Skip to main content

View Diary: The DNC's record fundraising year (139 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Response (none)
    Here's my response to your question about yesterday's diary. And, no, I'm not a GOP plant.

    First you've got to get the facts, then you've got to face the facts.

    by cwilson on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 04:46:36 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  My friend, you are missing a crucial point. (none)
      The key point here is influence peddling, and knowingly being a part of it. So far, ZERO Democrats have been identified as having directly received money from Mr Abramoff. I repeat $0.000 to Democrats. Republicans on the other hand have received at least $100,000 directly from Abramoff.

      There is a HUGE difference between lawful lobbying and illegal lobbying.

      •  Legalistic defense of bribery won't win votes (3.00)
        Abramoff's little crony network gave $4.4 million in "contributions." Of that money, one-third went to Democrats. Now, Kossacks can tiptoe and pirouette around this until their feet fall off, but those numbers will insure that the general public doesn't see this as a Republican scandal.

        It's really kind of sad to watch otherwise intelligent people on this website try to argue otherwise. We hear about direct contributions vs. indirect contributions and what's legal and what isn't, all of which amounts to a trip over the woods and through the hills to grandmother's house, where over a steaming bowl of chicken noodle soup she says it's all the Republicans' fault.

        There's one problem with all of that. The public ain't buying it. The general public is cynical. Only half of them vote, and 47% think the Republicans are corrupt and 44% think the Democrats are corrupt.

        I have to laugh when I read the desperate defenses on dKos of lobbyists who want to make campaign contributions and lawmakers and candidates who take them. I've been calling it "bribery," and I've been sternly admonished that if no laws are broken I shouldn't use the word.

        Oh, please. There's no reason for a lobbyist to give money except to influence legislation. Every political "contribution" from a lobbyist or engineered by one is a bribe. The public knows this, which is one of the big reasons why fewer and fewer of them vote each year.

        You're really going to tell me that Republicans are the only ones who pay special attention to their big campaign contributors? Just how stupid does anyone think we are?

        Yeah, Abramoff is a Republican scumbag and I don't like him. But when the Democratic Party decided that it would jump into the pay-to-play pool by taking money from lobbyists, it removed its ability to criticize lobbyist-related corruption. If the Democrats think they're going to play an Abramoff scandal card against the Republicans, they're dreaming.

        The only people who are going to believe it are the ones who already wanted to believe it. If the Democratic Party ever wants to have it different, it needs to make a dramatic break with lobbyists by refusing ALL of their contributions and declaring that 100% of Democratic funds will be solicited from individuals.

        Then, if the Democrats actually want to get some of that individual money, the party will have to return to its roots and put economic fairness for working Americans at the front and center of its existence. And as the Democratic Party does this, it will have to expect "transition costs," because the lobbying cash is going to dry up faster than it's going to be replaced with individual contributions.

        Or the Democratic Party can keep on with business as usual, and watch is natural base -- working people just scraping by on the economic margins -- either vote Republican because some Baptist minister tells them to, or not vote at all because they don't see the point in it.

        First you've got to get the facts, then you've got to face the facts.

        by cwilson on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 06:44:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hey (none)
          here's some toilet paper, for all that diarrhea.

          You've yet to actually answer this question:
          The chart you cite reads, "Here is a detailed look at Abramoff's lobbying, and political contributions from Abramoff, the tribes that hired him, and SunCruz Casinos, since 1999:"

          Are you saying that any tribes' contribution, though completely unrelated to Abramoff or his issues, is part of as you say 'Abramoff's little crony network'? If so, I have a number of angry tribes that were deceived by Abramoff to set you straight on that.

          And this:
          Every political "contribution" from a lobbyist or engineered by one is a bribe.

          This is just golden. That's completely overblown. I know you obviously want reform but by getting hysterical it's not going to be remedied. There is, even if you don't want to acknowledge it, a happy medium where candidates can balance receiving money from an interest and acting as a legislator. Lobbying is nothing new, and it makes money doubly important in politics (esp. in terms of campaigning). I agree it's a situation where the public is ultimately the loser but I think your arguments miss the mark and ring rather overdramatic.

          'You can't begin to imagine how effective the Big Lie is.' N. Mailer 'TNatD'

          by jorndorff on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:48:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site