his first full day in office. 'It’s not about advancing yourself or your corporate clients.'" Also part of President Obama's very solid first day: An executive order kicking out the lobbyists and imposing a gift ban on White House employees. "'We need to close the revolving door that lets lobbyists come into government freely and lets them use their time in public service” to promote their own interests when they leave, the president said." [Official Order.]

And, in another welcome executive order, the new President also overturned Dubya's secrecy rules with regards to presidential records, thus making life much easier for historians in the future. "[E]very agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information, but those who seek to make it known.” (This also means Pres. Obama only has nine more left to overturn on Dubya's worst ten.)

"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.

"What’s interesting about the Madoff scandal, in retrospect, is how little interest anyone inside the financial system had in exposing it...OUR financial catastrophe, like Bernard Madoff’s pyramid scheme, required all sorts of important, plugged-in people to sacrifice our collective long-term interests for short-term gain. The pressure to do this in today’s financial markets is immense. Obviously the greater the market pressure to excel in the short term, the greater the need for pressure from outside the market to consider the longer term. But that’s the problem: there is no longer any serious pressure from outside the market."

In an extended NYT editorial, authors Michael Lewis and David Einhorn survey recent economic developments with an eye to the broader problem: a financial institutional culture that fosters and legitimates idiotic amounts of risk. "The fixable problem isn’t the greed of the few but the misaligned interests of the many...The tyranny of the short term has extended itself with frightening ease into the entities that were meant to, one way or another, discipline Wall Street, and force it to consider its enlightened self-interest."

Among the culprits in Lewis and Einhorn's worthwhile dissection: the credit rating agencies. "In pursuit of their own short-term earnings, they did exactly the opposite of what they were meant to do: rather than expose financial risk they systematically disguised it. " See also: the S.E.C. "Created to protect investors from financial predators, the commission has somehow evolved into a mechanism for protecting financial predators with political clout from investors...And here’s the most incredible thing of all: 18 months into the most spectacular man-made financial calamity in modern experience, nothing has been done to change that, or any of the other bad incentives that led us here in the first place."

It's not all doom, gloom, and (highly justified) finger-pointing. In part two of the editorial, Lewis and Einhorn offer some quick fixes to our current institutional myopia that should be relatively simple to put through...in a perfect world. "The funny thing is, there’s nothing all that radical about most of these changes. A disinterested person would probably wonder why many of them had not been made long ago. A committee of people whose financial interests are somehow bound up with Wall Street is a different matter."

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 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 of government rife with abuse and poor oversight." Our government in action: Salon's Michael Scherer explains how Alaskan Eskimos won a no-bid contract to feed cocaine-fighting Bolivians, with the help of Senator "Bridge to Nowhere," Ted Stevens. Here's a hint: Halliburton is involved.

"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.

"We have cooperated with everything. We've given them everything, including computers; they've taken computers that I had here. They've gotten everything that's got anything to do with my life." A deposed Boss DeLay decries his treatment by the FBI, taking particular umbrage at the investigations into his wife Christine: "She did her work and she was underpaid for the work she did and they can't make the case. It's a Justice Department that is running amok. Fish or cut bait. Do something." Underpaid? Christine DeLay, it may be remembered, was paid $500,000 in PAC funds by the DeLay campaign, $3,300 a month for three years in funds apparently skimmed from the US Family Network, and another half-million in a retirement account set up by former DeLay staffer and lobbyist Edwin Buckham.

In the midst of the persecuted prosecutors case, Casino Jack keeps on rollin': Six days after the FBI searched his home in connection with the Abramoff investigation, California Republican John Doolittle steps down from the House Appropriations Committee. "Since 2005, a Justice Department task force has been looking into payments made by Abramoff and other lobbyists to Doolittle's wife and the spouses of other lawmakers...Doolittle also helped steer millions of dollars in military funding to one of the defense contractors tied to the bribery case of former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.)." Update: And another, although this time not Abramoff related: Arizona Republican Rick Renzi leaves the House Intelligence Committee as the result of an ongoing investigation into a 2005 land deal. I'm sensing a pattern.

