Posted on 08/01/2007 7:14:29 AM PDT by UltraConservative
This week, FBI and IRS agents searched the home of Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, 83. Stevens is under suspicion for his connection to Bill Allen, an oil state-services contractor convicted of bribing Alaska state lawmakers. Stevens has served in the Senate for almost three decades.
The Stevens investigation comes hot on the heels of the Rep. Duke Cunningham, R-Calif., scandal, in which Cunningham pleaded guilty to taking bribes from defense contractors; the Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., scandal, in which federal agents found $90,000 in cash stuffed in Jefferson's freezer; and the Jack Abramoff scandal, in which Abramoff was connected with lawmakers from both the Republican and Democratic parties.
For years, we've heard that there's too much money in politics. That mantra was the motivating force behind anti-First Amendment campaign finance reform legislation.
The latest scandals only seem to lend heightened credence to such a critique. Surely congressional corruption has something to do with the money floating around Washington, D.C.
Congressional corruption does have something to do with the money floating around D.C. -- but the problem isn't the general public's political expenditures. Americans have always spent money on politics, but it is only within the last century that the federal government became a significant repository of corruption.
The question, then, isn't why there's governmental corruption, there has always been and will always be governmental corruption. The question is why that corruption has shifted from the local level to the federal level.
And the answer is simple: The increased role of the federal government opens the door to federal corruption. As long as the federal government spends millions of taxpayer dollars on purely state and local projects, lobbyists would be fools to stay away. As long as the federal government spends cash on bridges to nowhere and structures named after senators, political interest groups will lurk in the shadows, offering pay-for-play.
Federalism once insulated the federal government from petty monetary corruption; states were the big spenders. The Founders believed, rightly, that the limited powers of the federal government, combined with the broader electorate for the federal government, would circumscribe corruption at the federal level.
Until the time of FDR, the Founders' guardrails against federal corruption remained effective. State corruption was exponentially more prevalent than federal corruption. State legislators could offer their constituents subsidies, local projects and jobs. The federal government could offer patronage, but little else. The major pre-FDR federal scandals were major largely because they were so sporadic -- the Teapot Dome scandal would hardly raise an eyebrow today.
Once the federal government usurped state spending prerogatives, however, winning re-election became an exercise in placating certain monetary interests. Federal legislators were now expected to funnel cash from the federal coffers to local interests. The bile of corruption quickly seeped into the federal blood system.
Naturally, federal legislators became expert in the art of misappropriating federal cash. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., single-handedly siphoned almost $3 billion to West Virginia between 1991 and 2006, according to Citizens Against Government Waste. "They call me 'The Pork King,'" Byrd once bragged. "They don't know how much I enjoy it."
It is no wonder corruption thrives in a town where Robert Byrd's colleagues deem him the "conscience of the Senate." When back scratching, pork-barrel rolling and irresponsibility are prerequisites for election, corruption is an inevitable byproduct. The problem in D.C. isn't too much political money, it's too much taxpayer money. Unless Congress bans omnibus spending bills, curbs earmarking and restricts itself to its constitutional authority, don't expect the Stevens corruption investigation to be the last.
Another reason for term limits in Congress. It seems that the longer they are in office, the more corrupt they become and learn to work the system. Keep throwing money in their faces for three decades and they’ll give in eventually.
Wherever power consolidates so to does corruption.
More politicians should be harshly punished. Anyone who saw the look on former North Carolina House Speaker Jim Black as the judge fined him $1 million yesterday (as only part of his sentencing) agrees with that.
America absolutely needs term limits. Lawmakers become entrenched in office and isolated from the people, and are accountable to seemingly no one. They get fat and lazy.
I say two terms in the Senate and six terms in the house, and you’re out. Twelve years is the maximum.
A friend of mine used to be a DC bureaucrat. He correctly pointed out that your prestige in Washington is a direct function of the number of people you manage. He tells of directing his workers to let work pile up before a GAO visit. When the GAO got there, he pointed out how over-worked his small staff was and that he needed at least six more people. He played this game for over 2 decades, got a larger and larger staff and more and more prestige in Washington.
What would happen if Bush came out and announced the following Executive Order: “As of today, each bureaucrat in the federal gov’t has 10% less money to run their departments than yesterday. If you can’t provide equal or better service within one year using that budget, I’ll replace you with someone who can.”
I’ll bet we’d never notice the difference.
The whole idea that the Feds should collect massive cash and we should send reps to Washington to try to get it back with all kinds of strings attached is nuts. Starve the beast and shift responsibilities back to the state and local powers to meet their own priorities, as they see fit.
The Roman Senate only allowed Senators to be in office for one year and then they had to wait five years to run for office again. Seems to me they knew what they were doing. Senators only had one year to get done what they wanted. They didn’t have time to screw around.
This, actually, is one of Fat Teddy's recurring re-election themes---that he can do "more" (i.e., secure more federal dollars) for Massachusetts. I think this opinion piece is balls-on accurate.
There should be a lever above the following words in the polling booth which read:
“None of the above.”
Here is a good answer to term limits.
I'm sure Ulysses S. Grant, for one, will be relieved to hear that.
What we have here another person who loves to write about what they don't know about; by far the gravest corruption in Federal government was circa 1870-1900, a period of of completely unrestricted campaign contributions, let alone overt bribery...
Corruption occurs in the Senate and House mainly due to earmarks (anonymous add ons sending money to outfits in a member’s district or state) in spending bills How do the earmarks get in there? Because a Representative or Senator is bribed or promised support/campaign funds.
The Republicans were guilty of earmark abuse and now the Democrats are doing the same. The recent “reform/ethics” change by the House Democrats only went to dinners and trips from lobbyists and earmarks were untouched.
We citizens must keep on pressuring federal legislators on public disclosure on each earmark as to author and money recipient. The Pork Buster website is a good place to learn more on this.
Maybe. But wouldn't that just be a signal for them to figure out ways to steal more, faster? What I'd really like to see is some means of eliminating gerrymandered districts so local voters have a bigger say. Both parties love to gerrymander.
The reason there is so much money in politics is because there is so much money in government. Cut government, and you cut government corruption.
Ron Paul (yes, I disagree with his position on the war on terror, and no, I do not support him for President.) has said that you cannot put an uncovered cake under the sink and expect that it will not attract cockroaches.
Exactly. Get public service back to SERVICE, not a feeding trough!
Unless Congress bans omnibus spending bills, curbs earmarking and restricts itself to its constitutional authority
Not likely...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.