FLAG BANNER
DEDICATED TO RIDDING POLITICAL BRIBERY FROM THE CENTER OF CALIFORNIA POLITICS

 

 
HOME
 

CORRUPTION UPDATES 22

October 31st to November 13th, 2006

The CORRUPTION UPDATES reviews corruption in the news. News Stories from California, the Nation and the World are abstracted below, and followed by commentary and references.

 

CORRUPTION UPDATES 22

Previous Corruption Updates: Page 21

Next Corruption Updates: Page 23

1) THE ARTICLE ABSTRACTED BELOW WAS PUBLISHED BY THE LA TIMES, 10-31-06:

Free speech test for judicial reform

Nevada fund raising ban constitutional, advocate says.

By Scott Gold, Times Staff Writer
October 31, 2006

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-judges31oct31,1,2665269.story?coll=la-headlines-politics

Las VegasBanning judges from personally soliciting or accepting campaign contributions would not represent an improper restriction on their constitutional rights and would help restore the integrity of Nevada's troubled judiciary, an advocate for reform has argued.”

“The Nevada Supreme Court is expected to decide in coming months whether to implement the ban. The measure would put Nevada
in line with much of the rest of the nation, and advocates believe it would mark a significant step in judicial reform.”
“First, however, the Nevada Supreme Court asked Washoe County District Judge Brent Adams, who petitioned the court to make the change, to address the thorny issue of whether the ban might represent an unconstitutional limit on free speech.”

“That issue has divided other courts in recent years. Early this year, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to resolve the matter, despite requests from the American Bar Assn. and dozens of U.S.
corporations seeking to protect the credibility of judicial elections.”

The Times investigation found that Nevada judges had awarded millions of dollars worth of judgments without disclosing that the money went to friends, business partners and former clients. The Times also disclosed that 17 incumbents in recent judicial elections raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from attorneys and corporations with cases pending before the judges.”

THE COMMITTEE SAYS:

NEVADA HIGH COURT TO RULE ON JUDICIAL BRIBERY

NEVADA JUDGES HAVE TRADITIONALLY ACCEPTED “CONTRIBUTIONS” FROM PARTIES WITH CASES BEFORE THEIR BENCH: DON'T EXPECT THIS TO CHANGE

This article brings out a crucial contradiction that has arisen in our political evolution. This contradiction is between the rights of the voter to select their own representatives, and the right the rest of the citizens have to speak freely to the candidates and officeholders, as well as the voters, about the issues.

As it presently stands, the power and wealth of the various special interests have used freedom of speech as a cover to bribe, if not purchase, our candidates and politicians. The right of the voters to be the source of political power has been trampled.

The voter can be assured their politicians will better represent the needs and interests of the big outside contributors than their own interests.

To resolve this contradiction only a few simple steps will have to be taken. First, no candidate or officeholder shall be allowed to accept contributions from any source other than voters in their election. Second, party support, whether from “party committees,” or the county, state, and national parties, shall not be allowed to exceed 30% of the total collected from local voters. Third, all “free speech” groups that participate in partisan election activities shall be subject to all disclosure and contribution rules governing the political parties. Fourth, all party organizations shall be subject to disclosure and contribution limits that govern the political parties.

These rules will not end corruption, but they will force the parties and politicians to reorient themselves in accordance with the wishes of their voters, rather than the special interests. These rules will criminalize corruption, rather than protecting it.

And until these changes happen, Justice will be for sale.

For Further Developments in Judicial Corruption

Judicial Links


Top of Page

2) THE ARTICLE Abstracted Below was printed by the

BEE, 11-2-06:

Builder funds grow in Elk Grove race

Money pours into firefighter panel opposing Mayor Soares, Briggs.

By Loretta Kalb - Bee Staff Writer

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/70504.html

Last Updated 6:33 am PST Thursday, November 2, 2006
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B1

In an extraordinary eleventh-hour move, a firefighters' political action committee bankrolled by builders is opening the cash spigot in the Elk Grove City Council election.”

What seems an unlikely coupling is driven by a common goal: To get rid of Mayor Rick Soares and Councilman Dan Briggs.”

Within the last two weeks, the committee known as Elk Grove Firefighters has reported spending close to $137,000 in support of challengers Gary Davis and Patrick Hume. The new money has driven spending on the two races up to about $800,000, an unheard-of amount for an Elk Grove council election.”

Even more unexpected is that none of the money spent by the Elk Grove Firefighters committee came from firefighters, statements filed with the Elk Grove city clerk show.

All $149,500 in donations to the committee formed to campaign for Davis and Hume came from donors tied to building and development.”

Both incumbents called the funding "money laundering."