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 is a terrible mistake by the Democratic leadership, to take someone with serious ethical allegations against him and put him on one of the most sensitive and important committees in Congress,' said Rep. Peter T. King (N.Y.), the ranking Republican on the committee." The House GOP begin making a stink over William Jefferson's appointment to the Homeland Security Committee. I hate to say it, but I'm inclined to agree. Jefferson is an ethical embarrassment, and he should've been backbenched on everything until his bribery investigation concludes. Surely some other Dem on the committee could've taken up the slack with regards to the FEMA issue.

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.'"

The DeLay-Abramoff era in DC may be a thing of the past, but the investigations into flagrant GOP corruption continue. Now, word leaks out that the Casino Jack probe has targeted another official in Dubya's Interior: J. Stephen Griles. "Griles was a controversial figure at Interior, strongly criticized by the department's inspector general for maintaining ties to energy and mining companies that were once his lobbying clients."

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."'"

As they prepare to take back the House for the first time in twelve years, the Dems look to freeze out any GOP involvement in legislation, at least for the first few weeks. "House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours. They include tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans."

"These poor contracting practices have left DOD vulnerable to fraud, waste and abuse and DOI vulnerable to sanctions and the loss of the public trust." In related news, new audits disclose that a procurement collaboration between Dubya's departments of Defense and Interior has resulted in millions of dollars in waste and mark-ups. "More than half of the contracts examined were awarded without competition or without checks to determine that the prices were reasonable, according to the audits by the inspectors general for Defense (DOD) and Interior (DOI). Ninety-two percent of the work reviewed was awarded without verifying that the contractors' cost estimates were accurate; 96 percent was inadequately monitored."

"'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."

After suffering some bad press for backing away from the 9/11 recommendations last week, Speaker-Elect Pelosi announces two new oversight committees as a form of compromise: "a new panel within the Appropriations Committee to oversee the nation's intelligence agencies [thus maintaining Murtha's fiefdom] and a House task force to examine establishing an outside ethics panel." And, in related news, the House Dems announce their proposed rules changes. They "include a ban on gifts and travel from lobbyists, preapproval from the ethics committee on all lawmakers' travel funded by outside groups, a ban on the use of corporate jets, and mandatory ethics training."

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?)

"'Everyone would appreciate it if you would contact Ken only and not others here at the WH,' reads one message to Abramoff from Bush advisor Karl Rove's assistant Susan Ralston, 'because they just forward it to him anyway.'" Salon's Mark Benjamin takes a gander at Casino Jack's man in the White House, Republican Party chair Ken Mehlman. "More than once, Abramoff asks for a favor, Mehlman fulfills the request, and then one of Abramoff's wealthy Indian tribe clients sends a political donation to a GOP cause."

Another week, another GOP scandal. This time, it involves Pennsylvania congressman Curt Weldon, whom the FBI is now investigating for lobbying improprieties involving the business of his daughter and political ally Charles Sexton. "The investigation focuses on Weldon's support of the Russian-managed Itera International Energy Corp., one of the world's largest oil and gas firms, while that company paid fees to Solutions North America, the company that Karen Weldon and Sexton operate." And, if that weren't enough, the House Page Board is now looking into veteran congressman Jim Kolbe for a camping trip he took with former pages in 1996, adding further to the increasing number of once-safe GOP seats now in contention in three weeks. Update: More on the Weldon investigation and Kolbe allegations.

A new minority staff report by the Senate Finance Committee concludes that "[f]ive conservative nonprofit organizations, including one run by prominent Republican Grover Norquist, 'appear to have perpetrated a fraud' on taxpayers by selling their clout to lobbyist Jack Abramoff." Among the organizations called out are Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform and the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (sheah), an outfit created by Norquist and former Dubya Interior Secretary Gail Norton, whose office was already waist-deep in ill-gotten Casino Jack loot. (In fact, Abramoff's point person in Norton's office was CREA's president, Italia Federici.)

Update: In related news, Abramoff flunky Bob Ney pleaded guilty today to conspiracy and making false statements (without, mind you, resigning his seat in Congress.) While he didn't speak with reporters, Ney's written statement noted that the "treatment and counseling I have started have been very helpful, but I know that I am not done yet and that I have more work to do to deal with my alcohol dependency." Ok, one more time, people. Alcoholism means you drink too much. It does not mean that you bilk the public, indulge in bribes, or send teenagers dirty IMs.

