Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Democrats Kiss Up to K Street

By David Sirota, In These Times. Posted July 18, 2007.


Democrats who were sent to Congress in the tide-turning election of 2006 are selling out the economic populism that got them elected in the first place.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by David Sirota

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

In 1903, journalist William Riordan published a series of interviews with George Washington Plunkitt, who was probably the most famous leader of New York's Tammany Hall (other than Boss Tweed himself). During a discussion of Lincoln Steffens' then-new book The Shame of the Cities, Plunkitt told Riordan that Steffens "can't see no difference between honest graft and dishonest graft and consequent, he gets things all mixed up."

The same thing could be said for our Congress.

"Honest graft," said Plunkitt, is when "the politician looks after his own interests, the organization's interests and the people's interests all at the same time."

Dishonest graft, by contrast, is engaged in by "looters" who "go in for themselves alone without considering their organization or the people." Think Tom DeLay and the Abramoff scandal. As the Associated Press reported last year, the Abramoff-DeLay relationship made DeLay "a king of campaign fundraising," allowing him "to visit cliff-top Caribbean resorts, golf courses designed by PGA champions and four-star restaurants --all courtesy of donors who bankrolled his political money empire." In the process, he helped pass energy legislation that gave away taxpayer money to energy companies and tax legislation that gave away taxpayer money to millionaires --all while creating a scandal that eventually helped to break his party's hold on Congress.

But in a certain sense, Republican corruption is the purest form of honest graft. The Republican Party does not pretend to be anything other than the party of Big Money. Take the famous K Street Project: designed by Republican congressmen to use the promise of access --and the threat of no access --to force corporate lobbying organizations in Washington to fire Democrats and hire Republicans, so that those new Republican lobbyists could siphon as much corporate campaign contributions as possible to Republican political candidates.

Had this operation performed its work in secret, one might be able to say Republicans at least tried to pretend they were something they were not. But the K Street Project actually had its own public website, bragging to the world about its pay-to-play scheme.

This is "honest" graft -- that is, being open and honest about what the American Heritage Dictionary defines as the "unscrupulous use of one's position to derive profit or advantages." The Republican Congress didn't make any serious effort to pretend to be anything else. And in holding onto Congress for 12 years, they made the same successful calculation Plunkitt did: They believed that honest graft doesn't "hurt Tammany with the people" if the people perceive it to be out in the open, and merely a small, necessary and innocuous cost of the government doing business.

Clearly, this formula failed in 2006 when, after six years of one-party control of Congress and the White House, the American public started to see how big, wasteful and destructive Republican corruption really was.

Democrats rode their populist, anti-corruption platform to victory in 2006. But as we are now beginning to see, what we may have with the Democrats is merely a transfer from honest graft to dishonest graft --that is, corrupt behavior that pretends to be done in the people's name and that flies in the face of what the people were promised.

On May 10, a handful of Democratic congressional leaders held a press conference to trumpet a so-called "deal" with the Bush administration to push forward a package of lobbyist-written trade deals -- the very same kinds of trade deals 100 of their candidates in 2006 said they would work to stop if elected to Congress. Though Democrats said they had secured basic labor and environmental protections in these deals, Thomas J. Donohue, the Bush-connected head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, told reporters that he had been given "assurances that the labor provisions [in the deal] cannot be read to require compliance."

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) provides a good example of dishonest graft. In 1993, Emanuel was the Clinton administration aide charged with ramming NAFTA through Congress "over the dead bodies" of labor and environmental groups, as American Express's CEO cheered at the time. Emanuel orchestrated weekly meetings with K Street lobbyists to strategize about how to pressure Democratic lawmakers. Emanuel went on to cash in as an investment banker, raking in roughly $16 million over a two-year period. From his Wall Street perch in 2000, he published a scathing Wall Street Journal op-ed demanding Congress pass the China free trade deal --another K Street-backed goodie that has helped keep American wages stagnating in the face of skyrocketing corporate profits, and is now projected to destroy at least 1 million American jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: democrats, lobbyists, economic populism

David Sirota is the author of Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government--and How We Take It Back (Crown, 2006).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Unpleasant consequences
Posted by: shangrilalad on Jul 18, 2007 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An opportunistic infection of war profiteering warmongers, racist rabble-rousers, and corporate pimps have taken control of our government through deceit and criminal actions. If that isn’t grounds for Impeachment, what is?

Democratic Representatives (how can anyone call them LEADERS) have failed for the last six years to acknowledge and address the Republican’s covert assault of America. The average republican professes to be devout believer in Law & Order, but when their party has power, that quaint notion is tossed out the window along with the constitution. Surely, there are sane republicans who can see that the abandonment of Law & Order can lead to very unpleasant consequences for all Americans.


.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is no populism today, David
Posted by: citizenjoe on Jul 18, 2007 6:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
None of the so called "populist Democrats" are actually populists. Populists are anti -elitists ,especially anti- corporate elite. I see the Dem Party as reviving the old ideological alliance of the days of the Dixiecrats: traditionalist conservatives united with urban liberals. They are uniting on their dislike of the frightening degradation of politics by the current government-- absolute corporate scum, indeed fascist. The old elites think there should be less thievery in politics and that international relations should not be reduced to piracy by energy cartels. Basically, the Democrat "populists" should be compared to the conservatives dealing with the fascists in 1920- 1930 Europe. At that time, conservatives could not solve the economic and political problems of the period, so they supported the fascists who did have a solution -- extreme patriotism and war. European conservatives hated the fascists, but backed them anyway. Today, American conservatives, and so called "populists" in both the Democratic and Republican Parties,don't have to accept the fascist scum (Cheney, Rove, Bush), so they are trying to get rid of them. All these "populists" are conservative imperialists; all are corporatist; all belong to the party establishments; none are populists.Populists are anti-corporate and oppossed to the establishment parties; all look outside the parties for popular support.This talk of populism is garbage as is almost every political label found in the servile, corporatist NYT.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Francis
Posted by: Francis on Jul 18, 2007 7:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is only fear of prison, in this age of burgeoning American fascism, which prevents me from strongly advising violence against Washington, D.C. and all of it's denizens. I honestly believe that our system is beyond self-correction and is locked into self-destruct mode.

The idea that Democrats were going to fix anything after 2006 was the product of delirium and despair. Mr. Nader, the hated laughingstock of the right and the left, patiently fortold this outcome ad nauseam, to an audience apparently a tad too obtuse to comprehend his message. The message is this, the players don't matter, it is the system that is broken, smashed like an ancient bridge by a crushing flood surge. It will not repair itself. The public is too damned easy to fool. And our elected officials are very good at what they do, successful con men always are.

Serious pain is upon many of us, and much more of the same is in our future. If you need to believe that anything other than some unforseen catastrophe will first occur before real change comes, so be it. Optimism certainly has it's place, even if delusional.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Francis Posted by: rgoalierob
» I Feel Your Pain Posted by: Persephone8
Proof (again) that the Democrats and Republicans are really the same Party
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Jul 18, 2007 7:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
which serve the elite banking and corporate interests. And, by the way, the banking/corporate interests of entities and people who aren't even always based/resident of the USA. By in large both parties serve the internationalist elite who consider borders only when necessary to control people but whose main goal is the elimination of all controls on movement of capital. They will use 'open borders' to help destroy the middle class or sovereignity of a country, but once done will inititiate borders once again since by controlling population and freeing capital movement then can exploit the people and natural resources much more effectively.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More like kissing up to AIPAC
Posted by: gistre on Jul 18, 2007 7:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Dems know who writes their checks, just like the Republicans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

frank69
Posted by: frank69 on Jul 18, 2007 8:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rahm Emanuel is another DLC asshole! He personally cost the Democrats at least one House seat: the Illinois 6th district. No telling how many more seats the DLC lost possible Democratic wins!
Let's face it. The DLC is composed of Republicans dressed in Democratic clothing!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hypocracy in both parties.
Posted by: Kodiak44 on Jul 18, 2007 8:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excellent article. Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisies in both parties when it comes to money and its influence. The only thing I would add is that I believe that there should be term limits in congress.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where's the beef, chief?
Posted by: Sojourner on Jul 18, 2007 9:17 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The same Democrats who are so eagerly selling out to corporate interests had decent voting records while in the minority."

So far as I could tell from the evidence of the article, Sirota doesn't like what Demos in Congress are "saying." Is that because if journalists had to pay attention to what members of Congress are "doing," it would require investigative journalism?

It's so much easier to do book reports on political speeches. It's always tempting to think that journalism's actual job is censorship.

I say, put up or shut up. Cite the evidence of votes taken or your comments belong with that other familiar roll of tissue paper.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

*loosens up to windmill*
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Jul 18, 2007 10:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

plur

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Behind the stately, populist facade of the DLC...
Posted by: eddie torres on Jul 18, 2007 10:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...the hooker with a heart of gold masters the only game in town.

"They drove a dump-truck full of money up to my house. I'M NOT MADE OF STONE!"
(Krusty the Klown)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So who's sold out?
Posted by: hagwind on Jul 18, 2007 10:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At the very least, the teaser at the beginning of this article is misleading. It says: "Democrats who were sent to Congress in the tide-turning election of 2006 are selling out the economic populism that got them elected in the first place." Of the few Democrats named in the article, I didn't recognize any as being from the freshman class of 2006. Rahm, Pelosi, and Hoyer are old guard; Clinton and Obama aren't exactly new.

After a meandering prelude that deals mainly with Tammany Hall and Republicans, we get to this: "Democrats rode their populist, anti-corruption platform to victory in 2006. But as we are now beginning to see, what we may have with the Democrats is merely a transfer from honest graft to dishonest graft -- that is, corrupt behavior that pretends to be done in the people's name and that flies in the face of what the people were promised" (emphasis mine). Pretty soft, eh? The Democrats who "rode their populist, anti-corruption platform to victory in 2006" aren't the same as the "Democrats who were sent to Congress in the tide-turning election of 2006." And if that's soft, "what we may have" is positively squishy. Do we have it or do we not?

If the Democrats who got elected on populist platforms are screwing up, let's have names and details. That way we and their constituents can hold their feet to the fire. What this article basically says is that ranking Democrats who were gutless opportunists when their party was out of power are gutless opportunists now that their party is in power. This is news?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lust and restraint
Posted by: american on Jul 18, 2007 12:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is what I hoped would not happen but which I knew would. It, unfortunately, can be human nature to forsake the right thing in assiduous pursuit of our lusts. All we need is a get out of jail free card. And the politicians in Washington have one right now: it's called the stupid American public. They think we are fools. But look at our record of being fooled. We need one or a few charismatic leaders to ascend to high places, who will not be killed or defamed. Next we need active resistance by a vast number of people. We need this now. Our country is indeed in great, great peril.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THERE IS AT LEAST TWO CANDIDATES WHO HAVEN'T SOLD...
Posted by: poppop_schell on Jul 18, 2007 2:01 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THEIR SOUL TO BIG CORPORATE INTERESTS. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Notice that both are well below the MSM radar? Both are very much dislikes and marginized by the globalist elite running this country whewter DP or RP.

Wouldn't it be great in 2008 IF we had two candidates to choose from that we can trust to help bring government back to the people? Well you can help bring this about.

On August 11th, the Iowa GOP is having a strawvote at Ames, IO. IT is being covered by most if not all of the MSM. IF Ron paul can come in first or second, the MSM will not be able to keep RP under the radar. Anyone with a valid Iowa drivers license can vote. One doesn't have to change parties.

So.... you can help bring this about by volunteering to call Iowa registered voters and ask them to come to Ames and vote for Ron Paul. Rememebr also, that Ron Paul, like Dennis Kucinich, has opposd the Iraqi War from the very beginning, NEVER voting for funds. ronpaul2008.com

Help us do this by contacting calliowa@ronpaul2008.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"perhaps we shouldn't be surprised"???
Posted by: DRosen on Jul 18, 2007 3:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who is surprised?

As we say at America Vote Direct, our horse-and-buggy political technology is an absolute guarantee of political corruption. We need to stop blaming corrupt politicians, and instead use new technology to cut off corruption at the source. This is what we are doing at America Vote Direct, where we are supporting candidates who are committed to implement fair and secure open-source Internet and telephone technology in their districts, so that registered voters may vote on specific legislation pending in Congress. Our candidates are pledged to vote in Congress, without recourse or waiver, according to the majority will of their constituents as measured by this new technology. What lobbyist will even attempt to buy the vote of a congressman who is under the direct CONTROL of the constituents?

Sirota writes: "The only way to stop this is to create public financing systems whereby taxpayers provide qualifying candidates money that does not come with the expectation of specific legislative favors."

This is a pipe-dream. It requires the willing participation of a corrupt political class that would be put out of power by public financing of the electoral process. It is base and ignoble to beg our masters to give up their mastery. Only slaves beg.

By contrast, the implementation of America Vote Direct requires no new legislation, no new court judgments, no amendments to the constitution, no protests in Washington, no letters to congresspeople. But, on the day after one of our candidates is elected to office in 2008, in that representative's district, there will be a complete restructuring of power. It will be taken out of the hands of the corporations who presently have it, and put directly into the hands of the people where it belongs.

America Vote Direct is simply promoting an expansion of the geographical scope of the tried and true direct democracy of the New England Town Meeting. Horse-and-buggy political technology prevented this expansion in the past. Only our reluctance to THINK and DO prevents it today.

Don't expect progressive organizations and media to trumpet the virtues of America Vote Direct, or even to let people know about it. The technology we are promoting may easily be adopted across the board at all levels of society in order to eliminate corruption in the leadership of labor unions, environmental organizations, third parties, etc. Obviously, this will diminish the power of the "progressive" leadership of these organizations.

Eugene Victor Debs explained a century ago that so long as we wait for our leaders to save us, we will be helplessly and hopelessly lost. Debs couldn't imagine the technology we have been blessed with, but I have no doubt he would have appreciated it and favored it. We don't have to live in Debs' world anymore. Technology invites us to direct democracy. Decline this invitation at your peril.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In other news...
Posted by: VAGreen on Jul 18, 2007 5:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...Lucy pulls the football away as Charlie Brown is about to kick it. What the Democrats are doing (with notable exceptions like Kucinich) is hardly surprising. If you're tired of it, go Green:

www.gp.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A small jockey of the apocalypse....trick ridin from one to the other
Posted by: ekipnrut on Jul 18, 2007 8:10 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[From Black Agenda Report online]:
The Congressional Black Caucus: Free At Last?
For black voters nationwide, Illinois Democrat Rahm Emmanuel may be the most dangerous man in Congress. His job is to free black members of Congress from the burden of having to represent the communities that send them to DC. As chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Emmanuel is bagman and chief dispenser of campaign donations from many of the same sources among drug companies, military contractors, real estate, investment banking, big insurance and likely big oil that funded the Bush Administration and the last 12 years of Republican misrule in Congress. He rewards members of Congress who meet his fundraising goals and threatens or punishes those who don't.
Emmanuel is widely known to have deep and abiding problems with members of the Congressional Black and Hispanic Caucsuses. According to the mainstream news media, minority lawmakers seem unwilling or unable to pony up enough money to help the national Democratic party. But the unstated truth is something else. The fact is that black and latino congressmen and women represent districts full of flesh and blood constituents whose views on many issues are well to the left of their whiter neighbors. The simple act of representing those flesh and blood constituents makes them far less attractive to wealthy and corporate donors whose interests Emmanuel and the DLC cherish above those of Democratic voters
......
Also Counterpunch has some interesting articles on Rahm :
John Walsh: Election 2006, the Fix is Aleady In October 14-15, 2006
How Rahm Emmanuel Has Rigged a Pro-War Congress.
========AND=======
John Walsh: The Book of Rahm
October 24, 2006
Emmanuel's War Plan for Democrats
The Book of Rahm
Both interesting to retrospectively read in consideration of the outcome of the 2006 election and the subsequent behavior of the dems that were elected.
His bio states that after leaving the Clinton administration ,this guy worked as an investment banker for a couple of years during which time he 'earned' roughly 20M. I can't help but wonder exactly what are the specific tasks carried out by an 'investment banker' on a typical day that warrant that kind of compensation? Just asking a question. You might quickly respond by remarking that there are guys that pull 100-200M a year. And indeed there are , which is the next question.
This man represents nothing but self aggrandizement on steroids. His legacy at this point? Midwifed NAFTA, reinvents
persona as war crime coenabler..ride jockey ...ride....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Davy
Posted by: davy on Jul 19, 2007 1:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America, the only question is . . . is it terminal?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]