What’s the difference? Well, they are both smiling. They are both wearing suits and ties. They are both using the flag to make people think they care about America. Neither gives a damn about their constituents.
Among the differences is the fact that one is a Senator; the other is a former member of the House of Representatives. One has been convicted; one hasn’t. One took $100,000 from the FBI. The other takes millions of dollars from lobbyists.
There’s really not that much difference. Why don’t they represent us? Why are they allowed to accept bribes? What standards should we hold them to?
William Jefferson was caught in an FBI sting. He was accused of accepting $400,000 in bribes. In the sting, he was video-taped receiving $100,000 from the FBI. $90,000 of the FBI’s money was found in his freezer. He was just convicted on 11 counts.
Max Baucus takes millions of dollars of bribes. He is an equal opportunity prostitute. He accepts money from any lobbyist that can find the Senate Office Building. He has taken millions from the healthcare industry, among others.
I have difficulty appreciating the difference between what Jefferson did and what all of the others do daily. A court says one is a felon. Is there really a difference?
What can we do? What should we do? I have a couple of suggestions.
When a judge has a relationship with anyone involved in a case before him, be it a litigant or their counsel, that judge is expected to recuse himself. Should such a rule not also apply to legislators? If they receive money from a lobbyist, play golf with a lobbyist or play with an escort provided by a lobbyist, I personally think that sufficient grounds for recusal from participating in the vote of any bill that might benefit that lobbyist or his employer. We might begin to see bills winning or losing by a vote of 1 – 0, or something close to that.
Back to the William Jefferson situation. If a legislator accepts money from a lobbyist, why is that considered legal? I realize that the FBI would have to hire substantial numbers to investigate all of the lobbyist-congressman relationships but isn’t that an important area of concern? I may have discovered the reason for the antipathy so many have for big government. It might have sufficient resources to maintain some semblance of propriety and rectitude.
Jefferson’s indiscretion indicates he is motivated by a venal spirit. Is that a rare psychological defect on Capitol Hill? It certainly doesn’t appear to be all that extraordinary. The Founding Fathers probably hoped that those elected to public office would be public-spirited. It hasn’t worked out quite that way.
These people were elected and are paid to serve the interests of their constituents. You would be hard pressed to cobble together a case for them actually working on our behalf.
They obviously like their jobs. They enjoy the perks, such as government-run healthcare and compliant staffers and interns. Their primary focus is to remain in that special bubble of privilege.
Keeping that office for 3 to 4 decades requires lots of money. You haven’t slipped your Representative a couple of hundred thousands lately, have you? My guess is that he is too busy catering to the moneyed people and their toadies to invite you to the country club for a round. You have no voice. You have no representation.
They will never vote term limits for themselves. They will never do anything to choke off their access to bribes. It is possible to hope that they might become a bit less acquisitive if the FBI and courts considered the largesse of lobbyists to be illegal bribes. These bribes corrupt our entire system. They deny the people’s right to expect the government to be on their side. It just isn’t supposed to be government of the banks, by the health insurance companies and for the corporations.
I should end it here but that last part hit a sore spot. The Founding Fathers, with one notable exception, considered corporations dangerous. The fiction that corporations should have legal personalities is ludicrous. Why is limiting an investor’s liability not considered antithetical to the most basic beliefs of capitalism? The concept reeks of hypocrisy.
There is no extra charge for that last bit of wisdom.
{ 4 comments }
Well said, I dont agree 100%, however you make a great point.
This is awesome stuff, its good to be in the know.
In truth, immediately i didn’t understand the essence. But after re-reading all at once became clear.
My basic point was that bribery is bribery. Both types do great harm to us and our system. Both should be outlawed.
Comments on this entry are closed.