« Yikes | Main | Against The Draft »
December 22, 2006
The Incumbent Protection Program
And the perpetual campaign perpetuates:
The 110th Congress has not even been sworn into office. But in a measure of the determination not to surrender the majority in two years, Representative Nancy Pelosi, the presumptive speaker, has instructed aides to begin acting immediately to help Democrats who won by small margins in districts where President Bush did well in 2004 or who coasted in because their opponents were mired by controversy. Those new members are methodically being given coveted spots on high-profile committees, in particular the Financial Services Committee, a magnet for campaign contributions, and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, a platform from which to send money for projects back home.
Their names will be affixed as co-sponsors atop big-ticket measures on ethics and stem cell research that are to be voted on in the first 100 hours of the new Congress, Democratic leaders said.
The special group has attended orientation sessions on topics like delivering constituent services and getting their names regularly into local newspapers.
The sessions were led by members of Congress who have won in tough districts, including Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the new head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Several said they were being told that given a choice of voting the party position and casting a vote that would help them in their districts they should feel free to retreat from the Democratic line.
Those poor freshmen. No sooner did they finish one campaign then they're already starting the next. And how screwed is it that one way of protecting incumbents is to put them on the Financial Services Committee, where banks and credit companies will shower them with donations? When are Democrats going to make campaign finance reform a serious agenda item again?
December 22, 2006 in Election 2008 | Permalink
Comments
The only way for this to stop is to publicly finance elections, with no way for the superrich - or those who can raise the money privately - to avoid it.
Part of Pelosi's job is to ensure that she still has that job in 2 years. Since individual contributions are limited to such small amounts, and since even lower-tier House races can cost millions, there's lots and lots of fundraising that has to go on. Making that fundraising easier on the freshmen Democrats is a good move politically.
But it will screw up any kind of progressive agenda going through the House.
Publicly finance the elections. The people own the airwaves; set up rules dictating the amount of political ads that can be aired on TV and radio and how much they will cost. Since both industries make $$$$$$ while only paying $ - if that - to use the airwaves, it's not an undue burden for them to take a small hit every couple of years on this type of advertising. How much money would be taken out of politics altogether if candidates and other groups had to pay only a small amount for TV advertising and were restricted on the number of ads they could run?
There's probably steps we could take on other levels as well to remove the need for so much money.
Posted by: Stephen | Dec 22, 2006 12:29:17 PM
Leaving aside the possible serious problems that can occur because of certain members on committees related to the banking and finance industries, this strikes me as a good idea. Most of what I read sounds innocuous, like attaching their names to high profile bills as a way to garner them positive attention, particularly if they ran against a corrupt representative, and how to fundraise and deal with the media. Some of it involves doling out pork, of course, but that'd be the case no matter who was in charge. As long as this doesn't devolve into the insanity of the past few years--and I don't see why it would--I see no reason to panic.
Posted by: Brian | Dec 22, 2006 12:48:29 PM
Brian,
So why should these incoming work hard at drafting intelligent legislation if we're just going to append their names to whatever other Dems come up with?
And is it possible that someone from a safe seat is more qualified for the plum committee assignment?
Posted by: moriarty | Dec 22, 2006 1:58:55 PM
I'd say that this is just more of the Parlementization of the US Congress.
Posted by: NBarnes | Dec 22, 2006 4:44:26 PM
"Several said they were being told that given a choice of voting the party position and casting a vote that would help them in their districts they should feel free to retreat from the Democratic line."
Well, I'm glad to see they're already learning the way to promote a strong Democratic message and party loyalty (Pelosi's people control the House; just don't have votes on bad wedge issues) against an unpopular and sociopathic shithead president is to cave in when Republicans call them wimpy Democrats. Woo-fucking-hoo. Yes, Tom DeLay released Republicans to make votes close. I don't recall him bragging about it, though. And not from a majority that was supposed to be *acting* like a majority.
Posted by: Chris | Dec 22, 2006 7:59:08 PM
It's unfortunate that the chamber that was supposed to be closest to the people by virtue of their shorter terms is thereby mainly closer to their political consultants and fundraisers. The best kinds of campaign reform seem to be unable to pass by the Supreme Court as it stands now, and a constitutional amendment is probably no more possible for now. Maybe one of these will change, eventually.
Posted by: Sanpete | Dec 22, 2006 8:21:11 PM
I'd say that this is just more of the Parlementization of the US Congress.
