Over at Willisms, Ken McCracken poses a very, very simple question, and one that I’ve wondered myself. Part of my ignorance can be ascribed to my own apathy about Congress; I just can’t get worked up about most of it. I occasionally discuss individual Congresscritters or a particular issue, but overall when issues about Congress come up, I usually suffer a bad case of MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over).
If you can answer Ken’s challenge, head on over there. Or if you need more than a sentence or a short paragraph, help yourself to all the space you need below. I’d like a few specifics (laws involved, particular incidents, and the like) besides the general invective and partisan blame-tossing that’s passed for actual discussion of facts.
Here’s my thought:
Jack Abramoff bought influence, influence that helped his clients. But, more than that, his money helped those politicos he bribed remained in power. Therefore, he created a perfect perpetual motion machine – corruption fed off only a few dollars would have lasted – well – until discovered.
I have wondered this also.
If you donate to a political campaign, in hard currency, services, or time, you are attempting to purchase political influence.
The dynamics of government cannot escape this simple equation.
This is one of the primary reasons I am a libertarian-conservative.
The only way to keep money from influencing politics is to limit political power over wealth.
You can regulate all day, and all it does is help the powerful.
That’s easy. It’s against the law for anyone to give money to Republicans to help them win elections. How else can Democrats win enough seats to effectively obstruct Congress. They tried ideas, but that didn’t work for them.
He spied on gay domestic partners without a warrant.
What I heard.
Boy, Abramoff must have pretty sucky lawyers if he pled guilty to felonies when he never even broke the law. It’s sickening enough listening to you guys declare DeLay innocent, now even a guilty plea isn’t enough for you.