13 most corrupt members of Congress

[Balta1701]

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has slapped together a fairly interesting list of the "13 most corrupt members of Congress". I find the list quite informative...most of them I've already heard of, but they all deserve some severe scrutiny.

The 13 members of Congress recommended for investigation by the watchdog group are:

 

•  Sen. Bill Frist (Senate Majority Leader, R-Tenn): The report accuses him of violating federal campaign finance laws in how he disclosed a campaign loan. It also calls for an inquiry over his recent sale of stock in HCA Inc., his family's hospital corporation. The sale has raised questions about possible insider dealing. Frist aides confirmed Friday that the SEC was investigating. They have denied claims of campaign finance violations.

 

•  Rep. Roy Blunt (House Majority Whip, R-Mo.): The report criticizes him for trying to insert provisions into bills that would have benefited, in one case, a client of his lobbyist son and in another case, the employer of his lobbyist girlfriend, now his wife.

 

•  Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.):  The report says that questions arose over $3 million in appropriations he earmarked for an Indian tribe in Michigan that was a client of lobbyist Abramoff. The senator received substantial campaign contributions from Abramoff and various clients.

 

"Sen. Burns did nothing wrong, and any accusation to the contrary is pure politics," said James Pendleton, his director of communications. He said Burns had earmarked the appropriation at the request of the Michigan congressional delegation.

 

•  Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio): The report says the chairman of the House Administration Committee went on a golf outing to Scotland in 2002, arranged by Abramoff, at a time when the congressman was trying to insert a provision into legislation to benefit one of Abramoff's tribal clients.

 

Ney reported to the House that the trip was paid for entirely by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank, which denied paying any of the costs. Ney has said he had been duped by Abramoff.

 

•  Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.): The report says he incorrectly reported that a golf trip to Scotland with Abramoff in 2003 was paid for by the National Center for Public Policy Research, which denied it. A Feeney aide said the congressman had been misled. Questions also have arisen about two other privately funded trips.

 

•  Rep. Richard W. Pombo (R-CA): He paid his wife and brother $357,325 in campaign funds in the last four years, the report says. He also supported the wind-power industry before the Department of Interior without disclosing that his parents received hundreds of thousands of dollars in royalties from wind-power turbines on their ranch.

 

Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for Pombo, said that "each of the charges is baseless." He called the watchdog group "a Democratic attack group, and all of their charges should be taken with a grain of salt."

 

•  Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles): The report cites a December 2004 Los Angeles Times investigation disclosing how members of the congresswoman's family have made more than $1 million in the last eight years by doing business with companies, candidates and causes that Waters has helped. Before publication of the Times investigation last year, Waters declined to be interviewed, but said of her family members: "They do their business, and I do mine."

 

•  Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.): The report says he encountered controversy over disclosures that Pennsylvania taxpayers paid for his children's schooling while they lived in Virginia. Santorum maintained he did nothing wrong, and has pulled his children out of the school, according to reports.

 

•  Reps. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) and William J. Jefferson (D-LA): Both congressional veterans are under federal investigation.

 

Cunningham, who has announced that he will not run for reelection, faces questions over his dealings with a defense contractor who allegedly overpaid him when he purchased Cunningham's house. Jefferson is under scrutiny for his role in an overseas business deal. Normally the House ethics committee does not hold inquiries while criminal investigations are underway.

 

•  Rep. Charles H. Taylor (R-N.C.): The report says that questions have been raised about his private business interests, including a savings and loan in Asheville, N.C., and personal business interests in Russia.

 

•  Rep. Marilyn N. Musgrave (R-Colo.) and Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.): Both second-term House members encountered criticisms tied to campaign activities, the report says.

 

Musgrave was accused of misusing her congressional office for campaign purposes. Renzi was accused of financing portions of his 2002 campaign with improper loans.

[kapkomet]

Well, isn't that nice. EVERY ONE OF THEM except one is Republican. I wonder what the slant of this article is?

 

This, again, would not even be posted if it all had "-D" after the names.

[Balta1701]

Actually there are 2 Democrats on the list.

[kapkomet]

Oops. Don't know how to count. My point, however, remains the same.

[Balta1701]

My point in response would be "Power corrupts. And absolute power..."

[kapkomet]

My point in response would be "Power corrupts.  And absolute power..."

And my response is they don't have absolute power. They THINK they do, which is part of the problem. Oh, by the way, Democrats aren't exactly exempt from this, but suspiciously absent from this report. I wonder why?

[KipWellsFan]

And my response is they don't have absolute power.  They THINK they do, which is part of the problem.  Oh, by the way, Democrats aren't exactly exempt from this, but suspiciously absent from this report.  I wonder why?