Oh, not so. Not least because parliamentary systems have strict campaign finance restrictions, longer terms, and a short, clearly-defined election season that lasts about six weeks.
That's one of the weaknesses of the two-year House term. Blair's government made the most of its majority in 1997 to adopt relatively austere fiscal and spending policies for the first two years. On the one hand, a four-year term can be back-loaded, to dispense the goodies before an election's due; on the other hand, there's usually a couple of years to implement unpopular-but-necessary policies.
Two-year terms also restrict the opportunity for legislation that isn't skewed to lowest-common-denominator, 30-second politics. (Immigration, campaign finance reform.)
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Dec 23, 2006 2:08:43 PM
cheap@viagra.com
Posted by: cheap viagra | Jul 27, 2007 9:21:23 PM
cheap@viagra.com
Posted by: discount viagra | Jul 27, 2007 10:56:05 PM
cheap@viagra.com
Posted by: buy cheap viagra | Jul 28, 2007 4:22:52 AM
cheap@viagra.com
Posted by: order online viagra | Jul 28, 2007 5:58:02 AM
cheap@viagra.com
Posted by: online viagra | Jul 28, 2007 7:41:12 AM
cheap@viagra.com
Posted by: prescription viagra | Jul 28, 2007 9:14:07 AM
cheap@viagra.com
Posted by: viagra discount | Jul 28, 2007 10:56:30 AM
cheap@viagra.com
Posted by: viagra generic | Jul 28, 2007 12:37:07 PM
cheap@cialis.com
Posted by: buy cialis | Jul 28, 2007 2:11:59 PM
cheap@cialis.com
Posted by: generic cialis | Jul 28, 2007 3:58:17 PM
cheap@cialis.com
Posted by: cialis discount | Jul 28, 2007 8:57:50 PM
cheap@cialis.com
Posted by: buy online cialis | Jul 28, 2007 11:14:47 PM
cheap@cialis.com
Posted by: cialis cheap | Jul 29, 2007 12:55:23 AM
cheap@cialis.com
Posted by: cheapest cialis | Jul 29, 2007 2:29:09 AM
cheap@levitra.com
Posted by: generic levitra | Jul 29, 2007 9:05:40 AM
cheap@levitra.com
Posted by: order levitra | Jul 29, 2007 10:53:32 AM
cheap@viagra.com
Posted by: generic viagra | Jul 29, 2007 2:25:59 PM
cheap@viagra.com
Posted by: cheap viagra | Jul 29, 2007 4:03:47 PM
cheap@viagra.com
Posted by: discount viagra | Jul 29, 2007 5:42:55 PM
cheap@viagra.com
Posted by: online viagra | Jul 30, 2007 2:25:30 AM
cheap@viagra.com
Posted by: prescription viagra | Jul 30, 2007 3:57:58 AM
cheap@viagra.com
Posted by: viagra discount | Jul 30, 2007 5:37:43 AM
cheap@viagra.com
Posted by: viagra generic | Jul 30, 2007 7:06:27 AM
cheap@cialis.com
Posted by: buy cialis | Jul 30, 2007 8:51:37 AM
cheap@cialis.com
Posted by: generic cialis | Jul 30, 2007 11:03:46 AM
cheap@cialis.com
Posted by: cheap cialis | Jul 30, 2007 12:49:41 PM
cheap@cialis.com
Posted by: cialis discount | Jul 30, 2007 3:14:37 PM
cheap@cialis.com
Posted by: cialis cheap | Jul 30, 2007 6:06:15 PM
Listed above are links to weblogs that make reference to pfizer's viagra Online:
Posted by: viagra online | Aug 2, 2007 8:08:44 AM
pseudocapitulum waspily warrandice milvine mariticidal laserwort sparagus nonarmament
4
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/6.html
9
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/8.html
16
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/13.html
12
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/7.html
10
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/3.html
5
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/17.html
18
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/15.html
10
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/4.html
7
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/15.html
2
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/12.html
Posted by: Rosanne Franklin | Sep 5, 2007 3:50:15 AM
pseudocapitulum waspily warrandice milvine mariticidal laserwort sparagus nonarmament
113
http://jlztsotj.info/17.html
Posted by: Casey Duffy | Oct 13, 2007 6:14:58 PM
Posted by: avapro | Nov 4, 2007 5:58:59 PM



