Despite my complete and utter distaste and contempt for Ms. Musgrave (and two votes against her when I lived in Fort Collins), the report on her appears to be making a mountain out of a molehill.
Is the list ranked? Because if it is, I would think Jefferson and Taylor should have been higher.
Looks like they did Representatives in alphabetical order followed by Senators in alphabetical order.
Here’s the problem, as I see it. If there were conclusive evidence that these politicians are corrupt, they would already be indicted (cf. Tom Delay). So, yes – the report is accusatory and (somewhat) unsubstantiated. Is it a witchhunt? I don’t know, and I have neither the time, knowledge, position, nor desire to examine all 535 members of Congress in detail. But, the stated purpose is twofold:
They acknowledge that the list is not definitive; other Congressmen (they list Senator David Vitter (R-LA), Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) and Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) explicitly for involvement with Jack Abramoff) are worth investigation.
As to the methodology, it’s sparse and easy to understand/criticize (quoted in its entirety):
That’s it. Not meaning to be critical of you in particular, SaintCad and This Year’s Model, but your responses:
are exactly the type they are trying to say is wrong. The point is that they have found evidence for increased scrutiny on these 13. [Insert deity here] forbid, it shouldn’t be viewed as a competition, nor should “minor” ethics violations be excused.
I’ll have you know that this comment forced me to go find out what county Asheville, NC is in.
I should hope that any list entitled “The 13 Most Corrupt Members of Congress” is both definitive and has entailed thorough investigation of all 535 candidates for the list. Otherwise, I have no reason to trust them.
Quite frankly, if using a non-existent suite number to separate your campaign office from your district office and abusing franking priviliges is enough to rank in the top 13, Congress is much more honest than I suspected.
“www.beyonddelay.org” – that name kinda provides all you need to know, dontchathink?
My personal study has determined that all on that list are still innocent until proven guilty (even the 2 democrats, lol).
Actually, no, I don’t think it does. I think that qualifies as a baseless ad hominem attack and is a fallacious argument. The facts contained on the site provide some of what I need to know.
LOL! HAW HAW HAW!
Were I on their jury, this would be relevant. I’m not, however: I’m discussing their apparent guilt on a messageboard. If you’re uncomfortable with such discussions, that’s your monkey.
Daniel
Moran is a thug who has been violent several times in the past. Allegations of domestic abuse were made against him by his ex-wife, backed up by cops who were called out often to their home.
In addition to this, the man has chronic financial problems that he tries to solve by putting his vote up for sale. The Washington Post saw it thusly, when they endorsed his Republican challenger in 2002:
What about this site?
Now THAT name tells me everything I need to know!
Or do you have some more specific question than “what about”?
Daniel
I used the term as in “2. Supplying or being a final settlement or decision; conclusive.” from dictionary.com. I thought that was clear from my statement “If there were conclusive evidence that these politicians are corrupt, they would already be indicted (cf. Tom Delay).” I cannot say one way or the other how thorough their research was. As for your trust, does it really matter to you who is on the list, as opposed to whether the facts are correct?
And I refer you again to my statement regarding indictment. I think it’s safe to say that there’s some amount of corruption in Congress. I also think it’s safe to say that most of it is untraceable. Why would you have an issue with bringing suspect dealings to the attention of the public, whatever party the politician is affiliated with?
Okay, taking a more in-depth look, by looking at the congressfolk they excoriate.
BARBARA BOXER: They accuse her of two crimes (using smarmy sarcastic language, whic his really grating but not relevant to the substance of their argument, so I’l just whinge about it parenthetically). First, they say that she “directed $15,000 from her political action committee in 2003 to a consulting firm run by her son.” They support this with a link to a New York Times article that I must pay to access, and offer no other details of this transaction. Second, they say that “Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) funneled $115,000 last cycle to Douglas Boxer & Associates, a company run by her son, from PAC For A Change, her leadership political action committee.” They support this with a link to a site that I need to pay two hundred sixty five dollars to access. They give no other details of this transaction.
I believe they may be the same transaction, given that both involve her PAC giving an amount of money ending is 15,000 to a company run by her son. The difference may be a typo, or maybe she gave $15,000 once and $115,000 the second time. However, this is not amazingly convincing; given the lack of details, I’m not ready to condemn Boxer.
Let’s look at the second one they list, and then be done.
They criticize Jon Corzine for voting for an amendment that specifically benefited him. This time, they cite to a live article, giving significant detail. This is a much stronger argument; absent compelling information to the contrary (very, very compelling), I agree that Corzine sounds like a corrupt asshole.
Daniel
Here’s the same information from CBS News:
As you’ll see, the writer is a conservative columnist, and is making the point that nothing is wrong with what they’re doing. He says that it is “perfectly legal and ethical, approved by both House rules and the FEC”.
So, I’m confused. In these cases, was Boxer hiring her son’s company to perform a service? Did her son’s company perform the service? Did her hiring her son have any plausible impact on her own performance of her job duties (i.e., did it amount to a bribe of any sort, or did it amount to her funneling tax dollars into her family’s pockets)?
I’m not sure what the implied problem is.
Daniel
Where my issue lies is with their using the word “corrupt” where it does not seem to be applicable. Had they titled the article “Marilyn Musgrave skates the line on campaign finance laws,” I’d not have a problem. I don’t see corruption there.
As far as I can see, it’s nothing more than the time honored tradition of politicians feeding friends and family from the pork trough. Or nothing less, depending on your point of view. Who is to say whether Junior’s work was worth $150,000 or whatever or whoever? It would be interesting to know whether there was ever a documented time when a politician fired his own son not being worth the dough.
If the pork trough doesn’t consist of tax dollars, I’m not too concerned, to be honest. In this case, it appeared not to be tax dollars, although I could be mistaken.
Daniel
They’re not directly tax dollars, but they come from contributions that are tax deductible and that possibly pull dollars from the tax coffers by virtue of the fact that presidential candidates of the two power parties pay themselves federal matching funds for campaigns. In the case of House members, campaigns persist in perpetuity. They also may come substantially from dollars that would not otherwise have existed, but for favorable tax legislation and regulatory favor; e.g., a person who has benefited from a tax break thanks to Senator Smith might be inclined to contribute some money to Smith’s PAC.
As a citizen of PA I just want to say that I find it amusing that no one has tried to deny Santorum’s corruption.