 

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a Washington, DC-based organization dedicated to fighting corruption by government officials by means of creative litigation. It styles itself as broad, mainstream, and concerned with public policy, in distinction to similar efforts that have been more conservative, partisan, or related to private conduct.

 

...

 

Cases with CREW involvement

 

    * Clint Curtis

    * Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

    * Theft of Democrat documents within the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary

    * Ethics violations by Tom DeLay

 

wikipedia

 

In the decade just ended, this litigation strategy was applied to a new area: government integrity. Since the 1970's, citizens' groups have been increasingly active in government investigations ranging from Watergate to Iran-Contra to the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill matter. But it was not until the 1990's that these groups hit on the strategy of using private investigation and litigation to parallel and support government investigations. This began with Whitewater, continued through the campaign finance investigations, and culminated in the Paula Jones litigation and the presidential impeachment proceedings.

 

This use of the legal system was innovative but irresponsible. The legal groups leading the charge were more focused on partisan political agendas than on promoting the public interests. They often targeted innocent public officials based on little more than those officials' political associations.

 

These right wing groups often focused on private conduct rather than on public policy. Of course, we should have high standards for government leaders, but the greatest danger to democracy is posed not by the personal peccadillos of government leaders, but rather, public policy unduly influenced by special interests. This concept was lost in the flurry of investigations and lawsuits undertaken during the previous government administration.

 

We believe there is a niche for a mainstream group that helps real people who have suffered injustice bring or defend legal actions stemming from the conduct of unscrupulous government officials. The groups that have pioneered this type of legal advocacy are avowedly conservative and extremist: Judicial Watch; the Rutherford Institute; the National Legal and Policy Center; to name just a few.

 

Conservative groups such as these have no real parallel in the mainstream. There are a number of non-partisan groups that address government honesty, including Common Cause, the Center for Public Integrity, and Democracy 21. While we applaud their efforts, we have noted that these groups focus principally on research and legislation. They do not use litigation to target outrageous conduct, nor do they bring the message of injustice to the people the way their conservative counterparts do. Because these public interest organizations focus mostly on policy issues and not on obstacles faced by ordinary citizens, these groups have not mobilized a shift in public opinion on the issue of government honesty. The mainstream needs a parallel to the conservative groups mentioned above — CREW will fill that niche.

stattrax.com

 

http://www.citizensforethics.org/about/background.php

[Texsox]

I don't think either party has a monopoly on problems. Just because the list doesn't balance equally, doesn't mean these guys are angels any more than the guys who should be on the list and aren't. To paraphrase Kap's logic, there aren't enough Dems on the list, so these guys must be honest. And a liberal thinker would say the same thing if it was all Dems.

 

They all work in the same industry, with the same temptations, the same problems. When as the public we stop the us and them, Dem and GOP cheer leading that the parties have encouraged, we will begin to get back honest government. Until then GOPerheads will denounce any attacks on Republicans as biased and untrue, and Dems will do the same for "their" guys. Of course we will get what we deserve.

[Balta1701]

I don't think either party has a monopoly on problems. Just because the list doesn't balance equally, doesn't mean these guys are angels any more than the guys who should be on the list and aren't. To paraphrase Kap's logic, there aren't enough Dems on the list, so these guys must be honest. And a liberal thinker would say the same thing if it was all Dems.

I would respond to that by saying that there's no reason to assume that the Democrats in Congress are honest, but the Republicans in Congress have ALL the power. They write bills in secret and push them through in the middle of the night with the Dems receiving 1000+ page documents 1 hour before the vote. They completely change things in conference committees and never give the Dems a shot to view the things afterwards. They hold votes open forever in order to bully people into voting with them. They rewrite rules so that they decide what to investigate. They promise investigations and then quietly shut them down when the press isn't watching (i.e. WMD's).

 

The Democrats may well be as corrupt as the Republicans. But right now, the Democrats have absolutely no power in Congress. They can't even start an investigation. So the only ones who even have the chance to be corrupt are the Republicans.

[Rex Kickass]

And my response is they don't have absolute power.  They THINK they do, which is part of the problem.  Oh, by the way, Democrats aren't exactly exempt from this, but suspiciously absent from this report.  I wonder why?

 

Because Republicans have control over the legislative, executive and by that control - the judiciary as well. So Democrats have to work extra hard at being as corrupt as leaders of our organization?

 

And we all know liberals are lazy and just expect handouts. They never said anything about working for them. Self-explanatory I thought.

