Once Again, You Get What You Pay For

Today, on front page of the Telegraph, Travis Fain has a story with this headline: More than $882,000 spent on state legislators by lobbyists. (Believe it or not, that's actually less than the $931,000 they spent last year.) Of course, like last year, and every other year, the legislators scoffed, "If people think they can buy my vote for the cost of a dinner, they need to think again." But, then, on the front page of section two, we learn that the insurance industry and their well-financed lobby got about 150 million in tax relief while the average Georgian got zippo, nada, nothing. These stories are, of course, completely unrelated. Of course. Oh, come on. Just use the brain God gave you. If lobbyist spending didn't get results, the money would stay in the bank.

The truth is that lobbyist money may not "buy votes," but the dollars do buy access to the lawmakers, and in politics, access is everything. Who do you think wrote the legislation that gave millions in tax breaks to the insurance industry? Do you really think that the legislators who sponsored the bill spent their summer vacation working on the syntax? I'm guessing, no. The bottom line is, if we want money to speak just a little less loudly under the dome, then we need to pass "cup of coffee" lobbyist reform, like, yesterday. It won't solve all the problems, but it's a good start.

Sphere: Related Content

Welfare Lear Jets

From Wall Street to Atlanta's Gold Dome, Bush Republicans are nursing a corrupt culture of corporate dependency designed to benefit the wealthiest of the wealthy. Corporations gambled with the grocery money hoping to turn a quick billion or two, knowing all the time that if they failed, Uncle Sam would be there with a government check to make the next payment on their welfare Lear jet. These multi-national corporate giants will never learn to stand on their own two feet because they know the government will bail them out, but everyday Americans, who find themselves in a pinch as housing values plummet and fuel costs sky-rocket, best not expect help. As Charles Richardson pointed out in today's Telegraph, in this welfare system, bailing out companies like Bear Stearns is a priority, but offering a hand up to homeowners facing foreclosure is out of bounds. The new slogan for the RNC isn't "Consumer Beware" it's "Consumer? Who Cares?"

Not to be left out, last week the Georgia House, led by that darling of the insurance industry, Rep. Tom Knox with back up singers, Jerry Keen and Mickey Channell, passed a $150 million dollar tax break for insurance companies to help them sell the public stripped down health insurance policies that aren't worth the paper their written on. These plans require individuals to pay more than $2200 out of pocket before receiving even basic medical care. That's right, more than 1.7 million Georgians are uninsured and our state is facing a slowing economy, but instead of funding public schools, trauma care or public safety, Georgia Republicans just can't wait to jump on the corporate welfare bandwagon. After all, it's the Republican thing to do. (By the way, there's still time to stop this bill in the Georgia Senate, but a vote is expected any day, so please contact your State Senator today and ask him or her to oppose HB 977. Follow the link above, or visit www.capitolconnect.com/aarp, register your name and address and follow the action steps under state alerts to send an email directly to your State Senator.) By the way, you folks up in Cumming won't need to send any campaign contributions Rep. Knox's way. Judging from his last disclosure, the insurance industry has taken very good care of their man in Atlanta, just as he has taken very good care of them.

Of course, corporate welfare isn't anything new to Republicans. In 1980's Sen. John McCain's buddy, Charles Keating ran the Lincoln Savings and Loan which became insolvent due to "bad loans" (sound familiar?). The bailout cost tax payers 2.9 billion (a pittance compared to the Bear Streans guarantee) while John McCain earned his place among the "Keating Five"-elected officials Charles Keating turned to for political cover.

So, Republicans preach about personal responsibility, extol the virtues of a free market economy and admonish welfare mothers to just pull themselves up by their bootstraps, but they are more than willing to offer up your tax dollars to subsidize corporate fat cats. Why is it that the person who's born into poverty is supposed to struggle while those who have more than they ever need are given hands outs handouts? Look no further than the incestuous relationship between big corporations, their lobbyists and the money that flows into campaign coffers-of both Republicans and Democrats, by the way. Looks like we need a whole new brand of welfare reform.