"Now anytime anyone hears an ad from the firefighters, they will know it's the Building Industry Association," Soares said.”

...developers have had enough of city policies on everything from fees to a requirement that infrastructure be built before homes.”

"There are literally millions of dollars' worth of fees that they would love to see reduced," Mayor Soares said. He said the last-minute spending "is an investment to get rid of two guys who have been blocking them." “

"It doesn't really surprise me at all," 21-year Elk Grove resident Wayne Wolfe said. "As far as Elk Grove goes, I think that developers have pretty much funded political campaigns of all the candidates, even the ones in office now."

THE COMMITTEE SAYS:

ELK GROVE DEVELOPERS REDOUBLE EFFORTS TO BUY ELECTION, IN CONJUNCTION WITH FIREFIGHTERS

UNION POLITICS MAKE STRANGE BEDFELLOWS AS TWO POWERFUL FORCES JOIN TO STEAL ELECTION FROM VOTERS

The voters and candidates are limited by law in the amounts they can give, and receive, respectively. Why developers and other special interests are allowed to overwhelm the local voters by providing money that can only be called bribery, is beyond comprehension in a supposedly democratic system.

The facts demonstrate that the firefighters laundered the money of the developers into the local campaign. The goal of the developers is to avoid paying the costs of doing business, and passing these costs on to the taxpayer by bribing the candidates with “campaign contributions.”

We call this open bribery and a direct attack on the voters' right to select their own representative.

Our political system is so wretched that this type of political bullying, and corrupting of elections by special interests, provides the bulk of campaign contributions for our local, state, and national elections.

The result of these corrupt bribes has done to our whole nation is what the Elk Grove developers are trying to achieve; subsidizing the special interests profits, while throwing the expenses onto the public.

Our educational system, our electrical system, our medical “system,” have all been gutted by profiteers who are not willing to pay the costs of doing business.

They have massively expanded our country, and their profits, at our expense. These profiteers have bribed their way out of paying the costs of responsible growth.

And worst of all, we are left with a corrupted polity that is incapable of fixing itself in California, or the nation.

Further Info on Elk Grove politics

Corruption Updates 18, 10th (last) article on page, “Devolopers Bribe/Buy Their Way to Power in Elk Grove”

Search the Corruption Database under

California


Top of Page

3) THE ARTICLE Abstracted BELOW WAS PUBLISHED IN THE NY TIMES ON 11-2-06:

Outside Money Fuels Battle on Abortion

By MONICA DAVEY

Published: November 2, 2006

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/us/02abort.html

The fierce battle over abortion in South Dakota has cost some $4 million, much of that from places other than South Dakota.”

All along, each side had said its efforts were being driven by South Dakota natives, but had complained that the other side was being pressed on and heavily financed by well organized national organizations from Washington and elsewhere.”

THE COMMITTEE SAYS:

Americans must mutually respect each other's Rights

We find it amazing that Americans have tolerated the notion of living under a tyranny of the majority for so long. This sad fact indicates that most Americans, and the political parties, believe that if they win, they get to tell you what to do in you personal life, and your public life.

We don't care if the tyrants want to take away abortions, or the other set of tyrants want to take away your guns; the important fact is that both sides have agreed that the winner gets the power to take away other people's discretion, if not their rights. This must stop.

It's about time that all the sides stop trying to impose their will on people of different opinions. We're proposing a truce based on mutual respect.

Few people would argue that unlicensed doctors should be prosecuted. Few people would defend a gun crime. So let's all agree to stop the people who hurt other people, and leave responsible adults to make their own decisions about gun ownership, and abortions.

The important fact about our Constitution is that it protects everyone's rights, not just the group or party that won the last election.

Let's take our democracy back from the people who have used these issues to divide and distract us while they have robbed us of our wealth, as well as our rights.

Corruption Updates 22, 6th article on page, “MONEY WINS IN ALMOST EVERY POLITICAL RACE


Top of Page

4) THE ARTICLE ABSTRACTED BELOW WAS PUBLISHED BY THE LA TIMES, 11-7-06:

L.A. Times editor to leave the paper

By James Rainey and Jesus Sanchez, Times Staff Writer
4:19 PM PST, November 7, 2006

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-110706baquet,0,7757157.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Dean Baquet was forced to resign as editor of the Los Angeles Times at the request of the publisher after he refused to agree to further cuts of his editorial staff.”

Baquet's fight with Tribune became public in late September when he and then Publisher Jeffrey M. Johnson defied calls for reductions in the Times newsroom staff of about 940.”

Baquet told reporters and editors gathered in his office that he did not know whether staff cuts would now go ahead, but it's widely believed among newsroom executives that substantial reductions will be ordered, probably by next year.”