[Texsox]

I would respond to that by saying that there's no reason to assume that the Democrats in Congress are honest, but the Republicans in Congress have ALL the power.  They write bills in secret and push them through in the middle of the night with the Dems receiving 1000+ page documents 1 hour before the vote.  They completely change things in conference committees and never give the Dems a shot to view the things afterwards.  They hold votes open forever in order to bully people into voting with them.    They rewrite rules so that they decide what to investigate.  They promise investigations and then quietly shut them down when the press isn't watching (i.e. WMD's).

 

The Democrats may well be as corrupt as the Republicans.  But right now, the Democrats have absolutely no power in Congress.  They can't even start an investigation.  So the only ones who even have the chance to be corrupt are the Republicans.

 

As long as we have honest journalists like Rush, Hannity, Savage, Ingram, Reagan, O'Reilly, Colson, Dobson, and all the others on 24/7 watching the Republicans, we'll be ok.

[Texsox]

Because Republicans have control over the legislative, executive and by that control - the judiciary as well. So Democrats have to work extra hard at being as corrupt as leaders of our organization?

 

And we all know liberals are lazy and just expect handouts. They never said anything about working for them. Self-explanatory I thought.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Haha, I'm pithy. Or snarky. Or both.

[kapkomet]

Who gave them the power? THE PEOPLE. If the Democrats ever got their heads out of their collective asses and saying that they are everything the Republicans are not (which is bull s***), then they'd get the power back.

 

I got news for you. The Republicans, IMO, SUCK right now. The Democrats suck worse because they run around looking for these witch-hunts like this crap instead of coming up with something that resonates with the common American person. If they ever do that, they'd have all the power and get to say when they get to investigate themselves.

 

People who are ultra liberal or ultra conservative spend way too much time arguing over the exact kind of BS that this thread stated. Is it a problem? Yep. Get a message, though, and take back the power the right way instead of dreaming up all this s*** of how to "derail the Republicans"

[Texsox]

Who gave them the power?  THE PEOPLE.  If the Democrats ever got their heads out of their collective asses and saying that they are everything the Republicans are not (which is bull s***), then they'd get the power back.

 

I got news for you.  The Republicans, IMO, SUCK right now.  The Democrats suck worse because they run around looking for these witch-hunts like this crap instead of coming up with something that resonates with the common American person.  If they ever do that, they'd have all the power and get to say when they get to investigate themselves.

 

People who are ultra liberal or ultra conservative spend way too much time arguing over the exact kind of BS that this thread stated.  Is it a problem?  Yep.  Get a message, though, and take back the power the right way instead of dreaming up all this s*** of how to "derail the Republicans"

 

 

But as long as the GOP has 51% of the voters convinced they can increase sending and cut taxes, people will vote with their pocket book.

[WilliamTell]

Who gave them the power?  THE PEOPLE.  If the Democrats ever got their heads out of their collective asses and saying that they are everything the Republicans are not (which is bull s***), then they'd get the power back.

 

I got news for you.  The Republicans, IMO, SUCK right now.  The Democrats suck worse because they run around looking for these witch-hunts like this crap instead of coming up with something that resonates with the common American person.  If they ever do that, they'd have all the power and get to say when they get to investigate themselves.

 

People who are ultra liberal or ultra conservative spend way too much time arguing over the exact kind of BS that this thread stated.  Is it a problem?  Yep.  Get a message, though, and take back the power the right way instead of dreaming up all this s*** of how to "derail the Republicans"

 

 

So true. I'm not happy with the Republican party right now either.

[Balta1701]

So true. I'm not happy with the Republican party right now either.

What, you never thought a Republican Senate, House, and President, could actually outspend LBJ?

[kapkomet]

What, you never thought a Republican Senate, House, and President, could actually outspend LBJ?

Different time, different government, different economy.

[southsider2k5]

Different time, different government, different economy.

 

I never thought I would see the deadliest terror attack in our history, the most expensive natural disaster in our history, and a war in the same 5 year administraion.

[Texsox]

I never thought I would see the deadliest terror attack in our history, the most expensive natural disaster in our history, and a war in the same 5 year administration.

 

Good time to cut revenue. This is so costly, the only way to pay for it is if the government cut taxes back to zero.

 

KAP, notice my man Hammer isn't on the list '08 He is arguably the most investigated politician right now and he is indictment free, 100% tested and ready to be driven.

[Balta1701]

Actually...I think the idea behind that was to do a list of other people, since CREW had spent so much time on Delay.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Something tells me this group likes the term selective amnesia. :roll:

[Balta1701]

Here's the web page from CREW with the actual report. Go read for yourself.

[KipWellsFan]

Why'd they stop at 13?

[kapkomet]

Why'd they stop at 13?

They needed to stop at oh, about 537. 100 for the Senate, 435 for the House, and 2 for our beloved President and Vice President.