Revolving Corruption

One of the most respected polling organizations is Rasmussen, whose reports of their ongoing polling of various topics of public interest are found on http://www.rasmussenreports.com. A post dated December 21, 2009 from their website states:

“The latest Rasmussen Reports weekly tracking update shows that 41% of voters nationwide favor the [health care] bill and 55% are opposed. Those figures are essentially unchanged from a week ago. This the fifth straight week with support for the legislation between 38% and 41%. Among senior citizens, the group most likely to use the health care system, just 33% are in favor while 60% are opposed. Most adults under 30 favor the plan, but majorities of every other age group take the opposite view. The intensity remains with those who oppose the legislation. Just 19% Strongly Favor the plan while 45% are Strongly Opposed. Polling released last week showed that 57% of voters say passing nothing would be preferable to passing the current legislation. Most voters (54%) believe they personally will be worse off if the legislation passes.” Id.

To the extent, therefore, that this reputable polling organization can be trusted, as of December 21, 2009, at least 55% of voters nationwide do not want Congress to continue down its road of breathtaking irresponsibility; 55% of America's voters in fact want the Senate health care bill to fail.

Yet, according to CNN, on December 23, 2009, “[t]he Senate health care bill cleared a third and final procedural hurdle Wednesday as Democrats successfully limited remaining debate time on the $871 billion measure. The Senate voted 60-39 along party lines to set a timetable for likely passage of the bill early Thursday morning. Democrats also turned back last-ditch motions from Republicans claiming various provisions in the bill, including a mandate that individuals purchase coverage, are unconstitutional. ‘It’s long past time we declare health care a right and not a privilege,’ Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said after the vote. ‘Today is a victory ... for American families,’ proclaimed Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana. ‘Americans won.’” (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/23/health.care)

In a representational democracy, so the theory goes, elected representatives stand in the shoes of their constituents, debate, deliberate, decide and - tautologically - represent the will and desire of those who elected them, those, moreover, whose money has been involuntarily taken to pay their salaries. But since the election of Obama and a Democratic-controlled Congress, there has not been simply a disjunct, but a willful, arrogant and indefensible disregard of the clear will of the electorate.

The mid-cycle 2010 elections are just months away. Yet, strangely, the 60 Democrat Senators who voted for cloture on the Senate's version of Obamacare seem blithely unconcerned about the displeasure of, say, 60% of the Senior Citizens - a key demographic critical to the continued control of Congress by Democrats.

Now many - all right, most - of the members of Congress are, I believe corrupt in the sense that they put personal interests far ahead of those of their constituents or of the nation as a whole. But I do not believe them to be stupid. Why then are they apparently unconcerned about being booted out of office in 2010 or 2012?

This may be part of the answer:

“Former congressman Jim Davis, D-Fla., who lost to Republican Charlie Crist in the race for Florida governor, joined Holland & Knight, a large law and lobbying firm. Davis said he will work mostly in Florida with occasional visits to Washington to advise clients. Managing partner Howell Melton Jr. said in a statement last month that the Democrat 'will be a valuable asset to our clients now that the new majority in Congress has convened.’

“Former congresswoman Nancy Johnson, R-Conn., joined law and lobbying firm Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, which touted her health care credentials — including her role in crafting the Medicare drug benefit. Democrat Christopher Murphy, who defeated Johnson, criticized the drug benefit and her ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Johnson did not return messages seeking comment.

“Former congressman Richard Pombo, R-Calif., on Tuesday joined Pac/West Communications, a lobbying and public relations firm. Pombo chaired the House Natural Resources Committee, and Pac/West's clients include timber and oil companies. Pombo said he will advise grass-roots groups on how to be politically effective.” (Matt Kelley, USA Today, 2/27/2007.)

