About that Cowgirl post...

by: Jay Stevens

Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 13:19:22 PM MST

Everybody's talking about it. And you probably want to know what LiTWers think about it all, etc & co.

I'll start with the easy stuff first. The "man purse" post was unfortunate; Cowgirl got called out; she apologized. The incident is in no way representative of anything larger, unlike other recent homophobic comments that were representative of a movement's ties to anti-gay activists, militia groups, white supremacists, and other undesirables. The post isn't even representative of Cowgirl's views on LGBT rights, which she ardently supports. My only regret about the whole thing is that I wish I had the thoughtfulness to have called out Cowgirl before Jamee Greer did.

If Matt Gouras had written the incident up for the AP simply to "balance" the recent Tea Party comments, I'd call it bullsh*t journalistic hack-ery and false equivalency. But Gouras - clumsily - used the incident to unload everything he knows about Cowgirl onto the public. Posting the Department of Labor documents that weren't available to the public - the location of an Internet hookup in the state Capitol Cowgirl was using - etc & company. There are implications here - the worst being that Cowgirl is blogging on the state taxpayer dime for unnamed public officials in Helena - but no evidence. After all, Gouras' implications have explanations: Cowgirl's not a state worker; Cowgirl's a state worker, but blogging on personal time; Cowgirl's getting her "scoops" from tips sent her way, not fed to her by an overlord (lord knows my inbox is filled with innuendo, gossip, and tips); etc & co. That is, I don't know how, where, and when Cowgirl blogs. Unless there's proof of wrong-doing, I'm going to assume she's following the law and acting ethically.

As for Cowgirl and Left in the West: well, we aired our opinion about freeing Cowgirl from our front-page status back in July on the blog. Basically we felt featuring an anonymous blogger affected our credibility. Our readers know who we are and our professional political relationships and can easily place our posts in that context. Throwing an anonymous blogger into the mix implied -- to our readers -- that we approved and abetted their views, and that their opinions were being elevated under our "authority." In reality, we don't have the time to impose strict editorial guidelines, and have no interest in dictating the ideology of diarists, and we liked Cowgirl because she wrote posts that sparked  controversy, not because of any camp or faction she may have belonged to. But we were called out by some folks we respect, so we decided to change our policy.

On a more general note, I still strongly believe in anonymity for bloggers. There are people who would face professional or personal retribution for expressing their opinions and deserve a shield for free expression. Some great, well-thought-out commentary comes from anonymous sources, and I'd hate to lose that. That said, I don't think anonymity should be used to free bloggers or commenters from issuing baseless accusations or rumor. But then, that should go for everyone.

But I do find all of this fascinating. The Internet is a big, chaotic place with all kinds of information, little of it regulated or policed. Imposing etiquette, standards, and ethics on all the various sites and writers the way we typically do in print media is impossible. That means the onus of sifting through information and enforcing an ethos of responsibility onto writers falls on us, the reader. We need to read everything critically and reward those who do well with our clicks.

Are we up to it?

Molnar illustrates flaws in prosecution of campaign finance violations

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 13:18:57 PM MST

On June 16, 2009, Respondent named Complainant's attorney as a witness for the hearing, and thereafter sought to disqualify Complainant's attorney from representing the Complainant at the hearing....Respondent's argument was that Complainant, her attorney, and others engaged in a conspiracy to oppose Respondent's re-election campaign, and that evidence about this alleged conspiracy was material to the charges against him....

On September 16, 2009, the hearing examiner issued a written decision, denying Respondent's disqualification motion. The hearing examiner held that the existence or non-existence of a conspiracy to undermine Respondent or his recent re-election campaign is not relevant or material to the narrow charges against him, and that accordingly, Complainant's attorney had no necessary or relevant information to provide as evidence at the hearing.

Got that? Molnar accused Mary Jo Fox and her attorney of forming a secret conspiracy to prevent his re-election to the PSC, and that these charges were manufactured as part of that conspiracy. Of course, that the charges were manufactured means the lawyer - or any lawyer for that matter - who assisted Fox in bringing them to the Commissioner of Political Practices should be disqualified from bringing the charges.

