ADBVPGXZU79A
Millions of Your Fellow Americans are Depending on You . . .
Political pundits and both political parties along with the American media talk 24/7 about “corporate money and lobbyists” running Washington, yet for either party it seems to only be about the ulterior motive of control of power and never about “the people.” Then I read about watchdog groups and by and large they seem to have a political party agenda as well and never seem to be focused on “the people.” I’m hoping and praying that you have a conscience and really care about “the people” and are not part of the daily political gamesmanship played out in Washington. If you do have a conscience, then you simply cannot turn away from “the people” losing their homes, who have starving children and who I’m confident are losing their lives to suicide. The issue is the political corruption killing passage of HR3149: The Equal Employment for All Act that would make it illegal for employers to hire and fire based personal credit reports.

First the money trail:

Sources for the 2010 and 2008 Money Cycles:

House Committee on Financial Services (only)
http://hr3149.blogspot.com/2010/03/democracy-and-money-why-hr3149-is.html

Equifax:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00143867&cycle=2010

Trans Union:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00313700&cycle=2010

Experian:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00379768&cycle=2010

2008 Cycle:

Trans Union
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/fec/?commid=C00313700&page=campaigns&order=TOTAL&cycle=2007-2008

Equifax
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/fec/?commid=C00143867&page=campaigns&order=TOTAL&cycle=2007-2008

Experian
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/fec/?commid=C00379768&page=campaigns&order=TOTAL&cycle=2007-2008

Even though I’m just a lowly average American citizen, I’m not so naïve as to not know that after reviewing the above links you’re presently splitting your sides laughing that I think the above represents real MONEY. Compared to what you’re used to seeing the amounts of money are a joke. Here is the part that is NOT so obvious, virtually no company or corporation wants HR3149 passed (because they think they own “the people” and their privacy). Now do you start to see the big picture? You know far better than I just how many millions of dollars that figure represents. Also please consider that the big three credit bureaus are not some huge defense contractor vying for some billion dollar contract against some other huge defense contractor. The only fear or competition the credit bureaus have for the ear of Congress is a lowly rag-tag group of common American citizens with no money and bad credit. A good Cuban cigar and some cocktails would by out our interests in Washington . . . the money is just a value add for selling us out.

The legislation was introduced way back last July and is still sitting stalled in the House Committee on Financial Services. In just the 2010 cycle alone (excluding 2008), members of Congress have accepted $258,000+ in PAC money from the big three credit bureaus in exchange for trying to kill HR3149. Just in the House Committee on Financial Services alone, during the 2010 cycle, almost half of its members (38+ %) stuffed their wallets with a total of $104,000+ in credit bureau PAC money. At the top of the money list, during the past two cycles, is Committee Chair Barney Frank who took $25,000 during in the 2008 cycle. This quid pro quo money for killing the legislation deal is NOT DEMOCRACY! With that said, the death of democracy pales in comparison to the suffering of the American people caught in a catch 22 of bad credit = no job and no job = bad credit.

In survey after survey, including a recent MSNBC survey, more than 90 percent of the American people say that workplace discrimination based upon someone’s personal credit report is wrong and should be illegal. The practice was always wrong and from the start has always been a gross invasion of Americans’ personal privacy. The information is used by employers to low ball wages and intimidate employees based upon the level of desperation depicted in their credit report – while employers use the smoke screen of saying the information is used to protect them from fraud and theft. It’s “the people” that need protection from corrupt politicians and dirty corporate money . . . not the other way around!

Does a private employer expose their financials or credit report to a new hire? Do they advise employees when they are getting ready to ship their jobs overseas or close their doors? Did someone applying at Enron know the books were being cooked before they quit a good job and then subsequently lost every dime in retirement money they had with Enron? It’s currently a one-way street all tilted to the corporate side of the table. Credit reports for employment are already illegal in three states, but that’s not solving the problem for the millions of other Americans being locked out of the workforce in a catch 22 of no job = bad credit and bad credit = no job.

NOT ONE SINGLE study or shred of evidence exists to demonstrate that Americans with damaged credit reports steal or commit fraud at a higher percentage than other Americans. If there were any correlation between a credit report and theft, then American CEOs such as Bernie Madoff, Ken Lewis, Kenneth Lay, Dennis Kozlowski, Bernard Ebbers and Richard Fuld wouldn’t be either already convicted or under investigation for “stealing” millions and millions from their companies. The American elite, Wall Street and Congress operate by different rules when it comes to credit reports, corruption and stealing. The more corrupt they become, the better their credit reports get while “the peoples” credit reports suffer to a point of never being allowed to work again.