Sphere: Related Content

Vic Jones is Going to Love This

We can rely Georgia Republicans to take care of big insurance companies who pour dollars into their campaign accounts. The rest of us are just out of luck. According to an op-ed in today's Telegraph, on Thursday, thanks to Rep. Tom Knox and a quick legislative slight of hand, both chambers of the Georgia General Assembly passed a bill including a provision that makes it unnecessary for insurance companies to get approval from the Insurance Commissioner before passing certain rate increases on to consumers. Here's a portion of Charles Richardson's piece:

So what did the industry buy? The Judiciary Committee added language in Section 4 that will change the way insurance companies raise rates in Georgia. For all the other legal mumbo-jumbo, it comes down to a single sentence: "For all such private passenger motor vehicle insurance (rates) shall be effective upon filing and shall be implemented without approval of the Commissioner."Though insurance companies still have to go through the filing process with the insurance commissioner's office, policy holders will get a bill and be expected to pay it before the commissioner signs off on the increase. There is a smoke and mirrors caveat. Proponents of this sleight-of-hand point to the provision that requires companies to seek the insurance commissioner approval before raising rates on policies that carry mandated minimum coverages. According to Oxendine, 90 percent of policy holders carry insurance above the minimum.

Good to know you're looking out for us, there, Tom. Actually, it looks like Tom is serving those who have contributed rather richly to his campaign. A check of just his December, 2007 disclosure shows a rather tidy sum from insurance companies and their lobbyists. By the way, I noted on the disclosure that in that reporting period, Rep. Knox did not have a single contribution from an individual donor-all special interest pacs and businesses.

If any question remains about whether the insurance industry had a "special" investment in this piece of legislation, all you have to do is check the website of one of Rep. Knox's contributors, American Insurance Association. The headline, Georgia General Assembly Passes Key Auto Reform Measure is at the top of their "news releases."

On another note, when is Civil Justice PAC (trial lawyers) going to stop feeding the hand that bites it?

Sphere: Related Content

Uh Oh

Note to presidential candidates: have your staff check your previous sworn statements before responding to related allegations. Sen. John McCain-a man I respect and admire, by the way-may have really stepped in it, and I'm not talking about the alleged improper relationship with a lobbyist. I'm talking about his defense of those claims that appears to contradict his own sworn statements. According to Newsweek, it appears that in responding to the NYT's thinly sourced allegations about an improper relationship with a female lobbyist, McCain contradicted his own sworn statements, given in a deposition more than five years ago.

When this story initially broke on Wednesday, I was intrigued by the headline and but less impressed with the content. It seemed like a re-circulated old allegation, and the sourcing, though thin, seemed to point to a Republican leak. I couldn't figure out why loyal Republicans would be going after their nominee-unless they knew a bomb was ticking that could explode post-convention and doom his candidacy. Then, perhaps, it would be better to explode it now, in the "liberal" Times and hope for enough distance to avoid real damage to his candidacy. Toss in the likelihood that Republicans, even the cautious conservatives, would rally behind him if attacked by the "liberal media," and all in all, it would be a win for McCain.

But, I don't think that the architects of this leak counted on McCain contradicting his own sworn statements in his lengthy and specific denial yesterday. Americans are a forgiving people and have a short memory. The exception? We really don't like hypocrisy and lies. Just like Bill Clinton's infamous "it depends on what 'is', 'is' ", this part of the McCain story has teeth. His campaign has responded by saying that it really is not a contradiction. I'm pretty sure that most third graders who can pass a reading comprehension test would disagree. Check the story and see what you think.

Sphere: Related Content

Oh, Good. That's Just Peachy.

The AJC points out today that the tax proposal everyone loves to hate may benefit at least one group: lobbyists. And, they're right. Everybody and their brother will be hiring lobbyists to try to make sure that their niche is protected. The problem is, the poor and middle class Georgians the Speaker wishes to shift the tax burden to-they don't have lobbyists. Yet another reason they can expect to get the shaft in this debate. The only people paid to be there to protect their interests will be legislators. Like I said....