To put a little more meat on these bones, as of 2006, the following former members of Congress had made the seamless swap from public shills to private shills: Andrews, Michael A; Anthony, Beryl Franklin Jr.: Archer, Bill; Armey, Dick; Bacchus, James; Bafalis, Louis A. (Skip); Barnes, Michael D.; Barr, Bob; Bartlett, Steve; Bayh, Birch E.; Bentley, Helen Delich; Blanchard, James J.; Bliley, Thomas J. Jr.; Bonker, Don; Borski, Bob; Boulter, Beau; Breaux, John Jr.; Brewster, Bill K.; Brock, William E. III; Bryan, Richard H.; Buechner, Jack W.; Bumpers, Dale; Burns, Max; Callahan, Sonny; Carney, William; Chapman, Jim; Christensen, Jon L.; Coats, Daniel R.; Coleman, E. Thomas; Coleman, Ronald D.; Combest, Larry; Corcoran, Thomas J.; Coyne, James K.; Cramer, Bud; Culver, John C.; D'Amato, Alfonse; Darden, George W.; Daub, Hal; Dellums, Ronald V.; Derrick, Butler; Dickey, Jay; Dole, Bob; Downey, Thomas J.; Dunn, Jennifer B.; Edwards, Jack; English, Glenn Lee Jr.; Evans, Billy Lee; Ewing, Thomas W.; Faircloth, Lauch; Fazio, Vic; Fields, Jack; Flanagan, Michael P.; Flippo, Ronnie G.; Forbes, Michael P.; Ford, Harold; Ford, Wendell; Franks, Robert D.; Funderburk, David; Garcia, Robert; Glickman, Daniel R. Goodling, William; Gorton, Slade; Grams, Rodney R.; Gray, William H. III; Hance, Kent R.; Hayes, James A.; Hertel, Dennis M.; Hilleary, William V.; Hoagland, Peter; Hochbrueckner, George J.; Huddleston, Walter D.; Hutchinson, Tim; Jenkins, Edgar; Jones, James R.; Kemp, Jack; Kennelly, Barbara; Klink, Ron; Klug, Scott; Kogovsek, Ray; Kuykendall, Steven T.; LaFalce, John J.; Largent, Steve; LaRocco, Lawrence P.; Laughlin, Gregory H.; Laxalt, Paul; Lazio, Rick; Lent, Norman F.; Levine, Mel; Lightfoot, Jim; Livingston, Robert L.; Loeffler, Tom; Lowery, William D.; Lujan, Manuel Jr.; Mack, Connie; Martin, David O'Brien; Martin, James G.; McCollum, Bill; McCurdy, Dave; McDade, Joseph M.; McGrath, Raymond J.; McInnis, Scott; McIntosh, David M.; McMillan, Alex; Melcher, John; Mica, Daniel A.; Michel, Robert H.; Miller, Brad; Moffett, Anthony J.; Molinari, Susan; Moore, Gwen; Moore, W. Henson; Morrison, Bruce A.; Myers, John; Napier, John L.; Nethercutt, George; Nickles, Don; Packard, Ron; Packwood, Bob; Parker, Mike; Paxon, Bill; Payne, L.F. Jr.; Pease, Ed; Porter, John Edward; Pressler, Larry; Pryor, David Jr.; Quinn, Jack; Ratchford, William; Riegle, Don; Rogan, James; Roth, Toby; Russo, Martin A.; Sandlin, Max; Santini, James D.; Sarpalius, Bill; Schroeder, Patricia; Shuster, Bud; Sikorski, Gerry E.; Slattery, James; Stanton, James V.; Staton, David M.; Stokes, Louis B.; Sundquist, Don; Swift, Al; Symms, Steven D.; Tate, Randy; Thomas, Craig; Vander Jagt, Guy A.; Walker, Robert S.; Wallop, Malcom; Watts, J.C. Jr.; Weber, Vin; Wheat, Alan; Whitten, Jamie L.; Zeliff, William H. Jr.; and Zimmer, Dick. (Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures -Sources: United States Senate Office of Public Records; Center for Responsive Politics.)

Some of the names are famous; some are infamous; all are, I believe, tawdry. And while I haven’t done a head count, my guess is that both sides of the aisle are well represented.

Gone are the days of a quiet retirement from public service (whatever that may mean nowadays) to Mount Vernon or Monticello. Today, paid politicians don’t die; they don’t even retire. Like a piece of toilet paper sticking stubbornly to the bottom of a shoe, we can’t get rid of them: When kicked out of office by an electorate that finally has wised up, these professional parasites simply move on to higher paid positions and continue to sell everyone and everything to the highest bidder.

Another article from USA Today underscores this irresistible impulse by professional politicians (constitutionally incapable of making money the good, old-fashioned way) to play the revolving door:

“Briefly, the revolving door is this: Politicians or federal employees leave office for the insider game of lobbying and advising private interests on how to do business with the federal government. This door has spun faster and faster as the influence-peddling industry has grown into a multibillion-dollar annual enterprise. More and more, it is not uncommon to see someone in charge of regulating or overseeing an industry working for that industry after a relatively short interval. In a report this month, the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics estimated that 'special interests and the lobbyists they employ' spent more than $13 billion lobbying Congress from 1998 to 2003. The center released a list of 250 "top revolvers" that included 32 former U.S. senators. More than 250 ex-members of Congress now lobby Congress, according to the center's analysis. (USA Today, 4/14/2005.) (Emphasis added.)

Clearly, there are at least two concerns: The first is that former members of Congress with insider information and influence betray their public trust upon (finally) leaving office by selling that information and influence to a private bidder. The second - which is more the point of this blog - is that a member of Congress no longer has an incentive to remain faithful to his or her constituents for fear of losing a congressional seat, since most already have even more lucrative job offers awaiting their "retirement."

Unfortunately, delicate considerations of First Amendment guarantees (which I do, of course, support) hedge up the way against more aggressive restrictions by Congress to limit the ability of former members of that pit of vipers to thumb their arrogant noses at those who elected them by softly floating to earth with their own versions of golden parachutes (and yes, I recognize the irony of suggesting that Congress might ever, in any substantial way, police itself ethically). As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held way, way back in 1952:

“In support of the power of Congress it is argued that lobbying is within the regulatory power of Congress, that influence upon public opinion is indirect lobbying, since public opinion affects legislation; and that therefore attempts to influence public opinion are subject to regulation by the Congress. Lobbying, properly defined, is subject to control by Congress, . . . But the term cannot be expanded by mere definition so as to include forbidden subjects. Neither semantics nor syllogisms can break down the barrier which protects the freedom of people to attempt to influence other people by books and other public writings. . . . It is said that lobbying itself is an evil and a danger. We agree that lobbying by personal contact may be an evil and a potential danger to the best in legislative processes. It is said that indirect lobbying by the pressure of public opinion on the Congress is an evil and a danger. That is not an evil; it is a good, the healthy essence of the democratic process. . . .” Rumely v. United States, 197 F.2d 166, 173-174, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1952), aff'd, United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41 (1953).

So, we end where we begin: The only check on the truly rapacious cupidity of Congress is for its dishonest, disgraced and shameless members to police themselves, to practice a modicum of discipline and to behave as if public office were an honored responsibility, not a whoreish pastime.

I am not holding my breath.