Quite frankly, we’re almost out of time. A preliminary hearing was held a couple of weeks ago in the House Committee on Financial Services on credit issues in general – which means the HR3149 hearing could be announced at any time. The preliminary hearing was “kangaroo court” with seven corporate witnesses and one privacy advocate speaking on behalf of “the people.” If we can’t expose the money being funneled into the committee, it will be the same for HR3149 when the hearing occurs . . . a sham hearing with votes bought and arms twisted to thwart the will of “the people.”

We’ve tried writing the American media but they all work for corporations and are being threatened with their jobs if they report the corruption and pay offs. So a watchdog group like yours is looking like our only hope at this point. Please, please, please take up our cause. The research and money trail is available at your fingertips via the Internet. When your fellow Americans, devastated by Wall Street’s greed that wrecked the economy, are losing everything that have with no way out . . . is asking for your help not warranted?

I realize that Washington, D.C. hasn’t been hit as hard by this economy as the rest of our nation, but please realize that people are truly suffering and there is no way out for the millions of people permanently locked out of the workplace forever unless HR3149 passes. You hold the key to passage of HR3149. Please help to disclose the political corruption behind the stalling and attempted killing of HR3149. Millions of Americans are depending on you . . .

Bruce Eggum

It is flabbergasting to watch the reaction of elected officials regarding the anger of the general public against them right now. Are they that naive and removed from reality in the cushion of the beltway? Why is the public angry? Why do people hate you Mr Senator and Ms Congresswoman?

Let me list the ways…

1. You live in bubbles while people across this country are losing their jobs, having their wages frozen or reduced.

2. Wages are stagnant, but food, gas, healthcare costs continue to rise.

3. Day after day, we see OUR money being used to line YOUR pockets. Corruption in US Government is so out of control that it is sickening.
This reason alone is enough to incite riots and anarchy – don’t you see that people will only take so much before they “push back at you?”
Both Democrats and Republicans have severe and real credibility issues with the people.

4. Many feel deceived by Obama – the only “change” has been the party in office, and not the way business and politics is done in DC.

5. People are scared. Fear often leads to anger, as does ignorance. Why are they scared? Because the world and the country has some severe
problems and they have NO FAITH IN THE COMPETENCY OR INTEGRITY of our elected officials in DC.

6. TWO SIMPLE ISSUES ARE ALWAYS IGNORED BY ALL POLITICIANS:

A. A constitutional amendment for 8 yr term limits in ALL offices (both houses) , not just the President.
B. A constitutional amendment for a mandated BALANCED BUDGET EVERY YEAR.

7. Many people believe (and you prove them right every day) that you could care less about “serving the people” and could not even utter the words “servant leadership”. You only are in office to grab power, money, or satisfy your ego,  probably all three…

By Alex Knott, CQ Staff

Lawmaker trips sponsored by outside groups have decreased by 56 percent since the ethics and lobbying overhaul law was enacted two years ago, according to a CQ MoneyLine study of congressional travel.

Since then, more than 2,300 former sponsors of lawmaker trips, including many corporations, government contractors and other groups that lobby, have stopped paying for such travel. Meanwhile, the average amount of money still spent on lawmaker-related travel by outside groups has dropped from $250,000 a month to $110,000 a month.

“This is a sign that the law is working as intended … It takes most of the influence peddling out of these trips,” said Craig Holman of Public Citizen, one of the watchdog groups that pushed for tougher ethics restrictions on lawmakers and lobbyists.

The law (PL 110-81), which was enacted in 2007 in response to of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, was designed to prevent lobbyists and their clients from using trips to help push an agenda or influence specific legislation. But it did not eliminate all outside-sponsored trips, and many groups and institutions — like universities and other educational organizations — are still allowed to sponsor “fact-finding” trips for members of Congress and their staffs.

In all, former sponsors that no longer pay for trips spent nearly $15 million on lawmaker-related travel between 2000 and 2007.

Among the groups still funding a large number of member trips is the Aspen Institute, which leads every other organization with nearly $1.1 million in travel expenditures since the lobbying and ethics changes were enacted two years ago. Also at the top of the list — the American Israel Education Foundation with $488,000 spent and the International Management & Development Institute with $100,000.

By Bret Jacobson On September 14, 2009

Until last Thursday, many Americans assumed ACORN’s massive tax windfall was just a way to funnel taxpayer money to a radical organization. That was before the shocking video revelation that ACORN Housing staff — funded by millions of dollars of the public’s money — is willing to offer their “counseling services” to would-be operators of child prostitute rings. Clearly, it’s time to take a closer look at how taxpayer money drives the ACORN empire.

The Public Trough

Until recently, few knew much about ACORN or the reach of its 300-plus organizations with a hundred-million-dollar budget. The main financial sustenance for the behemoth comes from unions (which outsource dirty work, strategy, and anti-corporate attacks to the group), powerful and politically minded non-profit foundations, political campaigns (including $800,000 from then-Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008 and taxpayer money.

That public trough has been open to those who seem to feel they are more equal than others. The Washington Examiner investigated and found out that “at least $53 million in federal funds have gone to ACORN activists since 1994.”

A large chunk of that money flows from the federal government to the ACORN Housing Corporation (AHC). On the group’s IRS filings for the fiscal year ending in June 2007, AHC reported taking in more than $2.8 million in that year alone — accounting for approximately 30 percent of that year’s budget. A 2008 report from the Consumers Rights League found that from 2004 through 2006, government funds accounted for 40 percent of the group’s $18.3 million in revenue.

(more…)

WASHINGTON — Steven Rattner, head of the Obama administration’s auto task force, is leaving that post and will be replaced by former steelworkers official Ron Bloom. The administration said Monday that Rattner decided to return to private life and his family in New York City. Rattner won praise for the job he did managing the massive restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler. But his government service came under a cloud with an investigation of an influence peddling scandal back in New York.  Authorities have said that Rattner, an investment banker, was unlikely to face charges in the investigation which involved a giant state pension fund that provides retirement benefits for more than 1 million government employees.

In a statement, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner praised Rattner’s work on the auto industry overhaul. “We are extremely grateful to Steve for his efforts in helping strengthen GM and Chrysler, recapitalize GMAC and support the American auto industry,” Geithner said. “I hope that he takes another opportunity to bring his unique skills to government service in the future.”

Rattner will be replaced by Bloom. He assumes leadership of the task force’s activities as the government transitions from day-to-day restructuring to “protecting the substantial investment the American taxpayers have made in GM, Chrysler and GMAC,” Geithner said.

How Washington’s new riches destroyed Tom Daschle.
Norman Ornstein, The New Republic Published: Wednesday, February 04, 2009

So Damn Much Money is the title of Bob Kaiser’s penetrating book on the explosion of lobbying and corruption in Washington over the past quarter century. Kaiser is right, and so is Barack Obama in his attempt to attenuate the corrosive links between lobbying and government–even with the hiccup created by Tom Daschle’s withdrawal.

In over 39 years in Washington, I have seen the city transformed from a sterile national capital akin to Canberra or Brasilia into a social, cultural, culinary, and economic metropolis that can (almost) compete with London and Paris. In 1969, when I arrived here, there was limited regional theater, the Smithsonian museums, and a literal handful of “exotic” restaurants (the most exotic of which was a Cuban dive called the Omega). Fancy clothing was the purview of Raleigh’s, where Hickey-Freeman was as hip as it got.

Today, the museums are world-class, as are the restaurants, the art scene, the fashion. But all this pales in comparison to the biggest change: the sheer amount of money sloshing around. In 1970, the federal budget was all of $195 billion. Today, the budget is over $3 trillion.

With so many federal dollars at stake, the capital injected into the system to influence government decisions has exploded. Law firms, lobbying firms, public relations firms–all have mushroomed over the past four decades, creating thousands of high-paying jobs, some going well into the seven figures.

In 1969, a member of Congress earned $42,500. Today, the pay is nearly four times that, $169,300. But in 1969, the salary of a first-year associate at prime Washington firms was around $10,000–while today, the starting pay for a first-year associate is $160,000, not including hefty bonuses for those who have clerked for a federal judge. Back then, a senior partner in a Washington law firm would earn a bit more than a member of Congress; today, that partner might make ten times a congressional salary.

The disparities have grown even sharper with lobbyists. In 1969, a newly minted lobbyist with solid Capitol Hill experience could count on making a touch more than the $10,000 they earned as congressional staff. Today, the congressional staffer making $50,000 can look at a peer making five or six times that much as a lobbyist. An assistant secretary in an executive department can make similar multiples upon leaving office and taking up lobbying. The explosion of public relations and lobbying firms has meant that huge conglomerates like Burson-Marsteller, Ogilvy, Hill & Knowlton, and WPP have bought up boutique firms created by former executive branch and congressional staffers, turning these staffers into instant multi-millionaires.

It is no wonder that the Washington area is now filled with neighborhoods of three-million-dollar houses; that the city now has its own version of Rodeo Drive, with a Jimmy Choo shoe store even.

Living in a prosperous, vibrant city is nice. But the corrupting influence of all that money is palpable. For senior members of Congress, it is not easy to see one’s peers–much less one’s former employees–leave the Hill and make so much more money. The seemingly inexplicable petty corruption of powerhouses like Dan Rostenkowski and Ted Stevens can be explained, I believe, by their belief that they were making such immense sacrifices to stay in public service that a few additional perks were well-deserved–and still left them far poorer than their lobbyist friends. And for the first time, we have young people who enter public service, not out of idealism or even a thirst for power, but out of a desire to make money.

Jack Abramoff and his colleagues showed that corruption can be painfully blatant. But often a more subtle dynamic is present: congressional staffers, members of Congress, and executive officials answer the phone calls and see the unsavory clients of lobbyists who enjoy prime tickets to Redskins games and golf at Burning Tree or might at some future point be their employers–who wants to alienate someone who might hold the key to a million-dollar job? Laws and regulations get more complicated when drafted by staffers and agency officials who know their market value is much higher when they are the ones who can interpret the nuances or find the loopholes when they leave government service.

Many of these lobbyists and consultants are my friends; most are very honorable people, but all–including Tom Daschle, a man of real integrity and strong basic values–are caught up in a system that is becoming more difficult to keep on the straight and narrow

That is why President Obama’s tough ethics and lobbying restrictions, the most far-reaching ever, are so welcome. Obama’s executive order has a blanket gift ban, will block lobbyists from taking jobs in his administration in any area where they have lobbied over the previous two years, and will bar administration officials from lobbying his administration at all after they leave office–for what could be a full eight years.

There is no doubt that some extremely talented people will be barred from taking jobs in the administration–and others will shrink from the prospect, given the hit on their future earning capability. But there are many talented people who will answer the call to public service without seeing it as an inevitable route to riches. In the rare case where a person is deemed indispensable, there is a waiver provision (first employed for Obama’s nominee for Deputy Secretary of Defense Bill Lynn) but the president has pledged to make it very rare. And, as the Lynn nomination shows, each waiver will get a lot of scrutiny.

Of course, there is another serious price, which has become more apparent over the past few days. Set tough standards, combine them with the kind of vetting process that is the equivalent of full body cavity searches, and you will inevitably have casualties, like Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer.

None of this suggests that Obama should rethink or dilute either his ethics reform package or his willingness to recruit Washington insiders for key positions. And tough as the reform measures are, they are only the first step in breaking the corrupting influence of money in Washington. Ideally, these moves will encourage Congress to create its own sharper limitations on members and staff moving into lucrative lobbying posts. And it is now critical to pass campaign finance reform that tilts the system dramatically toward small donors and away from big shots, including Washington lobbyists. These steps will not end corruption or the impact of money; a huge federal government invites both. They will not keep some nominees from stepping into embarrassing situations; indeed, they may result in some very good people deciding it is not worth entering government. But at least, for the first time in a long time, public service is being framed as a calling, not as a springboard to get a larger piece of that huge pie.

In November of 2007, while campaigning, John Edwards said: “Washington is awash with corrupt money, with lobbyists who pass it out, with politicians who ask for it,” he said. In finishing his speech, he reiterated: “this election is the ‘great moral test of our generation.’ Now, 18 months later we have Mr. Edwards being investigated for use of PAC money for personal use.
Review this release and try and control your anger…

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — His once-prominent political career is buried and the turmoil of his marriage is playing out in public. Now, John Edwards is facing a federal inquiry. The two-time Democratic presidential candidate acknowledged Sunday that investigators are assessing how he spent his campaign funds — a subject that could carry his extramarital affair from the tabloids to the courtroom. Edwards’ political action committee paid more than $100,000 for video production to the firm of the woman with whom Edwards had an affair. The former North Carolina senator said in a carefully worded statement that he is cooperating. “I am confident that no funds from my campaign were used improperly,” Edwards said in the statement. “However, I know that it is the role of government to ensure that this is true. We have made available to the United States both the people and the information necessary to help them get the issue resolved efficiently and in a timely matter.”

While Edwards focused his comment on campaign funds, he also had a range of other fundraising organizations — including two nonprofits and a poverty center at his alma mater — that have come under scrutiny. Chief among them was the PAC that paid Rielle Hunter’s company for several months in 2006 for Web videos that documented Edwards’ travels and advocacy in the months leading up to his 2008 presidential campaign. The committee also paid her firm an additional $14,086.50 on April 1, 2007. Edwards acknowledged the affair with Hunter last year, months after dropping his presidential bid.

At the time of the 2007 payment, the PAC only had $7,932.95 in cash on hand, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission. That day, according to the records, Edwards’ presidential campaign paid the PAC $14,034.61 for what is listed as a “furniture purchase.” Willfully converting money from a political action committee for personal use is a federal crime. The furniture money was one of just five contributions to the political action committee between April 1 to June 30, 2007. The other four were on June 30, the last day of the reporting period, including a $3,000 contribution from the wife of Edwards’ finance chairman, Fred Baron.
Baron, Edwards’ national finance chairman and a wealthy Dallas-based trial attorney, said last year that he quietly began sending money to Hunter to resettle in California. He said no campaign funds were used and that Hunter was not working for the campaign when he started giving her money. Edwards has said he was unaware of the payments. Baron died of cancer in October.

U.S. Attorney George Holding has declined to comment and said he won’t confirm or deny an investigation. Kate Michelman, a former head of the abortion-rights group NARAL who advised the Edwards campaign, said she hopes there was no wrongdoing.

“All of us remain very saddened by what has happened to John, because he was right on the policies,” Michelman said Sunday. “It remains a very sad occurrence for all of us. It’s sad for John and Elizabeth, and this is just one more problem for them to deal with.”
Edwards, 55, powered onto the national scene in 1998, when he won a seat for the U.S. Senate in his first political campaign. With smooth speech and good looks, the former trial lawyer ran for the White House in 2004 and was tapped as Sen. John Kerry’s running mate. He returned to the campaign trail in a 2008 presidential bid but was largely overshadowed by a duel between Hillary Clinton, vying to be the first female president, and Barack Obama, who did become the first black president. Since announcing the affair, Edwards has remained largely secluded, and he canceled all his public appearances before the November election because he said he didn’t want to be a distraction for Obama.

His wife, Elizabeth, who is terminally ill with cancer, will soon be releasing a book talking about the affair. In it, she writes that news of the affair made her vomit. She also describes Hunter as “pathetic.”

Bob Ney’s best known Congressional work was on the election reform efforts founded in the wake of the confused 2000 voting in Florida, and his support and backing for the “Stand Up For Steel” crusade and resulting laws. From 2001 to 2006, Ney was Chairman of the House Administration Committee. As chair of that committee, he oversaw operations in the Capitol complex and was sometimes known as the “Mayor of Capitol Hill”. Ney also gained notoriety when he mandated, as Chairman of the House Administration Committee, that “french fries” be renamed “freedom fries” on House of Representatives food service menus, to indicate displeasure with France’s lack of support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Before he pled guilty, Ney was identified in the guilty pleas of Jack Abramoff, former Tom DeLay deputy chief of staff Tony Rudy, former DeLay press secretary Michael Scanlon and former Ney chief of staff Neil Volz for receiving lavish gifts in exchange for political favors.

On May 18, 2006, the House Ethics Committee announced an investigation into bribery allegations against Ney, and on August 7, 2006, Ney announced that he was withdrawing from the 2006 election race. On September 15, 2006, the Justice Department filed Ney’s guilty pleas to a charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to a charge of falsifying financial disclosure forms. Both charges are related to actions taken on behalf of Abramoff’s clients in exchange for bribes, as well as separate actions taken on behalf of a foreign businessman in exchange for over $50,000 in gambling sprees at foreign private casinos. Ney is the first member of Congress to admit to criminal charges in the Abramoff investigation, which has focused on the actions of several current and former Republican lawmakers who had been close to the former lobbyist. Ney resigned from the House of Representatives on November 3, 2006. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison. He was released on August 15, 2008 after serving 17 months.
Now? He is becoming a talkshow host…so – when all else fails in life, become a “talking head”.