Most ethical majority evuh swimming in special-interest money
posted at 8:29 pm on April 19, 2007 by Allahpundit
Don’t worry about what ABC says. Just take Pelosi’s word for it and keep repeating it to yourself: they’re the most ethical majority ever.
Hey, they might be getting bought off, but I’m sure they’re getting bought off by “good” causes:
The campaign coffers of the new Democratic House committee chairmen have seen a big jump in contributions from lobbyists and special interests since the Democratic takeover of Congress, according to new campaign finance filings available on PoliticalMoneyLine.com.
In some cases, Democrats in powerful posts are raising more money from special interest groups than the Republicans they replaced…
The chairman to receive the most PAC money was Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, the chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, who reported raising $486,669 from PACs, compared to $7,500 during the same period two years ago. Rangel’s PAC donors compromised more than half the money he raised and represent a broad array of industries including health care, finance, transportation, agriculture, technology, retailers and organized labor…
The former Republican chairmen of those committees received significantly less PAC money than their Democratic counterparts. Rep. Joe Barton, former chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, received $50,000, one-sixth the amount [John] Dingell received. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, former chairman of the Agriculture committee, received $80,000, half the amount [Collin] Peterson received.
Exit question: If, hypothetically, an environmental PAC offers Barbara Boxer money, doesn’t she have a “spiritual and moral obligation” to accept it?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Apparently we exist to provide these people with position.
unamused on April 19, 2007 at 8:35 PM
Pelosi: “The most ethical majority ever!” What, you thought I was serious about that?
stonemeister on April 19, 2007 at 8:36 PM
who cares the republicans are acting like Harry Reid on Iraq.
tomas on April 19, 2007 at 8:43 PM
do they get bought off with more $$$ because the positions they posture themselves towards are so insane and harmful, that only option for the industries is to bribe them?
jp on April 19, 2007 at 8:44 PM
Can you believe anything these people say anymore? If those were Republicans pulling in dollars like that, don’t you know the Dems would be screaming about corruption and start calling for independent investigations.
thedecider on April 19, 2007 at 8:49 PM
I think the surrender monkeys get more pac money because the “donors” know that in order to work with the dhimmicrats, you have to pay to play.
Zorro on April 19, 2007 at 8:50 PM
Rangel runs unopposed in principle if not in fact. He needs campaign contributions for….?
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on April 19, 2007 at 8:51 PM
If you don’t understand their duplicity, try understanding Billy Jeff’s assertion that Hillary will be fine if she doesn’t win the nomination, while at the same time, saying he would gladly accept a position in her administration. Ugh!
thedecider on April 19, 2007 at 8:52 PM
NBC would have had a lead story on this Democrat corruption. But then the mail guy made his afternoon rounds, and the rest is history.
SailorDave on April 19, 2007 at 8:52 PM
PACman Fevah!
Bad Candy on April 19, 2007 at 8:53 PM
Along the lines of, “If a tree falls in the woods, does it make any noise?”
If a Democrat is unethical, how can anybody know? MSM will bury this.
cmay on April 19, 2007 at 9:00 PM
Can I get some of that cash?
Tim Burton on April 19, 2007 at 9:17 PM
whose leg do you have to hump to get some pac money?
lorien1973 on April 19, 2007 at 9:18 PM
One mans ethics is another mans political action committee.
Just like the legal system, you got enough money, you can buy em.
That goes to both sides.
Kini on April 19, 2007 at 9:18 PM
If Pelosi’s congress was that ethical she wouldn’t have had to bribe them to get votes for the Iraq bill. They are just as bad as the Republicans were as proved by the poll numbers.
ctmom on April 19, 2007 at 9:34 PM
Exactly what I was thinking, Attila.
MayBee on April 19, 2007 at 9:37 PM
When are these old farts going to die off and let the voters clean House?
James on April 19, 2007 at 9:51 PM
Oh yes they did. Indeed they did.
Freudian slip?
Misha I on April 19, 2007 at 9:54 PM
I think we need Fred Thompson to address this issue….
PinkyBigglesworth on April 19, 2007 at 10:00 PM
It’s not a bribe, it’s protection money.
- The Cat
MirCat on April 19, 2007 at 10:03 PM
Amen, Kini. Always, always follow the money.
BacaDog on April 19, 2007 at 10:06 PM
ger·ry·man·der (jr-mndr, gr-)
tr.v. ger·ry·man·dered, ger·ry·man·der·ing, ger·ry·man·ders
To divide (a geographic area) into voting districts so as to give unfair advantage to one party in elections.
n.
1. The act, process, or an instance of gerrymandering.
2. A district or configuration of districts differing widely in size or population because of gerrymandering.
[After Elbridge Gerry + (sala)mander (from the shape of an election district created while Gerry was governor of Massachusetts).]
Word History: “An official statement of the returns of voters for senators give[s] twenty nine friends of peace, and eleven gerrymanders.” So reported the May 12, 1813, edition of the Massachusetts Spy. A gerrymander sounds like a strange political beast, which it is, considered from a historical perspective. This beast was named by combining the word salamander, “a small lizardlike amphibian,” with the last name of Elbridge Gerry, a former governor of Massachusettsa state noted for its varied, often colorful political fauna. Gerry (whose name, incidentally, was pronounced with a hard g, though gerrymander is now commonly pronounced with a soft g) was immortalized in this word because an election district created by members of his party in 1812 looked like a salamander. According to one version of gerrymander’s coining, the shape of the district attracted the eye of the painter Gilbert Stuart, who noticed it on a map in a newspaper editor’s office. Stuart decorated the outline of the district with a head, wings, and claws and then said to the editor, “That will do for a salamander!” “Gerrymander!” came the reply. The word is first recorded in April 1812 in reference to the creature or its caricature, but it soon came to mean not only “the action of shaping a district to gain political advantage” but also “any representative elected from such a district by that method.” Within the same year gerrymander was also recorded as a verb.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/jerrymanderer
Speakup on April 19, 2007 at 10:15 PM
If you’re a Democrat, you ARE a crook!
georgej on April 19, 2007 at 11:08 PM
‘Prostitution’ is alive and well.
Entelechy on April 20, 2007 at 1:34 AM
It’s okay for the Dem’s to be double speaking hypocrites, because they care.
SilverStar830 on April 20, 2007 at 3:13 AM
Can I call Rangel a nappy-headed man-ho without getting banned? You know it’s true!
saint kansas on April 20, 2007 at 6:43 AM
The Dummiecrap mantra is “you gotta pay to play in our playground”. The Dummiecraps justify taking dirty money only from the finest crooks in town.
lynnv on April 20, 2007 at 8:38 AM
In national politics it is all about perception. The majority of voting Americans never spend even a moment reading information such as this. The majority of voting Americans still think that they actually threw out the real congress of corruption. Little do they know that their own pockets were being picked as they voted for these thieves. I’m still waiting for a real leader to stand up and call these crooks on it.
hoosierken on April 20, 2007 at 9:08 AM