That is, because I am running for public office and any charges of campaign finance violations will hinder my re-election, "reasons" Molnar, any charges of campaign finance violations must be politically motivated and, therefore, false. Classic circular reasoning. But the Commissioner correctly noted that just because people are out to get you doesn't mean you are innocent.

The document is full of clumsy reasoning like this from Molnar. I love how Molnar calls Corbett - the hearing examiner - biased...after it was found he was guilty of the listed charges:

Respondent's allegations of bias are based on the unsubstantiated contention that the hearing examiner has made political contributions exclusively to Democratic Party candidates. The Respondent repeatedly describes the hearing examiner as a "Democratic operative."...Respondent's unsubstantiated assertion that Corbett has only made political contributions to Democrats is false.

It turns out Corbett hadn't made any donations since 2000; he also made contributions to Montana Supreme Court candidates with Republican affiliations.

Anyhow, this story isn't important only because it involves Brad Molnar, member of the PSC. It's also important because it baldly demonstrates serious flaws in the way we find and punish public officials guilty of violating law during a campaign. I'll let the Billings Gazette explain:

However, it took formal complaints from Fox, who managed the unsuccessful campaign of Molnar's 2008 general election opponent, Ron Tussing, to get an official ruling. Moreover, Fox told The Gazette State Bureau that her legal costs in the case total about $25,000; Molnar reported that his were at least $10,000. The state expended $14,945 just for the hearings examiner and court reporter. There ought to be a faster, simpler, less expensive way to resolve ethics complaints against state officials. Many Montanans don't have the time or money to pursue ethics complaints in the present system as Fox did.

Got that? Fox spent more money than Molnar was fined. And what has Molnar actually suffered besides the loss of $15K? He won his election - which took place almost two years ago. Talk about disincentives to bringing elections violations charges against a candidate for public office. Let's be frank: Molnar's violations were obvious and his self-defense supremely clumsy. If his violations essentially have no consequences, imagine what would happen to a more agile and deep-pocketed candidate...

Rehberg's Taxpayer-Funded Dishonesty

by: Matt Singer

Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 13:40:58 PM MST

From his latest email, a survey on how to deal with healthcare costs:

If they had been included in the new law, which provision(s) do you think would have helped reduce health care costs? (Choose as many as you want)

• Lawsuit Reform
• Allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines
• Letting small businesses pool their resources like larger corporations and government

Under the federal bill, states can sign off on eachothers' regulations and allow policies licensed for sale in, say, Montana to be sold in California, provided California's state government thinks that is kosher. In other words, it allows for increased competition while maintaining states' rights. What Rehberg is really calling for here is for the federal government to gut Montana's ability (and every other state's ability) to regulate insurance at all. The federalists in the tea party should be rightfully outraged at this proposal.

As for pooling purchasing power, small employers will soon purchase through the exchanges, which are basically places for employers and individuals to buy in a competitive marketplace and leverage their collective purchasing power. I'm not really sure what other model the Congressman would support. A number of us already "pool" our policies through programs like Chamber Choices. The exchanges do this on a much larger scale and with far more competition.

So there's reality. It's a far cry from what our Congressman is proposing.

I'd also love for him to be upfront about the fact that he wants to undermine Montana's ability to regulate insurance and to move that authority to the federal level alone. I'm sure that would be popular with his base.

Conflicted

by: I can't fight this feeling

Sat May 08, 2010 at 06:39:58 AM MST

In what has become the norm, the reporter covering the story sought comment from college professors who, because of their profession, are apparently political experts.  But this "expert" has an interesting story:

In addition to teaching at Billings, Wilson has a somewhat direct tie to Rehberg - "my son is his political director."

It should stop there.  This alone should disqualify Prof. Wilson from weighing in on anything that Rep. Rehberg does.  His son's success at work is directly tied to "independent" sources saying nice things about the congressman.  Ask yourself this: if you needed work done on your truck, would you seek a referral from a mechanics mother?

Because of countless ethical conflictions, no reporter should ask for comment from this guy.  And for the sake of his own reputation, he should refrain from giving any.

And then it gets worse:

Wilson believes the general race likely will pit McDonald against Rehberg.  Rehberg's camp, he predicts, will make much of McDonald's reported ties to the Mafia (McDonald was once the lawyer for the acting boss of the West Coast Cosa Nostra crime family.)