THE COMMITTEE SAYS:

LA TIMES EDITOR FORCED OUT AFTER REFUSING STAFF REDUCTIONS

WATCH OUT! THE LATIMES IS BEING GUTTED BY THE CORPORATE PARENT, THE TRIBUNE CO. A GREAT SOURCE OF INDEPENDENT REPORTING IS IN DANGER OF DISAPPEARING

This is another black letter day for the tattered remnants of the free press. The Los Angeles Times has held the Committee's respect as a source of hard-hitting news about corrupt politicians and corrupt political practices. This era may be coming to a close.

Disney, Viacom, GE and Murdock have a virtual stranglehold on our media. Rather than the free press promised by our Constitution, our people have been blinded by the corporate press. This corporate press has put its profits before the public interest.

The Newspaper business is no different. The earlier removal of the Times' publisher was for the same reasons; a solid refusal to compromise on journalistic standards.

But the Newspaper business has little interest in Journalism. We can expect the Times reporting to deteriorate, which will further reduce the publics' knowledge, let alone their understanding, of the critical events and decisions our country is facing.

We must get our free press back. But this is impossible, until we get our politicians back. Clean Elections will restore the people's control over our politicians.

Only then will we be able to break the corporate monopoly of the media, and force them to operate for the public good.

Alas, the Free Press is Dead

Corruption Updates 16, 7th article on page, “Times Publisher Johnson Forced Out”

Corruption Updates 15, 5th article on page, 10-4-06, “Bush Admin Buys Anti-Castro Cuban Reporters in Miami; Nobody Cares”

Corruption Updates 17, 9th article on page, “Reporters Helped Plan War

Corruption Updates 22, 4th article on page, “L.A. Times editor to leave the paper”

Corruption Updates 37, 8th article on page, “Corporate Media Humiliates itself, Again: War,WMD,Kidnapping,Torture,and Plame prove Media lapdogs of Tyranny

Search the Corruption Database under

Media


Top of Page

5) THE ARTICLE ABSTRACTED BELOW WAS PRINTED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES, 11-7-06:

South African Who Bribed Top Politician Loses Appeal

By MICHAEL WINES

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/world/africa/07safrica.html?_

r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

JOHANNESBURG, Nov. 6 — South Africa’s highest appeals court on Monday upheld the conviction of a Durban businessman on charges of bribing the former deputy president Jacob Zuma, casting a deep new shadow over Mr. Zuma’s unannounced candidacy to become the nation’s next president.”

The five-judge Supreme Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed a lower court ruling that the businessman, Schabir Shaik, had illegally given Mr. Zuma more than 1.2 million rand to secure help in winning government contracts. The payments total about $165,000 at current exchange rates, though it was more then.”

...In the most important contract, worth 6 billion rand, or $820 million at current rates, a venture between Mr. Zuma and the French weapons maker Thomson-CSF sold four small warships to the South African Navy in 2001. “

...the court said the evidence was overwhelming that the money was a bribe.”

The presidency of the A.N.C., now held by Mr. Mbeki, has been regarded as a steppingstone to the nation’s presidency. Should Mr. Zuma not win that post, there is at present no clear successor to Mr. Mbeki, either as leader of the party or the nation.”

THE COMMITTEE SAYS:

INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE BRIBERY THREATENS TO BRING DOWN SOUTH AFRICAN PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFUL

BRIBERY PAYMENTS BY FRENCH WEAPONS CORP THOMSOM-CSF THREATENS ANC HOLD ON SA PRESIDENCY

Private interests must be strictly prohibited from purchasing political influence, bribing, or influencing governments and politicians in every country in the world.

The purchase of influence through bribery by international corporations may well change the course of South Africa's political history. International corporate bribery has a history of destabilizing “developing countries” around the world.

The local responses by third world countries to corporate bribery and foreign political interference have been manifesting themselves as a world wide anti-American political backlash that is proving much more costly to American Interests, in the long term, than the short term profits our bribery and political manipulations delivered.

It's ironic that we are complaining about undemocratic governments at the same time that we are supporting undemocratic governments, and outright dictatorships, around the world.

It's sadly apparent that we would be well advised to clean up our own house before we try to clean up other people's houses.

Search the Corruption Database under

International

Top of Page

6) THE ARTICLE ABSTRACTED BELOW WAS PRINTED IN THE LA TIMES, 11-9-06:

Deep pockets carry the day

Big spenders, notably oil and tobacco firms, were also big winners.

By Dan Morain, Times Staff Writer
November 9, 2006

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-money9nov09,1,4724492.story?coll=la-headlines-politics

Money didn't just talk in Tuesday's election. It screamed.”