"'Voters are tying both of these scandals together,' said Paul A. Miller, president of the American League of Lobbyists, a lobbyist trade group in the capital. 'First with Abramoff and now with Foley, corruption has risen to play a big role in this election. It disappoints me, but it's happening.'" It disappoints you? As the lobbyists lament, it appears Foleygate has brought ethics in government back into focus as a central 2006 campaign issue, despite the GOP's earlier banking on Casino Jack fading from memory. And, worse still for the Republicans, it seems the so-called "values vote" won't save them this time 'round.

"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.

Stick a fork in him -- As suspected, former Christian Coalition wunderkind and Casino Jack flunky Ralph Reed is politically finished after being forced to concede the Georgia Lieutenant Governor's race, a campaign he was a mortal lock to win before his Abramoff shenanigans leaked. Almost as sweet as Reed's comeuppance, we now know that, despite the GOP's gamble, the Ballad of Casino Jack does in fact play at the polls this election season. Better start dancin', Boehner...

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.

With the bill's foremost opponent -- "Casino Jack" Abramoff -- now sidelined in disgrace, the House votes 317-93 to crack down on Internet gambling. "The biggest losers could be the estimated 23 million Americans who play poker over the Internet. 'This bill would needlessly make outlaws of the millions of adult Americans who enjoy online poker, and is the latest example of how our representatives in Congress are ignoring real issues facing our country,' warned the grass-roots Poker Players Alliance, in an alert to its more than 25,000 members."

"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)."

"[T]here is a distinction between what is legal and what is right. . . . What was DeLay doing for all that money? Even Ed Buckham was not paying DeLay and his family out of the goodness of his heart." The Washington Post reports that Boss DeLay and his lobbyist cronies were funneling even more money through his wife Christine, bringing the total the DeLay family received from Buckham to -- another -- half-million.

"David was kind of the brains of the operation." In the continuing trial of David Safavian, flipped Casino Jack flunky Neil Volz testifies to explain how the Abramoff operation courted -- and was courted by -- its "champions." "'When I was on Capitol Hill, I was given tickets to sporting events, concerts, free food, free meals,' he testified. 'In return, I gave preferential treatment to my lobbying buddies.'"

"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?

Not a smoking gun just yet...The Secret Service logs obtained by Judicial Watch reveal only two short White House trips taken by Casino Jack, one in 2001 and one in 2004. "The White House said last week that the Secret Service's logs documenting Abramoff's entries into the executive mansion complex might not reveal all meetings. 'I don't know exactly what they'll be providing, but they only have certain records and so I just wouldn't view it as a complete historical record,' spokesman Scott McClellan said." Ok, then, I won't.

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.

Those many Republicans banking on public inattention to the sordid tales of GOP corruption may not want to pick up today's Post anytime soon -- Sex has entered the equation. "Federal authorities are investigating allegations that a California defense contractor arranged for a Washington area limousine company to provide prostitutes to convicted former congressman Randy 'Duke' Cunningham (R-Calif.) and possibly other lawmakers, sources familiar with the probe said yesterday." Uh, oh...DC just loves a good sex scandal, right, guys? Update: The limousine firm in question denies the allegations.

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."

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.'"

Further dispatches from the GOP freefall: As the Republican Congress desperately tries to look busy, that bastion of the liberal media FOX News puts Dubya's approval rating at a new low -- 33%.

"These problems are getting worse, not better, and it's because the judiciary hasn't taken some simple steps to make them go away." A Post report finds ethical violations are rampant among several federal judges, usually of the conflict-of-interest or boondoggle variety. "A second set of ethical lapses involves seminars held at resorts by a Montana-based group, the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE). On at least six occasions from 2002 to 2004, federal judges accepted air travel, food and lodging from the libertarian foundation but did not list the gifts on their annual disclosure reports, as required by law, documents and interviews show."