All of the potential conflicts that I conjured up earlier just came true.  In a story that is supposed to be about a drunken boat ride/crash that Congressman Rehberg was in, Rehberg's chief attack on his opponent was just introduced.  It had nothing to do with when Rehberg and his pals need to appear in court.  It had nothing to do with what the story was about.  And it was introduced not by Rehberg or a spokesperson for him.

IT WAS INTRODUCED BY THE "INDEPENDENT" PROFESSOR.

Wilson could have - and may have - been reading talking points put together by his son.  If you don't believe that, you're not paying attention.

Molnar violated campaign finance rules, examiner finds

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 14:49:22 PM MST

Did I say "accuse"? Well, the accusation is now looking like a violation:

Public Service Commissioner Brad Molnar violated state ethics laws by accepting illegal donations and using state office equipment for campaign purposes, a hearings examiner found.

University of Montana professor William Corbett recommended that Commissioner of Political Practices Dennis Unsworth fine Molnar $5,750 and require him to pay for part of the cost of the proceedings against him because Molnar refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing, was evasive, attacked the complainant and caused delays in the proceedings.

Such a flagrant misuse of his office and a contempt for his constituency and the general public should, under normal circumstances, lead to a tearful resignation. Of course, we're talking Brad Molnar here. Expect him to blame everyone else.

The triumph of imagination over intelligence

by: Yellowstone Kelly

Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 11:01:05 AM MST

Until the story broke about Tiger's tendency to stray, none of us knew much about his private life. Beautiful wife. Check. Son. Check. Pancake house waitress. Whaaaat?

As with Tiger, until recently, we knew very little about Max Baucus' private affairs.

Since, 1974, Max's handlers have carefully developed and airbrushed a squeaky clean image. Yes, he and Ann divorced early on in his career. Weathered that one. Survived a sexual harassment allegation by a former chief of staff. As time has gone along, Max, to some extent like Bill Clinton, evidently has come to believe he could do what he damned well pleases.

Sleeping around on Wanda and having a girlfriend who, until 2009, served as his staff director (in more ways than one) while married and serving in the US Senate is bad enough. But, to nominate his bed partner to be US Attorney in February 2009?

Wait a minute.

Not only bad judgment. It represents arrogance of power at its worst.

Look. Anyone who has been to Washington, DC in recent years and who was invited to the Baucus residence for social functions had to have to concluded that Melodee Haines acted in the capacity as the lady of the house. (Wanda must have been out performing community service for the mulch melee at Johnson's Nursery.)  

No one said a word, at least publicly. Last year, there were whispers that something was going on. Do you really believe Max's staff was in the dark? And, that Jim Messina, of all people, didn't know?

It's not the affair, it's the coverup

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 13:26:34 PM MST

For starters, in the post of links to the story, I missed editorials from three of Montana's biggest newspapers. The Billings Gazette is surprised at Baucus' judgment. "What was Max Baucus thinking? That his personal relationship with his state director, Melodee Hanes, wouldn't matter when he forwarded her name for consideration as Montana's US attorney?" (The Gazette also provided a handy timeline of the affair.)

The Missoulian excoriated Baucus for actively suppressing knowledge of his relationship with Hanes during the vetting process of his US attorney nominations:

Eight months ago, when Hanes' name surfaced as one of the nominees for the U.S. attorney's job, the Missoulian asked Sen. Max Baucus' spokesman whether Baucus was involved in a romantic relationship with Hanes - as her ex-husband was alleging - and if so, why Baucus would pursue a course that posed such a clear conflict of interest.

Not only would Baucus not speak directly to the Missoulian, but his then-spokesman, Barrett Kaiser, refused to address the issue and strove to keep any story at all about Hanes' nomination from print. Indeed, the night before the story was to run, Kaiser called the paper and told us that Hanes' nomination had been withdrawn.

With nothing from Baucus on the record, and no way to prove the veracity of Hanes' husband's assertions, the Missoulian couldn't responsibly print the allegations.

(Is it me? Or did they totally drop the ball on this story? What kind of reporter stops investigating a story when the investigated subject refuses to speak about it? They couldn't find anyone else to confirm Baucus' relationship to Hanes? Really?)

