On Hastert, Jefferson, Congress and the FBI
-->
See, I have mixed feelings about this on so many levels.
- Historical: I can't believe that the Executive branch stepped on 200 years of tradition (if not the law) to investigate a corrupt Congressman -- from Louisiana! What the hell is THAT all about?
- Political: It's pretty shameful that THIS is the event that suddenly wakes up Hastert and the Republicans. Can you say "rubber stamp Republicans?" If not, the Democrats certainly will..or will they?
- Democratic Party loyalty: There is a way to handle this and it does not involve "acting like a Republican." Yes, I'm talking to you Nancy Pelosi. It involves:
- (Re-)swearing your allegiance to the US Constitution and tying this back to the NSA, the Patriot Act, Gitmo, torture, signing statements, and on and on and on.
- It means (at least) paying lip service to the the fact that Jefferson is innocent until proven guilty -- and simultaneously making a retroactive rule saying if you are under investigation, you must relinquish all power except that given to you via the ballot box.
- And/but it means that the Congressional Black Caucus needs to get right with Jesus and stop fighting the leadership on this.
- (Re-)swearing your allegiance to the US Constitution and tying this back to the NSA, the Patriot Act, Gitmo, torture, signing statements, and on and on and on.
On number two. Being the last person on earth to EVER defend Hastert, let alone DeLay, but they were right on this one. Losing a committee chair or leadership position for merely being under investigation, as opposed to actual charges being vetted through a Grand Jury's indictment or a Judge's ruling after a preliminary hearing, leaves far too much abusable power in the hands of prosecutors -- who already have more discretion than any other member of law enforcement besides the beat cop.
I'd probably go for limiting responsibilities, without pay reductions, if the legislator was a officially announced as a "target," "subject," or even a "person of interest" in a criminal/grand jury investigation -- but those terms are played with by prosecutors too.
The Ethics Committee needs to be unstacked, back to a bipartisan, equally represented body like intel. One of the jobs of the new Democratic Majority's first 100 days must be revoking the "DeLay Rule."
I'm toying with the idea of no corporate contributions whatsoever. Maybe accepting contributions only from "citizens" which would exclude corporations and PACs and foreign influence too. Or, how about limiting it to registered voters within one's own district?
Any way you slice it, you're running into Wince's First Amendment right to give money to the crackpot of his choice.
Bringing back the fairness doctrine might be an idea.
Another thought. Stop looking at it from the supply-side. The Supreme Court (last I looked) upheld spending limits, but they're not working. How can that be tinkered with to help the problem?
"Maybe accepting contributions only from "citizens..."
Well, if campaign cash equals political speech and freedom of speech is supposed to be equal, then everyone ought to be able to spend as much as anyone else. I say $2. Anyone who gets, say, $2,000 from 10 states each qualifies for a set amout of free airtime to...speak.