Boos and hisses at the blogger convention

The annual Kos convention, a meeting of liberal bloggers, featured a good number of the democratic candidates for president this weekend.  Held in Chicago this year, the 1500 or so bloggers gave Hillary Clinton a round of boos after she refused to back down from taking money from lobbyists.  John Edwards made a big point of declaring he does not and will not take money from lobbyists as did Barack Obama.  Mrs. Clinton, when asked, said:

"Yes I will because, you know, a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans," Clinton said. "They represent nurses. They represent social workers. Yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people."  And I would add, they also represent religious groups, charitable foundations, animal welfare, tax abatement fans, higher education, home schoolers, local historic preservation, etc.

The Kos groupies really do not reflect the complete spectrum of democratic voters, this was shown in dramatic fashion when their candidate for the Connecticut senate seat lost to Joe Lieberman who ran as an independent last November.

Clinton is correct in her defense of lobbyists and the groups/agencies they advocate for.  While there are a number of big name lobbyists connected to scandal and abuse, most are genuinely working hard for you and me.  All of us have some 'pet' interest which needs a hearing before lawmakers and most of us would have no way of doing this without a lobbyist (advocate) who represents many like minded people.  Think of all the things you believe should get a thoughtful response from congress and then realize that there is someone out there in DC who is speaking for you and your group.

Lobbyists often work to gain earmarks, or money, for their clients.  Not all earmarks are pork and to claim that is wrong.  Many earmarks are approved for the benefit of the local community's good.  To paint every lobbyist like evil criminals is just plain wrong.  Hillary Clinton got it right.

Comments

[Rjon]

Earmarks are NEVER pork when they are for a project that benefits local interest according to the local people. I would imagine every member of congress would defend THEIR pork as important, while the other pork is just plain pork. I am sure a pork bill to study something like the mating habits of a rare bird is very defensible by the congressman.
The issue is not always the pork, but that many of the pork projects are put in bills at the last minute or added to major bills that everyone must votes for. Many times congress is not aware of these deals or look the other way. Bills voted on often contain hundreds and hundreds of pages. Pork spending has increased at a much higher rate than the rate of inflation.
I an sure you comment about pork being good for the local good was exact argument made by Sen Stevens for the $265 million for the bridge in Alska last year.
By the Way, Hillary Clinton wants to stop the lobbying effort of many religious groups.

[diane]

Rjon, I don't disagree that earmarks should be up front instead of buried in other bills. However, that is the system we have at the moment. Just because Southern Illinois gets a grant from an earmark doesn't mean it's pork.

Not all bridges are bridges to no where.

Hillary had a point, though in her comments about lobbyists, even though she may want to stifle some of them. I hope she doesn't succeed.

[Cal Skinner]

Must be nice to be rich enough never to take a dime from a lobbyist.

[Ron]

Pelosi Risks Losing Support by Funding Pet Projects (Update1)

By Brian Faler and David Rosen

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Aug. 6 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last year that she would be happy to ``do away with'' the practice of funding members' pet projects, though she knew it wasn't ``realistic.'' This year proves how right she was.

Thousands of so-called earmarks still adorn spending bills, including 15 from Pelosi in a defense measure. Their continued popularity shows how difficult it is to change a system that allows members to bring federal money home for their constituents. Polls show Democrats aren't getting credit for what they say is a major overhaul of the earmark system.

Democrats, who never promised to abolish the practice altogether, say they have cut the number of earmarks and for the first time the names of the sponsors and the companies that stand to gain are all being made public. Ethics watchdog groups, pointing to spotty disclosure rules, say more needs to be done.

``They've made some steps forward, but we've still got a long way to go before we get to real transparency and earmark reform and really reining in the excesses of the last decade,'' says Steve Ellis, vice president of the Washington-based Taxpayers for Common Sense, which compiles databases of earmarks.

Cutting earmarks and making the process more accountable is an issue not because of their effect on spending -- they accounted for less than 1 percent of the budget in 2005 -- but because the secretive system invites abuse. Pelosi came into office pledging to clean up a ``culture of corruption'' in which one Republican went to prison for trading secret earmarks for gifts and bribes. Many Republicans believe this was as an important issue as Iraq in losing control of Congress in the last election.

