Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democrats want sweeping House ethics investigation
Yahoo ^

Posted on 01/07/2006 9:22:40 AM PST by Sub-Driver

Democrats want sweeping House ethics investigation

15 minutes ago

Democrats seized on a mushrooming scandal involving a disgraced lobbyist on Saturday to call for sweeping ethics probes in the Republican-led House of Representatives.

Rep. Louise Slaughter, a New York Democrat, said lobbyists had multiplied by the thousands in recent years to the point where there were now 63 of them for every lawmaker. She said they were using their campaign donations to influence policy and even write laws.

Slaughter called on the House ethics committee to investigate corruption cases involving lawmakers with links to Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who pleaded guilty this week in a U.S. corruption probe.

"The House ethics committee, after a year of inaction, must get to work immediately to investigate pending ethics and corruption cases in the House, including those involving members with ties to Jack Abramoff," she said in the Democrats' weekly radio address.

"This is a necessary first step to restore a high ethical standard to the Congress," Slaughter said.

There was no immediate comment from a spokesman for the ethics committee, chaired by Rep. Doc Hastings (news, bio, voting record), a Washington Republican.

But Republicans have sought to cast the Abramoff case as a bipartisan scandal, noting that some Democrats also received donations from Abramoff's clients and associates.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 109th; abramoff; conyers; fundraising; gannon; housedems; hypocrites; louiseslaughter; mediabias; slaughter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last
ho hum...
1 posted on 01/07/2006 9:22:40 AM PST by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
She said they were using their campaign donations to influence policy and even write laws

Well no duh. That is the nature of the beast. Most politicians are corrupt, and most lobbyists are crooks.

I think lobbying ought to be illegal.

That way, congressmen would have to vote simply based on their constituents desires, rather than having their backs scratched all the time.

And if those idiots are trying to pretend that this is a Republican problem, won't they look foolish when the whole story comes out. Of course them looking foolish is nothing new.

2 posted on 01/07/2006 9:26:31 AM PST by teenyelliott (Soylent green should be made outta liberals...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Of course we must only investigate republicans. Those democrats with hands in the til are pure of heart and to prove it, they REFUSE to return any of the bribes they received!


3 posted on 01/07/2006 9:27:46 AM PST by lawdude (LIEberals/socialists make up facts and history as they go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

What??? Corruption in politics?!


4 posted on 01/07/2006 9:27:56 AM PST by Lunatic Fringe (North Texas Solutions http://ntxsolutions.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Note to Representative Slaughter:

Be careful what you wish for,sweetheart...you just might get it.

5 posted on 01/07/2006 9:28:41 AM PST by Gay State Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Democrats want sweeping House ethics investigation

Democrats demand their cut. House minority leaders say "give us a piece of the pie!"

6 posted on 01/07/2006 9:32:18 AM PST by ricks_place
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Repubbies ought to be FAR more interested in having a SWEEPING investigation! A LOT more. Frankly I am tired of BOTH sides doing this slimy business behind the scenes. Might not be anything strictly illegal about it, but it is slimy and a-moral regardless. It isn't even close to WHY we sent these people, regardless of party affiliation, to DC to begin with!

Yea, lets have a sweeping investigation. Wanna be that it ends up being a draw? In the end it serves US, the people. We want to know what our represenatives are doing, the better to decide if we need new blood in DC!

OK, flame away!


7 posted on 01/07/2006 9:33:38 AM PST by Danae (Anál nathrach, orth' bháis's bethad, do chél dénmha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

And I want a pony.


8 posted on 01/07/2006 9:34:45 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I want sweeping action...

I want to sweep the most unethicle Democrats like Keneddy and Clinton and Pelosi and Boxer and Bird and such from the peoples house. Its one thing to call for the elimination of a problem....its quite another to be the very problem and point fingers at others. This is pure defense mechanism inate to all democrats cut from this rug.

9 posted on 01/07/2006 9:35:07 AM PST by ICE-FLYER (God bless and keep the United States of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teenyelliott

congress critters and candidates should not be allowed to receive money from any entity that is not a natural person who is a Cutizen of the USA and also a constituent to the critters district.