"'Do not allow...my name to appear anywhere,' Abramoff wrote to a colleague at his then-law firm, Greenberg Traurig. He e-mailed his wife: 'When you are in the room with David and the other GSA folks, identify yourself as Pam Alexander or Pam Clarke. David [Safavian] does not want Abramoff used in the meeting.'" The WP publishes excerpts of e-mail traffic between Casino Jack and David Safavian, one of his men in the Dubya White House, and the details run from the sketchy to the mundane. ("He added that he was e-mailing from Signatures, and 'I love those tempura tuna rolls!'")

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."

"I don't know,' said Senator Mike DeWine, Republican of Ohio...'People are not really talking to me directly about lobbying. I think they're concerned about some of the, quote, scandal, but I don't have anybody come up to me and say there's a lobbying problem. It doesn't get that specific.'" As such, one day after voting down an independent ethics office 67-30, the Senate passes a watered-down "lobbying reform" bill 90-8 that, for all intent and purposes. seems to be merely cosmetic. "The Senate measure toughens disclosure requirements for lobbyists and requires lawmakers to obtain advance approval for the private trips that were a central feature of the Abramoff scandal. But it does not rein in lawmakers' use of corporate jets, and it fell far short of the sweeping changes, including a ban on privately financed travel, that some lawmakers advocated in January...'It's very, very weak,' said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona."

Five Republicans and only three measly Democrats voted against the phantom reform bill: McCain, Feingold, Kerry, Graham, DeMint, Inhofe, and the "unlikely duo" of Obama and Coburn. (The West Virginia Dem delegation -- Byrd and Rockefeller -- abstained.) Still, "Mr. McCain predicted that there would be more indictments growing out of the investigation into political corruption, and said that such a development would lead Congress to revisit the issue again."

In very related news, Casino Jack and his associate Adam Kidan are sentenced to 5 years, 10 months in prison for their roles in the SunCruz casino case. "Although [Judge Paul] Huck opted for the minimum, Abramoff faces the prospect of at least a few additional years in prison when he is sentenced in a separate case in Washington, D.C. However, lawyers said, his overall sentence ultimately could be reduced depending on his cooperation with federal investigators." In fact, Abramoff will remain out of jail for the time being so he can continue to work with the Feds on congressional corruption.

"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.

Brimming with affable actors and a cool, refreshing menthol topicality, Thank You for Smoking, which I caught last night in Union Square, is a wry, decently amusing satire -- one that's not much for side-splitting bellylaughs but good for a consistent chuckle throughout. Very few scenes go by without a few snappy lines or clever sight gag, and the film is all the more endearing for its understatement -- like cigarettes, a lot of these jokes almost sell themselves. Still, I haven't read Chris Buckley's book, but I can't escape the suspicion that a devastatingly funny movie could've been made from this source material if the filmmakers had just gone for it, um, unfiltered. More often than not, the film seems to want to be liked, when what it really needed was a jolt of the same type of dark misanthropy that propelled last year's Lord of War (i.e. Thank You for Shooting.) I'd say it's worth seeing, and I was definitely smiling through most of the film. But, at crucial times, and particularly in the second half, Thank You for Smoking feels too lo-tar and antiseptic for its own good. (Oh, and sorry, Tom Cruise conspiracy theorists: Katie Holmes' brief sex scenes are still here.)

For those who haven't seen the preview, the film follows the exploits of uber-charismatic cigarette lobbyist Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart, doing a friendlier variation on his In the Company of Men turn), a guy who basically has the heart of The X-Files's Cigarette Smoking Man in the body of Mr. Smith (Think Capra, not Matrix.) Sent on various charm offensives by his immediate boss (J.K. Simmons, pitch-perfect) and the head office in Winston-Salem (Robert Duvall, doing his R.E. Lee schtick again), Naylor must flatter, cajole, bluff, and wheedle his way past a number of moderately funny archetypes, including a Birkenstock-clad senator from Vermont (William H. Macy), a ruthless Orientophile Hollywood exec (Rob Lowe), their various flunkies (Todd Louiso, Adam Brody), and a thoroughly disgruntled Marlboro Man now suffering from lung cancer (Sam Elliott). Along for the ride on this tobacco tour is Naylor's kid (Cameron Bright) -- on loan from the ex-wife (Deadwood's Kim Dickens) and her new doctor boyfriend,(whose studiously scruffy beard is one of the many funny details herein) -- and Nick spends much of the film trying to inculcate his son in the ways of activism for the amoral. (I have to admit, it's hard to watch these scenes and not think of the author and his own dad, the venerable William F. Buckley, Jr..)