“The year's biggest spenders — and biggest winners — were the oil and tobacco industries. In almost every contest, candidates and issues with the most money trumped the side with less, even if the losers raised bags full.

“Although final numbers won't be known until January, contributors spent a record sum on California
campaigns in 2006, more than $600 million. The record was about $500 million, in 1998.”

“By comparison, the cost of this year's federal campaigns is expected to be $2.6 billion, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics estimates. And Ed Bender, executive director of the Institute on Money in State Politics in Helena, Mont., predicts that once the money is calculated sometime next year, all state campaigns nationwide will have cost about $2.4 billion.”

“Other well-heeled interests prevailed too. Californians approved a record $37 billion in borrowing to reinforce levees, widen freeways, build classrooms and improve other public works. The campaigns for those measures, Propositions 1A through 1E, cost roughly $35 million, said Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland), who took a leading role by raising roughly $10 million for the effort.”

“Donors included Indian tribes, real estate interests and major construction companies, which probably will bid on the work to be funded by the bonds. Also giving substantially were unions representing building trades and public school employees. Almost no money was spent in opposition.”

In candidate races, the biggest spenders also won, with few exceptions.”

"Money buys your way into office," said Ned Wigglesworth of California Common Cause, " … which turns representative democracy on its head."

“Sacramento
developer Angelo Tsakopoulos was Angelides' biggest individual benefactor by far — and thus one of the campaign's losers. Altogether, Tsakopoulos and his family spent $12.48 million on state and local politics this year. Most went to Angelides.”

“In many instances, Tsakopoulos and other big donors gave to political party organizations rather than directly to candidates. There are no limits on donations to party organizations, but the state restricts the size of contributions to candidates.”

In other instances, interest groups formed independent campaigns to promote or attack candidates. Such efforts cost more than $32 million this year, campaign reports show.”

THE COMMITTEE SAYS:

MONEY WINS IN ALMOST EVERY POLITICAL RACE

POLITICAL VICTORY GOES TO THE BIGGEST SPENDER. BIG SPENDERS CLEAN UP. DEMOCRACY A JOKE. BIG SURPRISE

The main point of this article is that big money buys political victory.

The whole point of the Committee and the initiative is to end this corruption of our democracy, and make political victory in our elections more dependent on the voters than the special interests.

Until then, our “democracy” will continue to be a joke.

More about how BIG MONEY RUNS POLITICS:

Bribery runs our Elections


Top of Page

7) THE ARTICLE ABSTRACTED BELOW WAS PUBLISHED BY THE LA TIMES, 11-11-06:

Reid says Democrats will restore 'checks and balances'

By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer
November 11, 2006

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-congress11nov11,1,7708184.story?coll=la-headlines-politics

WASHINGTON — Even as he pledged a new era of bipartisanship, the Senate's top Democrat warned Republicans on Friday to be prepared for new investigations and oversight of the Bush administration.”

“ "There's been no checks and balances" since President Bush took office in 2001, said Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, who will serve as Senate majority leader when the new Congress convenes in early January. He added: "They'll be there now." ”

“House Democratic leaders, who like their Senate counterparts are preparing to take the helm of their chamber, also have pledged to launch inquiries.”

"I believe that the first order of business when we reorganize after the first of the year is congressional oversight," Reid said. "Let's find out what's going on with the war in Iraq [and] the different large federal agencies that we have." ”

THE COMMITTEE SAYS:

REID THREATENS BUSH WITH OVERSIGHT

HOLLOW THREAT IN FACE OF SIX YEARS OF SILENCE AS CONSTITUTION SHREDDED IN FRONT OF WHOLE COUNTRY

The Committee cannot see that the Democrats won the election based on any platform or positions, including stands on the war and political corruption. The Democrats won by standing silent in the face of monumental Republican incompetence and corruption.

Silence in the face of criminality is a form of complicity.

The situation our country finds itself in, on the eve of the election, took six years of Republican incompetence and corruption, with the helpful cooperation of the Democrats.

The Democrats said little, or nothing, as our rights were being stolen in a vortex of lies.

And now the Democrats say things will change.

The Committee predicts the only thing that will change in Washington is which party will now receive the lion's share of bribes: The Democrats.

Since the Democrats went along with the Republicans up till now, we don't expect them to change their tune.