Seriously, though, could this horrid tax plan be a red herring? I've thought for some time that there was such fierce opposition to this tax plan that it surely had no chance of success. Even the Governor and the Lt. Governor have signaled their opposition. And, the experts say the numbers just don't work. But, here's what the proposal could do. It could keep the focus of the legislative session on Richardson, something he might want if he's going to run for governor. Also, with all the lobbyists busy fighting the good fight on this issue, any number of peculiarly heinous pieces of legislation could slip by without the scrutiny they deserve. After all, there are only so many issues you can fight at once. And, if the proposal fails to get the votes needed to be on the ballot next November, then Glenn gets to campaign on "they wouldn't even let you vote on it...they didn't trust voters to decide." Just peachy.

Oh, by the way, who are the lobbyists going to hire to keep lobbyist services from being taxable? And, all those perks they give legislators, will they be able to keep the tickets and trips off the tax books?

Sphere: Related Content

Is the NYT Shrill, Too?

Writing today for the New York Times, Paul Krugman, says

Senator Clinton delayed a long time before coming out with her own plan — a delay that created a lot of anxiety among health care reformers, and may, as I’ll explain in a minute, be a bad omen for the future. Still, this week she did deliver a plan, and it’s as strong as the Edwards plan — because unless you get deep into the fine print, the Clinton plan basically is the Edwards plan.

Over the last week, the Edwards campaign has been effectively holding Hillary Clinton's feet to the fire on health care. The issue is not the substance of her plan, but, rather, the timing of her plan. The truth is that John Edwards led on this issue in February-just as he has led on virtually every issue. While Hillary Clinton was talking about incremental steps, John Edwards published a comprehensive, workable plan to cover every American. Now, Clinton, seven months later, published a plan-one that is remarkably similar to the Edwards' plan. Any why not? It's an excellent plan. The Clinton campaign appears to be pushing back by focusing, not on any plan, but instead, on Elizabeth Edwards suggesting that she is "attacking" Hillary and is becoming "shrill." (For those of you who don't know, "shrill" and "attacking" are words people toss about in an effort to shut up strong, smart women-especially when they are both right and effective.) So, is Krugman "shrill," too?

It's not a problem that Clinton's plan so closely mirrors what Edwards proposed seven months ago. The Edwards plan is the best plan, and it makes perfect sense for her to emulate it. The question is, why did it take her so long? Krugman has a thought about that as well:

...even if the Democrats take the White House and expand their Congressional majorities, the insurance and drug lobbies will try to bully them into backing down on their campaign promises.
That’s why the long delay before Senator Clinton announced her health care plan made supporters of universal care, myself included, so nervous — a nervousness that is not completely assuaged by the fact that she finally did deliver. It’s good to know that whoever gets the Democratic nomination will run on a very good health care plan. What remains is the question of whether he or she will have the determination to turn that plan into reality.

For the first time in my memory, in John Edwards, we have an opportunity to nominate a Democrat who is both the most electable and the most progressive. John Edwards is not in bed with the lobbyists for the industries that hope to derail universal health care. Hillary Clinton is still taking their money. She says that the money won't impact her resolve to reform health care, but you have to wonder. With Edwards, there is no question about his resolve.

Sphere: Related Content

Speaking of Ending It...

It's time for Georgia lawmakers to get out of bed with lobbyists-and I mean that only figuratively, I swear. Georgia needs to follow the example of neighboring states that strictly limit what lobbyists can spend on lawmakers. It is insulting to voters when our elected representatives argue that those who wine, dine and finance trips for them have no greater influence than the average citizen. Earth to lawmakers: we're not that dumb.

Shouldn't Georgia Democrats be the party that says "no more?" Sure, Democrats introduced legislation last year to cap lobbyist spending, and that bill went exactly no where, but how about we lead by example? How about we declare that we are the party that represents the people of Georgia, not special interests and big corporations who can afford to pay lobbyists to wine and dine legislators?* My point is that Democrats do not need a new law to say "no more" on this issue. They can, today, decide that they will self-impose a cap on what lobbyists spend on them. Several of our local lawmakers, notably, Sen. Brown and Rep. Lucas, seem to have already done just that. It's time to lead on this issue, and I'm giving some serious thought to leading myself. Why should I contribute to any lawmaker who is also taking contributions and perks from lobbyists?