That which lends corruption lighter wings to fly

by: Yellowstone Kelly

Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 08:11:21 AM MST

It seems to have worked out. Earlier today, a US District Court Judge said she will declare a mistrial after the jurors of a grand jury declared themselves deadlocked.

Unless you follow progressive blogs, you may not know who Kevin Ring is. Despite being indicted, his name barely made the mainstream news, sort of, about a year and one-half ago. Kevin was a minion of Jack Abramoff's. And, is a good friend of Dennis Rehberg.

Oh, and Kevin gave Denny $2,000.00 in campaign contributions between June 13, 2002 and March 2003.

That just might have been a pay-off for Rehberg's recommendation to a county commission in eastern Montana contract with Mr. Ring to secure money for a project that was never completed.

LITW had a nice post.

But, alas, the burden of proof was not met, again. In fact, the Forbes article referenced above makes an interesting point:

Ring is only the second person implicated in the Abramoff scandal to fight the criminal charges at trial rather than pleading guilty and cutting a deal to cooperate with prosecutors in exchange for the possibility of a reduced sentence. The other was David Safavian, the George W. Bush administration's former chief procurement officer, whose convictions were overturned following a trial in 2006. Safavian was convicted again in a retrial and faces sentencing Friday.

This is pathetic. The single largest scandal of the 21st Century and one conviction.

One!

Looks like Denny caught another break.

Health care and executive pay

by: Jay Stevens

Thu May 28, 2009 at 05:44:13 AM MST

The third class of health-cost proposals, I explained, would push people to use medical savings accounts and hold high-deductible insurance policies: "They'd have more of their own money on the line, and that'd drive them to bargain with you and other surgeons, right?"

He gave me a quizzical look. We tried to imagine the scenario. A cardiologist tells an elderly woman that she needs bypass surgery and has Dr. Dyke see her. They discuss the blockages in her heart, the operation, the risks. And now they're supposed to haggle over the price as if he were selling a rug in a souk? "I'll do three vessels for thirty thousand, but if you take four I'll throw in an extra night in the I.C.U."-that sort of thing? Dyke shook his head. "Who comes up with this stuff?" he asked. "Any plan that relies on the sheep to negotiate with the wolves is doomed to failure."

Which reminds me of a one-act play I wrote on "free-market" health care a while back...

In any case, the particular thought that this article dislodged was related to the rhetoric we constantly hear about executive bonuses for the banking and other industries, where a few corporate executives reap millions in bonuses, oftentimes while manning the wheel of a poorly run venture. Like, say, the banking industry. If executive pay is capped, the industry won't attract the "best and brightest."

But as this article points out, and as was evidenced by the collapse of the nation's financial industry, those that work primarily for financial rewards in their given industry will put financial considerations first.

And that's often not for the best. Have to choose between safe, stable investments with a lower return, or risk the nation's economy on potentially high yielding derivatives? We know what our nation's investment banks chose. Have to choose between inexpensive health care that better addresses your patient's health, or expensive, and oftentimes, ineffectual health care that helps out with your vacation condo's payments? Depends on the kind of ethics you have, and what kind of medical facility you work for.

It's time to face the fact that oftentimes the "best and the brightest" are not motivated primarily by money.

The dinner's over, and Montana's family farmers left on the table

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 09:22:17 AM MST

A Montana Senate committee has sidelined a bill that sought standards for how biotech companies test crops for patent infringement, burying the measure after members attended a private dinner also attended by biotech giant Monsanto Co. representatives....

The bill was tabled on a 6-3 vote.

Mission accomplished!

This irks me. It's not just that this whole thing is unseemly -- and it stinks. No, what really irks me is how cheaply bought these Senators are. A dinner? Come on! Even Conrad Burns got a little taste of cash for his votes...

Brad Molnar's ugly little mess

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 20:40:24 PM MST

Here's the official complaint (pdf) lodged by Art Noonan, which alleges that Brad Molnar used $1,450 of funds solicited from private corporations regulated by the PSC to produce brochures promoting a "brownout" event, but which is actually a thinly veiled piece of campaign literature.

