Tom Hayes: Has Senator Lieberman jumped the shark?

Shining the light on those who game the system and talk out of both sides of their mouth has given some in Congress fits. D.C. has never liked public attention to focus on influence peddling: the facts about campaign contributions, or how congressional spouses (such as Mrs. Joe Lieberman) earn money from sitting on boards of directors, or working for lobbying firms, etc., never sit well with constituents. But in times of economic crisis the appearance of financial improprieties becomes even more politically dangerous.

In a year when "lobbyist" may replace "liberal" as the dreaded L-word, the wise politician draws no attention to any connections with the corporate shills who infest Congress like a biblical plague. Any elected official whose spouse is paid to represent or advise an unpopular special interest should observe that simple caution even more carefully. Naive voters may not understand that this is simply how business is done in their corrupt capital these days -- so it is best to say nothing and hope that nobody asks too many questions.

~Joe Conason
In bed with Big Pharma
September 2006

What connects the Senator to GlaxoSmithKline, and lobbying firms APCO and Hill & Knowlton? What's the effect of drawing so much attention to the undue influence big insurance companies have via contributions to his campaign and PACs? Will his threatened defection on the public option cost him his precious committee chairmanship?

For-profit insurance is unique to the U.S. health care system. No other developed country has a profit motive warping the payment of health care. Activists have had more influence than predicted, and information flowing from "new media" sites that aren't being influenced by relying on profits from advertisers with an agenda is shining a lot of unwelcome light on influence peddling in D.C.

Will the changes move from health insurance reform to ethics reform?  Remember, both were on Obama's agenda when he was elected a year ago...

Read more...

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, and political analyst who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Cap & trade or cap & tax? Lobbyists behind scare tactics?

While most Americans support a cap on carbon pollution there’s now a flood of “talking points” and sound-bites circulating about the supposed short-comings and dangers of any new plan. The real threat of cap-and-trade is that it doesn’t favor the ultra-rich energy barons and corporations such as ExxonMobil. Changing to new and cleaner energy sources changes where the money goes - more of it stays in the U.S., in smaller, newer companies; it creates jobs that we desperately need to recover from the fiasco of letting the financial giants “self-regulate.”

Meanwhile, without incentives to change, we'll continue our reckless dependence on energy coming from overseas, from countries that seem to want to dominate us. Even if you ignore environmental impacts, our national security and our leadership role in the world depend on changing to more reliable energy supplies - the system of campaign donations controlling congressional decisions has to change.

It looks like green jobs are real. Recently, two solar energy companies — Hemlock Semiconductor Corp. and Wacker Chemie AG — announced billion-dollar investment plans to build plants near Clarksville and Chattanooga.”

U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN)

Follow the money:
don't let D.C. insiders off the hook!

In fact, a cap and trade system simply uses pure capitalism to reward efficient, innovative businesses while it effectively penalizes out-moded industries. Used world-wide it plays to American strengths, conveying tremendous economic advantage to industries and countries ready to innovate, and results in domestic job growth. Only somebody making lots of money off the existing rules could possibly deny the benefits of a global cap and trade system.

Many members of Congress benefit from huge campaign donations from energy companies. They’d be happy if we’d all stop paying such close attention to how energy policy intertwines with national security. They smile and want you to “trust” them. No matter if the business is banking or big oil, well-funded special interests don’t want to give up the loopholes they’ve lobbied for over the years.

Sound-bites and talking points don't insure anything but the status quo.

Obama hasn't fixed the lobbying system yet. Urge the President to push for reform of lobbying tactics. Don't let the fact that he's got high personal standards and goals to reform ethics inside the beltway blind you to what still happens in and around the Capitol building (and at the golf course...) Trusting is fine, my friends, but don't forget to verify.

read more | digg story