quote:



1. At the very beginning of the message, Holmes Norton notes that the lobbyist:

has given to other colleagues of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

Beyond being a bit heavy-handed, where did she get this information? Such donations are listed in FEC reports, but it is a violation to use that information to solicit campaign donations. 2. More serious, however, is her frequent mention of her seniority and her Chairmanship of a subcommittee. She is attempting to solicit funds based on her past actions taken in her official capacity in Congress. She is implying to the lobbyist that, should he decline to donate, he will be turning down a senior member of Congress who Chairs a subcommittee highly relevant to his “sector”. 3.  Worse than that, she details her role overseeing a large economic development project in the District, funded by “stimulus” funds. It would appear that either the lobbyist has an interest in this project, or the Congresswoman thinks he does, as she states she is “frankly surprised” the lobbyist hasn’t given to her. Especially, she notes, because of her

long and deep work …in fact it has been by major work on the committee and subcommittee it’s been essentially in your sector

“In your sector.” This raises additional concerns, and we note potentially relevant laws here:

She who promises, directly or indirectly, any government contract or other government benefit (provided for or made possible by any Act of Congress) as a reward for a political contribution shall be guilty of a misdemeanor (18 U.S.C. § 600).

She who attempts to cause anyone to make a political contribution by denying or threatening to deny any government payment or other government benefit (provided for or made possible, in whole or in part, by any Act of Congress) shall be guilty of a misdemeanor (18 U.S.C. § 601).

Then there are the House Ethics rules, according to House Ethics Manual (2008 Edition):

p. 147: “[N]o solicitation of a campaign or political contribution may be linked to an action taken or to be taken by a Member … in his or her official capacity. … The Standards Committee has long advised Members … that they should always exercise caution to avoid even the appearance that solicitations of campaign contributions are connected in any way with an action taken or to be taken in their official capacity. … [A] Member should not sponsor or participate in any solicitation that offers donors any special access to the Member in the Member’s official capacity.”

p. 150: “[A] Member may not accept any contribution that is linked with an action that the Member has taken or is being asked to take. A corollary of these rules is that Members … are not to take or withhold any official action on the basis of the campaign contributions or support of the involved individuals …. Members … are likewise prohibited from threatening punitive action on the basis of such considerations.”

4

(Read the rest at biggovernment.com).

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

sure.  the republicans had a chance under election finance reform to minimize some of that lobby influence, they passed....gee I wonder why?

therein lies one of our problems, lobbyists are a bigger problem than demopukes or retardicans, neither can hang their nail in the face of them, they are absolutely beholden to them to get information, and to get elected.

our supreme court further exacerbates this by making corporations human. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

what law was violated how?

the deja vu comes from the fact that you were wrong then too.  the entire cia has not been outted to the world, the right to a speedy trial has been preserved, the constitution followed and where are your 5 men gone free?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

A bribe is a bribe.

This is pay for play.