The damning details: Molnar received $1,000 from NorthWestern Energy, $1,000 from PPL, and $450 from WalMart and deposited into a personal checking account. The brochure (found in the complaint) features his picture prominently displayed, and attached to the brochures is a sticker that reads, "Brad Molnar, Your Conservation Candidate for Public Service Commission." Molnar continues to distribute the literature even as the brownout is over; there's a convenient line on the brochure that reads, "The brownout may be over. But the tips are still good!"

Maybe that Grizzly DNA earmark was "criminal"

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 09:57:30 AM MST

Today:

The majestic grizzly bear, once king of the Western wilderness but threatened with extinction for a third of a century, has roared back in Montana.

The finding, from a $4.8 million, five-year study of grizzly bear DNA described by Republican presidential candidate John McCain as pork barrel spending, could help ease restrictions on oil and gas drilling, logging and other development.

If I were a bettin' man, I'd be sayin' we won't hear that particular earmark bandied about by the Republican presidential nominee as "criminal" anymore, eh? (Hat tip, Dan Savage.)

The times, they are a-changin'

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 20:05:47 PM MST

This is the pole that identifies where the Montana delegation sat on the floor of the Convention. The pole is anchored by a wide metal base, and there's a laptop and two phones on the table. The phones are used to direct the delegation if we do stuff like hold up signs at the right time, or if we need to stall during roll call or something.

Good story: when Obama finished his speech, we pulled down the pole and ripped off the Montana signs. Ed Tinsley slung it on his shoulder, and led us out of the Convention hall as we sang the Montana state song:

Montana, Montana,
Glory of the West
Of all the states from coast to coast,
You're easily the best.
Montana, Montana,
Where skies are always blue
M-O-N-T-A-N-A,
Montana, I love you.

More below the fold...

Official recommends fine in governor's ethics case

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 22:26:37 PM MST

Reactions were swift from both sides of the ideological spectrum, and both have a point.

On one hand, as Montana Headlines gleefully crows, "The point was whether the governor was wrong -- and the official judgment is that he was." It does, indeed, look like Schweitzer will be fined for breaking a campaign law. Of course Montana Headlines assumes the worst -- that Schweitzer "knew" he broke the law -- that the fine was "symbolic" because of gubernatorial interference, that this is the first little scandal among many that will put the Good and Righteous Roy Brown into the Governor's chair in the fall, etc & co. And of course, there's not a shred of evidence -- or even hint of evidence -- that any of this is true.

That's the funny thing with the Schweitzer antipathy on the right -- it's a weird and obsessive hate oddly hovering in an ideological vacuum. Conservatives seem to hate him because he's Brian Schweitzer, not because of anything significant that he does. Maybe his clever little jabs keep cutting them or something. But if you delve into MH's archives, say, you don't really find much criticism of Brian Schweitzer's policies or beliefs, other than a shot against budget surpluses or all-day kindergarten, neither of which seem really worthy of condemnation.

And what Lamnidae says about the complaint and the fine (and one presumes the law) is also true, that Schweitzer -- an immensely popular figure, nationally -- isn't able to promote the state any more:

So sorry Montana ranchers, you just became bystander casualties in a cheap Montana GOP ploy for political gain. So while Butch Otter is out promoting the Idaho Meth Project, and Dave Freudenthal is lending profile to the Wyoming Energy Council, I suppose Gov. Schweitzer will be forced to close his door.

So true. Seems like the law -- probably enacted with the best of intentions -- handcuffs the governor from executing the promotional aspects of his job.

And Republicans, eager to seize on any advantage they can find, are more than willing to ensure the law is upheld to the letter. Given the party's loose playing with serious laws -- like the Fourth Amendment and strictures against torture -- and legal institutions -- like the Department of Justice -- it's ironic and somewhat annoying to hear them take a strict line on this particular law.

It would appear that Schweitzer may have violated a campaign law. And that his fine -- $700 -- is about right. A symbolic amount that acknowleges the law was broken, but also implies it was broken without malice or intent. Sounds about right to me.

Update: In the comments, former Commissioner of Political Practices, Gordy Higgins, brings up the background of the ethics law involved in this case and discusses the intent of the law and whether it should apply in this case -- all excellent thoughts and an aspect of this case that no one's really addressed yet. What is it we want from this law, and is it being served here?