No corporations, associations, unions, PACs, etc etc etc


10 posted on 01/07/2006 9:39:03 AM PST by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ICE-FLYER

Because of the partisan talk in all this, I don't think that any real reform will come out of it. So much for campaign finance reform.


11 posted on 01/07/2006 9:39:38 AM PST by virgil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68

I agree. The whole process is tainted.


12 posted on 01/07/2006 9:43:01 AM PST by teenyelliott (Soylent green should be made outta liberals...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Wasn't Daschle's wife a lobbyist?


13 posted on 01/07/2006 9:43:15 AM PST by toddlintown (Lennon takes six bullets to the chest, Yoko is standing right next to him and not one f'ing bullet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

DEms don't want an investigation...
They want the ISSUE of an investigation. Remember who it was that fought so hard against the ethics changes earlier this year?


14 posted on 01/07/2006 9:43:31 AM PST by tcrlaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Start with Pelosi!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1553402/posts

Nancy Pelosi in a "Cloud of Corruption"
Capitol Hill Journal ^ | January 6, 2006 | Bob Parks

Posted on 01/06/2006 6:03:16 PM MST by WatchYourself

...“The unreported trip was a week-long 1999 visit to Taiwan, paid for by the Chinese National Association of Industry and Commerce, for "meetings with government, military and business officials," according to a filing Pelosi signed June 30. The flights cost $3,400 each for Pelosi and her husband. The hotel cost was $940. The sponsor, which has picked up trips for leaders of both parties, paid $300 for meals.

“Pelosi said she had provided "a good faith estimate" of the cost of the other two trips, since her "office records for that period do not indicate the costs." In 1998, NBC paid for a $200 trip to New York for a "Meet the Press" appearance, according to the filing. In 1999, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee paid $300 for transportation to Delray Beach, Fla., and $40 for meals for Pelosi to appear at a reception and briefing.”

Whoops.

Nancy's words will come back and bite her, and when they do, she'll spin, she'll point fingers, she may even cry. But seeing how this scandal may touch almost every United States Senator, Pelosi may be lamenting how lousy she'll look wearing orange...


15 posted on 01/07/2006 9:45:54 AM PST by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

BARRETT BUMP


16 posted on 01/07/2006 9:48:05 AM PST by freema (Proud Marine Mom-I love the DC FReepers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Writing a law to benefit a lobyist's patron is not necessarily a bad thing as what is good for that patron might be good for many. When a law is written to benefit one or a few to the detriment of many, now that is corrupt.

As far as ethics investigations go, the Democrats might be careful of what they ask for.

17 posted on 01/07/2006 9:48:43 AM PST by Lion Den Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teenyelliott
I won't disagree that most politicians are self-serving scum. But I don't want lobbying made illegal. That's part of living in a democratic republic. We have the freedom to hire others to petition our government for ourselves, thus freeing ourselves to pursue our own lives.

I'd much rather be able to join the NRA and send them some money then have to be a watchdog and individual lobbyist for every 2nd Amendment issue that comes up in the nation. Also, the fact that there are 3-4 million members in the NRA sends a clear, incontestable voice to our representatives that the NRA represents the opinions of vast numbers.
18 posted on 01/07/2006 10:00:43 AM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Liberals are blind. They are the dupes of Leftists who know exactly what they're doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Rep. Louise Slaughter, a New York Democrat, said lobbyists had multiplied by the thousands in recent years to the point where there were now 63 of them for every lawmaker.

Louise has at least 63 abortionists funneling blood money to her to support their favorite cause.

19 posted on 01/07/2006 10:08:18 AM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
Point taken.

But it is no longer just others who are petitioning the government on our behalf.

It appears to me that the majority of lobbyists do not work for the best interest of American citizens, but for themselves and whoever will pay them the most.

Most lobbyists will do or say whatever you want, as long as you pay them enough. And that certainly is not in our best interest.

20 posted on 01/07/2006 10:09:18 AM PST by teenyelliott (Soylent green should be made outta liberals...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Slaughter called on the House ethics committee to investigate corruption cases involving lawmakers with links to Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who pleaded guilty this week in a U.S. corruption probe.