New Laws

The House and Senate passed measures last week requiring lawmakers to certify they have no financial interest in the request, as well as attaching their name to it and identifying the recipient. Until this year, Congress didn't require disclosure of earmark sponsors.

The changes were spurred by the conviction of former Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, a California Republican who pleaded guilty in 2005 to taking $2.4 million in cash and gifts in return for earmarking millions of dollars for two defense contractors. In this Congress, Senator Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican, is under investigation by the FBI over whether a $1.6 million appropriation he endorsed helped his son's business partner, the Washington Post reported last week.

The new rules aren't uniform, and some congressional panels make it difficult to track down specifics about an earmark.

Different Rules

For example, the House Appropriations Committee provides the information in reports available online, although they aren't searchable by keyword. What's more, details about the projects are scattered throughout the documents. While the names of the earmarks and their sponsors are typically listed in the back of the reports, the amount of money provided for them is listed elsewhere, forcing inquiring minds to go on a laborious scavenger hunt.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee makes its earmark-request letters available only by appointment. Researchers must take notes, because the committee doesn't allow the public to make photocopies of the letters.

The new rules haven't stopped lawmakers from funneling earmarks to specific companies, some of them political donors, as well as to public projects such as roads, schools and parks.

`Biowarfare Agent'

Some companies stand to gain from Pelosi's earmarks. The California Democrat has won funding for six companies in a 2008 defense funding measure. One is a $4 million request to develop a ``novel viral biowarfare agent'' for Prosetta Corp., based in her San Francisco district. Tom Higgins, the company's chief executive officer, says he talked to the Speaker's staff directly rather than hiring a lobbyist and hasn't given money to her campaign. ``We're just a little company,'' he says.

Another of Pelosi's earmarks was $2.5 million to Bioquiddity, Inc., a San Francisco biotech company with nine employees, to continue developing drug-infusion pumps. Bioquiddity President Josh Kriesel, who ran unsuccessfully as a Republican for the state legislature in 2002, has donated $6,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee since last September. The company received a total of $3.9 million in earmarks in the last two years. Kriesel declined to comment directly on the earmarks.

Pelosi has said some earmarks are ``worthy.'' And she said there is a distinction between those for public projects, which she sometimes touts with press releases, and special interest earmarks.

Pelosi's Response

Asked about her company-specific earmarks, she says ``there are some things that the federal government wants that some of these companies can uniquely do.''

Some members of both parties are critical of the practice of designating federal dollars for the benefit of particular companies because it, in effect, sidesteps competitive-bidding rules.

The House version of the annual defense-spending bill, for example, includes many such requests. Representative Peter Visclosky, an Indiana Democrat, has 28 earmarks in the bill. Five are for colleges or the Indiana National Guard. The rest are for companies, including 11 outside his state or district. He declined to comment.

``It baffles me how people can complain bitterly about Halliburton and no-bid contracts and then lard up a bill with literally thousands of earmarks to companies when that's all they are -- no-bid contracts,'' says Representative Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, referring to criticism of the Bush administration's sole-source contract with the Houston-based company during the Iraq war. Flake is noted for not requesting earmarks and publicizing those of his colleagues.

`Circular Fund Raising'

``So many of these companies turn around and give campaign contributions right back to the sponsor of the earmark,'' Flake says. ``This kind of circular fund raising is unbelievable.''

Flake's dissatisfaction is reflected in public-opinion polls. A June 7-10 Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll found 62 percent of 1,056 registered voters said Democrats in Congress were governing in a ``business as usual'' manner. Thirty percent said Democrats were working to bring about fundamental change.

Some Democrats would like to see more done to end the long-standing practice of earmarking money for companies.

``As a general proposition, I would look askance at earmarks for specific companies,'' says Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat and a leading congressional critic of Halliburton Co.

``It's better to have companies go out and compete with each other and let the Defense Department, if it's a military matter, make the decision as to what's needed and what's the best deal for the country,'' Waxman says.

``I would hope it happens less and less.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Brian Faler in Washington at bfaler@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: August 5, 2007 20:52 EDT