Like I said, for the most part Thank You for Smoking is a jaunty and amusing two hours, with enough clever moments to keep the general atmosphere lively and droll. Still, at times, it's hard not to feel that there are opportunities missed here, particularly when the movie loses its step. (The climax, in which Naylor testifies before Congress, is basically a non-starter.) For one, the film occasionally jumps to voiceover (a la Lord of War), without ever really committing to it, and so it ends up feeling like lazy writing. And some potentially funny jokes just seem clumsily telegraphed -- to take one small example, when Naylor's gun lobbyist friend (Anchorman's David Koechner) has trouble with a security gate. Speaking of Koechner, he and Eckhart share several scenes with alcohol lobbyst Maria Bello (The Cooler, A History of Violence) as the "MOD" ("Merchants of Destruction") Squad, which feel like they should be the centerpiece of the film. But Bello (an actress I'll admit to rooting for) is almost criminally underused here -- her best gag ends up being her quintessentially DC power-suit.

Not to miss the carton for the smokes, Thank You is a smart comedy that's aimed at adults and funny enough to recommend...but I can't help thinking it needed to be more rough around the edges, more stogie and less nicotine patch.

"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."

"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.

Good news for the Union Station food court: Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Rick Santorum (R-PA) successfully add a ban on lobbyist-paid meals to the reform bill. (Santorum, you say? Well, apparently, he chooses to conduct his theoretically-suspended meetings with lobbyists after breakfast.) And here's a strange "reform" addition to the same bill: "Separately, the Senate approved by voice vote an amendment by Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) that would deny to any lawmaker a pay increase that he votes against but that eventually becomes law."

"In a different era I'd be killed on the street or have poison poured into my coffee." Matt Drudge previews a forthcoming Vanity Fair interview with Casino Jack, and interspersed among the delusions of grandeur are more indications that GOP higher-ups -- among them Dubya, DeLay, Newt, Burns, Mehlman, and McCain -- knew Abramoff better than they're letting on. "You're really no one in this town unless you haven't met me." Update: Reuters confirms.

"'We will name names,' Lowell said by telephone at a hearing before U.S. District Judge Paul C. Huck. 'That is not a good thing for law enforcement.'" In troubling news for the Justice Department's corruption probe, a federal judge refuses to postpone Abramoff' s sentencing, despite pleas from both sides to do so. "Huck said the government can always request a reduction in Abramoff's sentence later and that he probably would allow both Abramoff and Kidan to remain free for a reasonable amount of time after they are sentenced."

As Randy "Duke" Cunningham faces sentencing today, federal investigators take a closer look at his connections to the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), "the Pentagon's newest and fastest-growing intelligence agency." "In pre-sentencing documents filed this week, prosecutors said that in fiscal 2003 legislation, Cunningham set aside, or earmarked, $6.3 million for work to be done 'to benefit' CIFA shortly after the agency was created. The contract went to MZM Inc., a company run by Mitchell J. Wade, who recently pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe Cunningham." Update: 8 years, 4 months.

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.

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."

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."

"Not since 1994 has the party in power -- in this case the Republicans -- faced such a discouraging landscape in a midterm election...The result is a midterm already headed toward what appears to be an inevitable conclusion: Democrats are poised to gain seats in the House and in the Senate for the first time since 2000. The difference between modest gains (a few seats in the Senate and fewer than 10 in the House) and significant gains (half a dozen in the Senate and well more than a dozen in the House) is where the battle for control of Congress will be fought." The WP previews the midterm electoral landscape. Excellent news...but still, if anyone's shown an amazing capacity to spin gold into straw, it's our current crop of Dems.

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.)

"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 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.'"

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.

"'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 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.

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."

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."

"'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."

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

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...

"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."