BRING IT ON!!

21 posted on 01/07/2006 10:10:00 AM PST by Mo1 (Republicans protect Americans from Terrorists. Democrats protect Terrorists from Americans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Pot, meet Kettle.


22 posted on 01/07/2006 10:18:58 AM PST by unixfox (AMERICA - 20 Million ILLEGALS Can't Be Wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: adam_az

Heck, Start with McDermott! Save Pelosi for dessert. ;-)


23 posted on 01/07/2006 10:20:12 AM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Monthly Donor spoken Here. Go to ... https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I'm willing to bet a dollar to a donut hole that the RATs really DON'T want that.

That being said, let's give 'em what they say they want.


24 posted on 01/07/2006 10:20:30 AM PST by Howie66 ("America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
I'm sure the Bush Justice Dept. will fall all over themselves to comply.

/not sarcasm

25 posted on 01/07/2006 10:24:30 AM PST by Batrachian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Democrats want sweeping House ethics investigation

Be careful of what you wish for.....

26 posted on 01/07/2006 10:25:17 AM PST by Don Corleone (Leave the gun..take the cannoli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teenyelliott

Lobbying definitely should be illegal. It's just about the biggest core problem we have.


27 posted on 01/07/2006 10:27:56 AM PST by kenth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

To: kenth

lobbying = "I'll give you this in exchange for your vote"


29 posted on 01/07/2006 10:32:37 AM PST by teenyelliott (Soylent green should be made outta liberals...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: teenyelliott

What's happening with LA Rep William Jefferson..and don't forget Frank Ballance..the NC Dem congresscritter now on jail..


30 posted on 01/07/2006 11:06:33 AM PST by ken5050 (Ann Coulter needs to have children ASAP to pass on her gene pool....any volunteers?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: toddlintown
Wasn't Daschle's wife a lobbyist?

Shhhhhhhh! She still is. And Little Tommy was so deeply saddened after the election that he became a lobbyist, too. That's what former politicians often do - become lobbyists.
31 posted on 01/07/2006 11:09:54 AM PST by conservative in nyc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

John Kerry $98K
Harry Reid$45K


32 posted on 01/07/2006 11:12:12 AM PST by TASMANIANRED (Democrats value the privacy of terrorists higher than the lives of Americans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

This contributions chart has been updated as of 1/5/06. Everyone was eating at that trough...

Jack Abramoff Lobbying and Political Contributions, 1999 - 2006

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp?sort=R


33 posted on 01/07/2006 11:33:17 AM PST by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teenyelliott

"I think lobbying ought to be illegal."

Any communications with a politician can be viewed as lobbying. Not possible. Lobbyists are spokespeople for the constituents. For example: NRA, Right to Life organizations, small business lobbyists, etc.

Let's just make sure that corrupt people in both parties who get caught red handed get the boot, suffer our contempt, etc. I'd like to start with the guy who pardoned a crack dealer for cash to his brother-in-law: Bill Clinton. I doubt anything Abramoff was involved in rates anything close to Chinagate, either.

FRegards....


34 posted on 01/07/2006 11:52:33 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March (Fight corruption by choking government power and curbing government spending.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Danae

No argument here. Agree with you completely. We employ the government and quite frankly I'm getting a little sick of our employees conduct. They need a little wake up call.


35 posted on 01/07/2006 11:56:57 AM PST by RightWingRadio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: teenyelliott

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Money is not a form of free speech.

When the system is corrupt only the rich get to playball.

Have spending limits? Maybe. If we can limit the amount spent on each candiate we can tell which one's are bought by how much they take from an individual donor. There are plenty of honest people that can fund a run for office.

I think the run for office should be by the voters.. the real men and women of this country that want to see their poltician elected. Putting boots on the ground. Going door to door. That's real freedom of speech. Having conversations with people in that district. Not letting people vote by the smeer ad's run by "friends" of the particular candiate.

I know some people are going to run all over me calling me a free speech hater. But the fact is we HAVE to change our system. Our country is bought and sold everyday by people of wealth. I can influence by peers through motiviation and discuss but that influence doesn't carry the weight of the all important American Dollar.


