Thursday, January 05, 2006
On Abramoff
The clearest, most concise telling of what we do, and do not, know at this point in the Abramoff scandal is from the Times of London. The fact of the matter is we know there is some potentially large scale scandal, but we know almost nothing else, and certainly we have no specificity.
Captain's Quarters is looking at the potential political ramification - his predictions are general enough to be reasonable, but it is way too early to really figure out what is gong to happen out of this.
My friend Mark Daniels is looking at this very hard. He is looking at how the affects the public trust of government here and here.
Full disclosure: I have used lobbyists in my day, never to fend for legislation, but to make introductions and set up meetings for myself and clients. The purpose of those meetings was to solicit elected official pressure to help untangle bureacratic hassles. Worked too - until the elected official was term limited out, then the bureacrats were back with a vengenance.
Clearly, votes for money is wrong. We elect our legislators to to vote as their research and values tell them to vote, not a paycheck. Votes for money render an election moot. But influence will always be part of the systems. Mark Daniels, in the second link above says something very telling:
The line between earning and purchasing such access and influence is a very fine one indeed. Let's face it, if over the years a person has proven themselves to be a reliable source of information, and helpful in your legislative efforts, they are likely to become a friend. Which means they might buy you dinner sometime, or take you to a ballgame, or invite you to go on vacation with them. In such settings when is there a quid pro quo involved, and how do you prove if their is? It is not a straighforward question.
In this case, there appears to be some clearcut votes for money stuff, and, as I say, that is wrong. But as this progresses, there is also going to be an enormous amount of political opportunism, people spinning the innocent to make it appear corrupt, and the other way around. I, for one, am going to stick very closely to the facts, not the spin.
The facts will come out slowly, and they will come out piecemeal. It will be important to hold the facts and reserve judgement until all the facts are in. In many instances, we will never have all the facts because the result will be deals and gag orders. We will be forced to withhold judgement permanently. We should endeavor to do so.
It's not a perfect system, but it's better than everything else. If we rush to fix it, based on incomplete and unsatisfactory information, we will make maters worse, not better.
Captain's Quarters is looking at the potential political ramification - his predictions are general enough to be reasonable, but it is way too early to really figure out what is gong to happen out of this.
My friend Mark Daniels is looking at this very hard. He is looking at how the affects the public trust of government here and here.
Full disclosure: I have used lobbyists in my day, never to fend for legislation, but to make introductions and set up meetings for myself and clients. The purpose of those meetings was to solicit elected official pressure to help untangle bureacratic hassles. Worked too - until the elected official was term limited out, then the bureacrats were back with a vengenance.
Clearly, votes for money is wrong. We elect our legislators to to vote as their research and values tell them to vote, not a paycheck. Votes for money render an election moot. But influence will always be part of the systems. Mark Daniels, in the second link above says something very telling:
Most legislators, forced to be generalists who juggled lots of different topics...Legislators will always be confronted with more than they can possibly research and understand on thier own. They will always need help from staffers and experts, or people than can connect them to experts. Thus contact and influence will always be "the coin of the realm."
The line between earning and purchasing such access and influence is a very fine one indeed. Let's face it, if over the years a person has proven themselves to be a reliable source of information, and helpful in your legislative efforts, they are likely to become a friend. Which means they might buy you dinner sometime, or take you to a ballgame, or invite you to go on vacation with them. In such settings when is there a quid pro quo involved, and how do you prove if their is? It is not a straighforward question.
In this case, there appears to be some clearcut votes for money stuff, and, as I say, that is wrong. But as this progresses, there is also going to be an enormous amount of political opportunism, people spinning the innocent to make it appear corrupt, and the other way around. I, for one, am going to stick very closely to the facts, not the spin.
The facts will come out slowly, and they will come out piecemeal. It will be important to hold the facts and reserve judgement until all the facts are in. In many instances, we will never have all the facts because the result will be deals and gag orders. We will be forced to withhold judgement permanently. We should endeavor to do so.
It's not a perfect system, but it's better than everything else. If we rush to fix it, based on incomplete and unsatisfactory information, we will make maters worse, not better.