Imposing a fine on the Governor doesn't do anything to build a foundation of understanding about how public officials should and shouldn't act. The $750 fine represents a short term press opportunity for the Republicans. My hope is that whatever decision is ultimately rendered by Unsworth results in a honest discussion about how best to govern the conduct of public servants. My guess is that it won't.

Sharing the wealth: the spread of Stevens' ill-gotten gains

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:47:46 PM MST

What you didn't know: Stevens had a PAC - Northern Lights PAC - that donated heavily to Republican lawmakers. That PAC was stuffed by VECO executives, the same folks accused of giving illicit donations to Stevens.

Basically, Stevens' cronies were funding campaigns of prominent politicians.

Many of 'em started giving the money away. Exceptions abound, including Stevens' Democratic pal, Daniel Inouye, who's keeping his thirteen grand.

What you're guessing: Dennis Rehberg took ,000 from Northern Lights PAC, and has yet to give the tainted cash away. Oh, I'm sure he will, especially after the news spreads that he's on the VECO teat, just like a whole lot of other GOPers. He'll do the right thing, I'm sure.

Right?

Dennis?

Ted Stevens indicted

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 15:30:46 PM MST

Sen. Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Republican in the U.S. Senate and one of the chamber's most powerful members, was indicted Tuesday in Washington for failing to disclose more than $250,000 worth of gifts that he received from businessmen who were seeking his help on federal issues and projects.

The Alaska delegation is particularly challenged by ethics. Laura McGann has a quick recap of what our northern neighbors' representatives have been up to.

Matt Stoller on why Senate Democrats defense of Stevens irks him:

The Senate is a damn club.  I'm not saying these are bad people, though some of them are, just that they are part of a rotten system that compels them to make immoral choices.  They deserve criticism for it, they are the MOST empowered parts of society.  The sooner we learn this the sooner we can start to fix it, but if you keep denying that these people are part of a corroded system it won't get better.  We're supposed to be smart activists, not blind obedient morons following elitist DC Democrats off a cliff.

Rehberg backflips on Cuba

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 18:54:36 PM MST

"If we are going to help the Cuban people break free of the shackles of communism, then we must permit a flow of people, commerce and ideas," Rehberg said in October 2003.

For almost a year after that, Rehberg continued to vote as he had previously -- to loosen the embargo.

On July 7, 2004, Rehberg voted for an amendment that would have softened new restrictions on the shipment of gift parcels to Cuba. He also voted with embargo opponents on Sept. 21, 2004, for an amendment that would have made it easier for Cuban-Americans to visit family in the country.

But the next day, his vote abruptly shifted.

On Sept. 22, 2004, Rehberg voted the opposite way and opposed the amendment that would have lifted economic embargoes on Cuba.

Gee, now why would Dennis suddenly make an about-face on policy that would have benefitted Montana's agricultural products and also permitted "a flow of people, commerce, and ideas" that would "break the shackles" of a Communist dictatorship?

Several months later, Rehberg's campaign received $1,000 from a pro-embargo group, the U.S. Cuba Democracy Political Action Committee. Since then, the group has given him $10,500.

Surprise!

Why is it that Montana Republicans like the same old, tired out-of-tune waltz on a beat-up trumpet? Rehberg apologists will talk about "nuances" and changing opinions, but given Rehberg's past with flip-flopping on issues for the sake of political expediency, how hard is it to believe he changed his vote for a little extra "boost" to his electoral chances?

Needless to say, I'm going to dig deeper on this one over the next few days...

The Hysteria of the Day from the rightie blogs

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:41:34 AM MST

The mayor of Detroit is - surprise! - a Democrat.

That's the byline of a number of conservative blogs today.

Here's the thing, party affiliation is largely irrelevant in this case. Why? A couple of reasons.

If, say, Kilpatrick's party was well known for touting "character" as a prerequisite for office, claiming that it was the party of personal responsibility and morality, well, that'd be a story! Or if the politician involved touted, say, "family values" and voted against gay rights at every step, then was caught trolling for blow jobs in a public bathroom, well, party affiliation would matter!

Or, say, the corruption in the case were part of a larger pattern that connected to the poltician's party affiliation, well, then affiliation is relevant. Say, oh, I don't know, the party spun off a lobbyist who put relatives of politicians in key positions at industries across the country, demanded that those industries give money only to his party, bribed politicians and their staffers (luxury trips, say?), to enact legislation on behalf of "loyal" clients, well, that would be a story!