(*By the way, if Richardson gets his way with the Great Big Tax on Everything, will the services lobbyists provide be subject to sales tax?)

What got me started on this issue again today? The AJC has a piece the summer trips financed by lobbyists for lawmakers.

What if your summer schedule included trips to posh resorts at St. Simons, Ponte Vedra Beach, Grand Cayman and Asheville, with some trips literally back to back? Rough life, right? Rep. Roger Williams seems to think so. Today, James Salzer with the AJC has a piece about the trips lobbyists provided for various lawmakers over the summer, including picking up a $20,000 tab for the Republican House Caucus's retreat at the King and Prince in St. Simons. (For the record, it's my understanding that the Democratic House Caucus Retreat was in Dubose Porter's barn. Not exactly the King and Prince, and a bit more down to earth. ) So entrenched is the culture of coziness with lobbyists and the industries they represent that in order to ensure equal footing, The University System of Georgia no less was among the biggest spenders at the Capitol during session. Isn't there just something inherently wrong with a system that has the state lobbying itself for a slice of the pie? The average citizen doesn't stand a chance in this high stakes, high dollar industry.

But, fear not, says Rep. Roger Williams of Dalton, those who wine, dine and pay for these extravagant trips have no advantage over average citizens. (I feel better, don't you?) As Chairman of Regulated Industries, he was "flat worn out" after attending one beach side conference after another this summer. I don't know how he had any energy left to listen to average citizens. According to the AJC:

First, in mid-June, it was the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers on St. Simons Island. Then it was off to St. Pete Beach, Fla., for the Georgia Beer Wholesalers Association. Next came the Georgia Association of Convenience Stores in Ponte Vedra Beach. A few days later it was back to St. Simons Island for the House Republican Caucus meeting.
Three weeks later, he was back in Florida, attending a gathering of the Georgia Food Industry Association, which represents grocery stores and pushed the Sunday sales bill.
The trips cost lobbyists about $3,200, not including what they spent to sponsor the Republican caucus meeting.

This is not a partisan issue-both Democrats and Republican state lawmakers have raked in their share of perks. The percentage given to each party just varies with who is in power, underscoring the ridiculousness of claims that such perks do not represent undue influence-just access. But in the world of legislative politics, access is everything.

Sphere: Related Content

Edwards: We've Got To End It, Not Defend It

Taking aim at the influence of corporate politicians and Washington lobbyists, today, John Edwards challenged Hillary Clinton, and all the other Democratic candidates, to "end it, not defend it." According to the Associated Press, Edwards made these remarks as he accepted the endorsement of the Carpenters Union.

To the roars of the union members, Edwards said, "Washington is rigged against regular Americans, against working Americans like you and the men and women you represent, whose interests and concerns don't stand a chance against the onslaught of lobbyists in Washington, D.C."

Edwards again issued his challenge to all Democratic candidates to refuse to accept money from federal lobbyists and political action committees. Edwards has never accepted either and no longer accepts contributions from state-level lobbyists. Edwards said that he is not asking any candidate to give back money they have taken in the past, but, instead, to declare this a new day for Democrats-a day when the party through the example of its leaders will be the party for the people of this country, not the party of corporate interests.

Edwards has Clinton in a bit of a box. Increasingly, she finds herself responding to him, both on the issue of her electability and on the issue of corporate influence/lobbyist money. To defend taking the money from lobbyists (over $400,000 and counting), she is forced to defend a system in Washington that most people believe does not work for them. Last week, she said that she intended to work within the system created "by the constitution" for change in Washington, and that "you can't deny that the system exists." Today, Edwards said:

Look, Senator Clinton is right – you cannot pretend the system doesn't exist. But you also can't pretend that it works. And that's where she and I part company.
Because I believe if you defend the system that defeats change, you can't be a president that will bring change. When it comes to the Washington influence game, we need to end it, not defend it.
She says you bring change by working within the system established by the Constitution. I think the system has been corrupted by corporate powers never contemplated by the Constitution. This is not the government of, by and for the people that our founding fathers intended.
There is no principled compromise between the way things have always been and the way things could be.

