I’ve read the thread.
Here is some interesting information about lawmakers and campaign donations.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051208/news_lz1ed08top.html
UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL
Legal looting
Cunningham case only hints at extent of rot
December 8, 2005
The recent resignation of Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Rancho Santa Fe, has focused the spotlight once again on the reprehensible ways that defense contractors work with lawmakers to win fat contracts for their services, whether they help the nation’s defense or not.
Cunningham’s bribe-taking was repulsive. But one of the biggest problems in contractors’ and congressmen’s mutual back-scratching isn’t Duke-style corruption. It is what’s perfectly legal.
This was underlined by the Union-Tribune article, “Contractor a master of gaining political access,” by Dean Calbreath and Jerry Kammer. It detailed how Cunningham and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-El Cajon, worked closely with two local companies – ADCS Inc. of Poway and Audre Inc. of Rancho Bernardo – to make the Pentagon pay for converting printed documents to computer files. They and a few other lawmakers got Congress to allocate $190 million for “automated data conversion” projects from 1993 to 2001.
Did the Pentagon want this “help”? No. As a 1994 General Accounting Office report noted, it already had the tools for such work.
But Cunningham, Hunter and their House allies didn’t care. Audre and ADCS were generous with contributions – and ADCS executive Brent Wilkes allegedly was bribing Cunningham. No matter who griped, lawmakers could always add “earmarks” for pet projects to bills and get their way.
This led to such absurdities as a $9.7 million contract for ADCS to digitize historical documents from the Panama Canal Zone that the Pentagon considered insignificant.
This isn’t governance. This is looting.
Hunter disagrees. In a phone interview, he said there was support within the Pentagon for such projects, citing several official letters praising Audre’s technology or endorsing automated document conversion. He said his fighting for contracts to go to San Diego-area firms is what congressmen do.
But the preponderance of evidence shows defense officials objected to document conversion spending and saw it as ridiculous. That should have carried the day – with Hunter or any lawmaker trying to bring home the bacon.
Instead, the prevailing attitude was that when you have hundreds of billions of dollars to divvy up, everyone should get a piece – and if the Joint Chiefs of Staff think the military’s bucks should go toward protecting soldiers and not the pointless preservation of old documents, well, tough luck.
This is no way to run a government. Forget the fatalistic argument that pork is an inevitable part of the legislative process. Just once it would be nice to hear a lawmaker declare he wouldn’t vote to spend one dime on a military project that the Pentagon didn’t request – or hear a president vow to veto every defense spending bill inflated by the legislative looters.
The status quo is revolting. If only it would inspire a voter revolt. A few more stories like the one about Cunningham, Hunter and the document conversion follies, and it just might.
Yet you continue to ignore John Tanton, the liberal anti-human extremist, and Tancredo's acceptance of his money and support.
I guess you heartily approve?
Maybe if you're lucky Tanton won't consider you part of the "undesirable" population that needs to be eliminated.
But how far do you take this position?
Do you think it's okay if a candidate accepts donations and support from a Communist? A racist? A neo-Nazi? al-Qaeda?
Is there any point at which you think a candidate should say, "Hell no, I don't want that scum on my side; and I'm giving their contribution away to a charity"??