Just as revelations that Rudy Giuliani, while mayor of NYC, used taxpayer money to provide security for his trips to Long Island weren't about the political party he belonged to - that particular brand of corruption belonged to Giuliani, not his party - so, too, is Kilpatrick's brand of ethics solely his.

To make hay of that - well, it's a long-standing conservative strategy to attack where you, yourself, are weak.  I'll just leave it at that.

Republicans eat their own

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 13:55:05 PM MST

The accounting scandal now haunting the National Republican Congressional Committee was preceded by a series of decisions over the past decade to relax internal financial controls at the committee, according to numerous Republican sources familiar with the NRCC's operations during those years.

Under Virginia Rep. Tom Davis and New York Rep. Thomas Reynolds, who chaired the committee from 1999 until the end of 2006, the NRCC waived rules requiring the executive committee--made up of elected leaders and rank-and-file Republican lawmakers--to sign off on expenditures exceeding $10,000, merged the various department budgets into a single account and rolled back a prohibition on committee staff earning an income from outside companies.

The details:

Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), a certified public accountant, had pushed for months for an internal audit of the National Republican Congressional Committee, according to GOP members, but the committee's treasurer at the time was reluctant.

Finally, at a recent meeting, the now former NRCC treasurer, Christopher J. Ward, relented, giving Conaway what was supposed to be an official internal audit from 2006. That document was a fake, the GOP members said. Even the letterhead on which it was sent was a forgery.

The NRCC is now conducting an outside audit of their finances; the damage is as yet unknown.

I guess that's what you get when you combine a culture of corruption with anti-regulatory rhetoric, eh?

The "honest" man in a culture of corruption

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 19:43:16 PM MST

Renzi's story should serve as a mirror to the recent allegations that surfaced about John McCain.

The real story there isn't about whether McCain was schtupping some hot lobbyist who was half his age (although Wulfgar! has a point about McCain's propensity to mix sex, money, and power) - the real story is the favors he did for her, which are indisputable, and ethically questionable. (He was rebuked by the FCC chairman for interfering with their approval process on behalf of Ms. Iseman's client.) That McCain would use his position to try to wrongly influence government agencies on behalf of friends only seems to continue a pattern of behavior that was most notoriously on display during the Keating Five scandal.

(Interesting side note: as part of his attack on the Times' story, McCain denied ever personally speaking with, or handling the correspondence to the FCC for, Iseman's clients, Paxson or Alcalde & Fay. However, in a 2002 deposition, McCain testified he had, indeed, talked directly to Paxson and knew of the letters to the FCC.)

And that's not all! The Washington Post today published a story on how McCain has tried to dodge the campaign finance system.  In short, McCain tried to have his funding both ways - public, if he lost the primary - and private, if he won. How?

It involves a $1 million loan McCain obtained from a Bethesda bank in January. The bank was worried about his ability to repay the loan if he exited the federal financing program and started to lose in the primary race. McCain promised the bank that, if that happened, he would reapply for matching money and offer those as collateral for the loan.

Hilzoy:

Campaign finance laws ask candidates to make a choice: either you take federal money, in which case you are subject to a number of restrictions, or else you don't take it, in which case you are not. Getting a loan by using the matching funds you have not yet received as collateral is a way of trying to have it both ways: essentially, you get to spend your matching funds now, but because the money did not literally come from the government, you can delay a decision about whether or not to accept the restrictions that go with them until later. If you can leverage the money into enough wins to generate contributions, you can pay back the loan and duck the restrictions; if not, you've lost anyways, so you might as well abide by them. That's exactly what campaign finance laws do not want candidates to be able to do.

What's notable is that John McCain was one of the principal authors behind the very legislation he's now trying to play. Seems he's really not so keen on reform and ethics now, is he?

The book on McCain was that he embraced reform issues because of the humiliation he suffered during the Keating Five scandal, and that he wanted to change the system. Given the Iseman affair and his recent dealings with the FEC, it looks like his reformist rhetoric was all talk, and he's just another player in the GOP's culture of corruption.

The irony is, of course, McCain is the Republican Party's honest man in Congress.