This discussion of whether the system need to change or merely be trimmed around the edges is a debate that is likely to escalate as Americans become increasingly frustrated with the escalation of the war in Iraq and the failure of the new Democratic majority to stand up to the President.

Sphere: Related Content

Speaking of Lobbyists

John Edwards is the only candidate for President who has never taken any money from federal lobbyists or PACs, and he never will. He has challenged the other candidates, from both parties, to join him in the pledge to reject these contributions. Check the reaction to his challenge:

Sphere: Related Content

"It's Hard Enough to Get People to Run"

I wonder why the Georgia GOP allows Glenn Richardson to keep speaking for himself. Isn't he important enough yet to have a "spokesperson?" Today, Savannah Now reports that the Speaker says he sees no need for restrictions on lobbyist's perks to legislators. He thinks that there are enough rules, after all, the expenditures have to be reported, and we know that the average Georgian (struggling to pay their house note and occasionally splurging on a meal out at Chilli's) spends tons and tons of time searching the State Ethics Commission website to track the "almost a million" dollars lobbyists spent on Georgia legislators in the during this year's session. The truth is, the average Georgia can't imagine dropping a hundred dollars on one meal out.

Richardson has a perfectly logical reason for keeping the lobbyist perks. He says that it's already hard enough to get people to run for office. I guess if we take away the dinners out and the sports tickets, elected officials would be reduced to working for us lowly taxpayers, and that just won't do. I've said this before, and I will say it again here: we need to raise what we pay legislators, and cut out the lobbyist spending. You work for the person to signs your check. Period.

Sphere: Related Content

You Get What You Pay For

$931, 000. That's what lobbyists spent wining, dining and entertaining elected officials during this year's 65 day legislative session. Thank God for sine die, or they would've hit a million. The AJC has three articles today on lobbyist spending in Georgia: Raining Freebies, Jerry Keen, a Lavished Lawmaker, and Lawmakers and Freebies.

While Jerry Keen has officially won the lobbyist lottery, these expenditures are part of the cozy culture in Atlanta. According to the information available on the Georgia State Ethics Commission website, among lawmakers who represent a portion of Bibb County, my representative, freshman Allen Peake received the most perks from lobbyists. Here are the 2007 numbers for legislators who represent a portion of Bibb County:

Rep. Allen Peake: $1785.85

Rep. Nikki Randall: $1682.15

Rep. Allen Freeman: $1598.42

Rep. Tony Sellier: $1210.57

Sen. Cecil Staton: $449.28

Sen. Robert Brown: $152.48

Rep. David Lucas: $20.51

Speaker Glenn Richardson dismisses concerns about whether the luxuries lobbyists lavish upon lawmakers give them, and the interests they represent, undue influence:

Holding his thumb and index finger an inch apart Richardson said: " I have this much time in a day. I extend the day by going out and meeting with other people....I know there's people who look and go, 'All they want to do is go out to dinner and wine and dine'....People want time with me."

Isn't that the problem? He who pays for dinner gets access, and with elected officials, access is everything. How can anyone, with a straight face, even debate whether or not expenditures by lobbyists influence lawmakers? It is the job of lobbyists to influence lawmakers. That's what they're hired to do, and if spending money didn't further that purpose, then the money would stay in the bank. Think about it this way, if DPG chair Jane Kidd were buying Richardson's secretary's lunch everyday, would he be concerned? You bet he would, as well he should.

Plus, this data doesn't even begin to touch the money that the firms these lobbyists represent contribute directly to the campaign accounts of elected officials. And, then there's the infamous "speaker's fund."

Here's what I think. Folks work for the person who signs their check. Let's cut out lobbyist spending and raise the salaries of legislators (now $17,341.00) to the same level we pay entry level teachers. Even though the legislative session is only a portion of the year, by not paying a full time salary, we increase the temptation to take the lobbyist perks and greatly limit the pool of people who can offer themselves for service. Think about it. How many jobs allow employees to take about four months a year off to serve in the legislature, never knowing when they might be called back for a special session? Let's pay a reasonable salary and put an end to the "eatin, drinkin' and legislatin'" culture that breeds corruption in Atlanta.

Sphere: Related Content