36 posted on 01/07/2006 1:00:23 PM PST by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Make lobbying illegal?

Lobbying is just how people affected by laws -- including 'corporate' people and groups -- can make their needs and views known. There should never be a law the purports to limit how people may speak their minds, or whether they can be paid to speak on behalf of someone else.

It is sensible and rational to contribute to an elected person who will work your will. Making those contributions illegal is the problem, not the solution.


37 posted on 01/07/2006 1:14:11 PM PST by Tax Government (Defeat the evil miscreant donkeys and their rhino lackeys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy

The right to give money to someone is every bit as sacrosanct as the right to speak.


38 posted on 01/07/2006 1:21:18 PM PST by Tax Government (Defeat the evil miscreant donkeys and their rhino lackeys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: virgil

This is all prelude to the already promised campaign finance reform, just one more act in what has become a lengthy tragedy.


39 posted on 01/07/2006 2:13:06 PM PST by Simo Hayha (An education is incomplete without instruction in the use of arms to protect oneself from harm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: teenyelliott
I think lobbying ought to be illegal.

That way, congressmen would have to vote simply based on their constituents desires,

You realize that these two ideas are mutually exclusive?

The lobbyists represent the very same constituents. Legitimately...and with good reason.

If you're a small businessman, for example, you not only have a lobbyist in Washington -- you need one to represent your interests. Same if you're an insurance agent, a farmer, or any occupation or profession.

Would you prefer that the Chambers of Commerce and the unions, for example, NOT have a voice in Washington?

The problem isn't "lobbyists", per se. The problem is too much regulatory power concentrated at the federal level, which creates the need for lobbyists.

40 posted on 01/07/2006 2:34:22 PM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MurryMom
Rep. Louise Slaughter, a New York RAT...

Who?

Why aren't Pelosi or Murtha calling for ethics investigations? RATS in glass houses? I think so, too...

41 posted on 01/07/2006 3:03:42 PM PST by Libloather (Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

LOL.. I reposted this one later, it had me in stitches.


42 posted on 01/07/2006 6:24:10 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Monthly Donor spoken Here. Go to ... https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Pelosi PAC Hit with $21K Fine ^
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1074467/posts

Keyword - 2PAC Pelosi
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=2pacpelosi


43 posted on 01/07/2006 6:24:52 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Monthly Donor spoken Here. Go to ... https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Tax Government

Not when it comes to buying representation in our Gov't. If you believe otherwise I'll sell you that ocean front property in North Dakota.


44 posted on 01/07/2006 9:16:28 PM PST by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Typical.

No new news here.

45 posted on 01/07/2006 9:30:59 PM PST by Thumper1960 (The enemy within: Demoncrats and DSA.ORG Sedition is a Liberal "family value".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy

Sorry. Elected officials should be able to accept campaign contributions from any source to induce them to perform lawful acts. If the electorate doesn't like how an elected official performs in this area, the recourse is to vote him out.


46 posted on 01/07/2006 9:52:45 PM PST by Tax Government (Defeat the evil miscreant donkeys and their rhino lackeys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Tax Government

For other officials bought with the same money.

We can play this game all night but your words aren't going to change how the system works.

The system must change in order for our politics to.


47 posted on 01/08/2006 6:21:28 PM PST by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68
congress critters and candidates should not be allowed to receive money from any entity that is not a natural person

The whole idea of limiting campaign contributions is a flawed one. People and their money -- organized into any legal entity -- have a right to be heard and to make their influence felt. And the person who wants to put government in charge of how and whose ideas are expressed in the political arena does not have democracy's well being at heart.

48 posted on 01/08/2006 8:55:34 PM PST by Tax Government (Defeat the evil miscreant donkeys and their rhino lackeys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Brooms aren't very selective about what they sweep.


49 posted on 01/08/2006 9:53:57 PM PST by skr ("That book [Bible], sir, is the rock on which our republic rests."--Andrew Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?

DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.

DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...

BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?

DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.

BLITZER: Unfortunately Mr. Chairman, we got to leave it right there.

50 posted on 01/09/2006 6:38:00 AM PST by MurryMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson