The New York Times commits an act of journalism. The Dems put vulnerable freshmen on the House Financial Services Committee to make it easier for them to raise money. In fact, I can’t find a link right now, but Chairman Barney Frank has complained about how many members are seated on his committee because it takes all day to get through one round of questioning. And, guess what? It works.
So far in the 2010 election cycle, members of the financial committees have far outpaced those of other committees in fund-raising parties by holding 845 events, according to the Sunlight Foundation, a Washington nonprofit group that tracks fund-raisers…
…The money from the financial sector goes not only to high-profile leaders of the financial committees — like Mr. Frank in the House and Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who sponsored the bill in the Senate, or Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the leading Republican on the banking committee — but also to less-prominent committee members who may ultimately play a role in important votes, according to a new analysis provided to The New York Times by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan group.
The group’s analysis found that the 14 freshmen who serve on the House Financial Services Committee raised 56 percent more in campaign contributions than other freshmen. And most freshmen on the panel, the analysis found, are now in competitive re-election fights.
So, this is how a conservative Congress gets more conservative. Don’t go wasting valuable slots on the Financial Services Committee on liberals from safe districts. Give those spots to Blue Dogs who need money for their competitive reelection campaigns. Not a bad strategy, actually, if you want to keep your majority. But not a good strategy for creating policy that matches mainstream Democratic values.
I am no longer giving money to Democratic candidates of any professed stripe, but taking what little I can spare and sending it to groups like CREW and Public Citizen that try to keep the whole self-perpetuating, corrupt, corporatist cabal accountable.
that’s reasonable. I wouldn’t swear off all candidates completely, but I would definitely urge people to make direct donation to specific candidates rather than let the DNC, DCCC, or DSCC decide how to spend your money.
Mainstream Democratic values? It’s turned into nothing more than an incumbent protection racket. Values have nothing to do with the Democratic party anymore. Way too many republicans in it.
yeah, well, it’s all relative.
If we had a stupid inept leadership who couldn’t protect our majorities, we’d all be pissed off about their lack of political savvy. No one savages losers worse than Democrats. Ever since Adlai went down twice, we’ve maligned our losers worse than the Republicans. What kind of standing do we give to McGovern or Mondale or Dukakis or Kerry? None. They’re worse than trash.
So, election protection isn’t all bad. But there’s a saying: “Anywhere you go, there you are.” And that’s true about the American electorate. You can win big, but you only collect a bunch of conservatives with a (D) in front of their name. You want to keep your majorities or do want to get some really big things done in the short time you have before the reactionaries reexert themselves?
What’s the right balance. Because, I’ve been watching a long time and I don’t see any evidence that we can have our cake and eat it, too.
Turned into?
It’s always been just an incumbency protection racket. There are cases from the mid-1900’s where Dems wouldn’t run candidates in competitive districts so as to protect the Republicans, and vice versa! Now it’s just more partisan.
We really need, more than anything else, publicly funded elections.
These pimps just be rollin. Senators are a little cramped when it comes to lechery-the examples of Vitter and Ensign notwithstanding-but lord if they can’t roll around in cash whenever they like.
Your observation about placing marginal conservative Democrats on Financial Services so they can raise cash to get reelected, but then gumming up reform by their presence on a key committee applies equally to Energy and Commerce. It’s one of the reasons – but not the only one – that the ACES bill passed by the House last year was such weak tea. But you are also right that there is only one unforgivable sin in politics, and that is losing.
We need a party which works from the reality of national needs rather than its perception of political possibilities. But that would take a leader with vision and eloquence… Well, one out of two ain’t bad.
We need an electorate that demands attention to the national needs and who eschews opportunists that pursue political parties’ perceptions of political possibilities…