On Bush's Unchallenged (by the Democrats) Claims to Unchecked Power, Also See:

Corruption Updates 16, 1st article on page, “Bush Training Congress to Obedience”

Corruption Updates 23, 4th article on page, “Bush Claims to Unlimited Power Contested”

Corruption Updates 23, 8th article on page, “Harmon Against War, for Rights, or just Pissed Off? Condemnation of illegality of Wiretaps”

Corruption Updates 23, 9th article on page, “Times Soft pedals Presidential War and Domestic Crimes”

Corruption Updates 25, 8th article on page, “FBI Chief Defies Oversight”

 

On Democrat's Participation in Influence Peddling and Bribery Prior to the Election of 2007, Also See:

Corruption Updates 3, Media Reports: Both Parties Corrupt”

Pelosi does earmarks well and often, LA Times, 11-13-06, “Speaker-to-be is no stranger to earmarking,” (abstract at LA Times archive, #52 under Richard Simon search)

Corruption Updates 5, 1st article on page, “Corruption fails as Campaign issue...,”

Corruption Updates 14, 10th article down on page. “Murtha trades his vote, and ethics, for pork,”

Corruption Updates 19, 1st article on page, “Top Recipients of Lobbyists Bribes are Leadership of Both Parties”

Corruption Updates 19, 3rd article on page, “PARTIES AND THEIR BRIBERS WORK TO CIRCUMNAVIGATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE RESTRICTION

Corruption Updates 20, 1st article on page, 10-25-06, “PELOSI FUNRAISING FRENZY ASSURES SPECIAL INTEREST DOMINATION OF GOVERNMENT INDEPENDENT OF WHICH SIDE WINS IN NOV

Corruption Updates 20, 6th article on page, 10-27-06, “DEMS RECEIVE SPECIAL INTEREST BRIBES ANTICIPATING VICTORY IN NOV VOTERS ASSURED ONLY CHANGE AFTER NOVEMBER WILL BE WHICH PARTY GETS 60% OF THE SPECIAL INTEREST BRIBES, AND WHICH PARTY GETS 40% OF THE BRIBES

Corruption Updates 21, 2nd article on page, 10-30-06: “SHADOW PARTIES (527S) INFUSE MILLIONS IN BRIBE MONEY INTO ELECTION SPECIAL INTERESTS SKIRT CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS TO MAINTAIN THEIR ILLIGIMATE AUTHORITY THROUGH POLITICAL BRIBERY

Corruption Updates 21, 8fh article on page, 11-1-06: “DEMS BIG CHANCE TO REAP THE REWARDS OF CORRUPTION POLITICAL VICTORY OPENS DOORS OF LOBBYING FIRMS TO DEMO INSIDERS: IT'S THE DEMS TURN TO ROB THE PUBLIC BLIND, AND BETRAY OUR DEMOCRACY

Corruption Updates 22, 6th article on page, “MONEY WINS IN ALMOST EVERY POLITICAL RACE

Corruption Updates 24, 6th article on page, 12-4-06, “POLITICIANS WHO BRIBE POLITICIANS ARE LEADERS UNCONTESTED CANDIDATES REDISTRIBUTE BRIBE MONEY TO BUY PLUM COMMITTEES AND CHAIRMANSHIPS

Corruption Update 26, 1st article on page, “Time to Party, just bring the Checkbook,”

 

After the Elections, Democrats Tried to Protect Earmarks:

Corruption Updates 28, 4th article on page, “House Pretends Earmark Reform”

Corruption Updates 28, 4 th article on page, “Senate Pretends Earmark Reform”

Corruption Updates 30, 2nd article on page, “Dems fight REAL REFORM of Earmarks”

Corruption Updates 33, 4th article on page, “Lobbyists find new Congress is open for business”


Top of Page

8) THE ARTICLE ABSTRACTED BELOW WAS PUBLISHED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES, 11-13-06:

Administration Opposes Democrats’ Plan for Negotiating Medicare Drug Prices

By ROBERT PEAR

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/13/washington/13medicare.html?_r=1&

oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

WASHINGTON, Nov. 12 — The Bush administration said on Sunday that it would strenuously oppose one of the Democrats’ top priorities for the new Congress: legislation authorizing the government to negotiate with drug companies to secure lower drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries.”

In an interview, Michael O. Leavitt, the secretary of health and human services, said he saw no prospect of compromise on the issue.”

“ “In politics,” Mr. Leavitt said, “most specific issues like this are a disguise for a larger difference. Government negotiation of drug prices does not work unless you have a program completely run by the government. Democrats say they want the government to negotiate prices. What they really want is government-run health care.” ”

Federal price negotiations would unravel the whole structure of the Medicare drug benefit, which relies on competing private plans, Mr. Leavitt said.”

“ “The government negotiates big discounts for the prices of drugs for our veterans,” said Senator-elect Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. “But the drug companies got Congress to make it illegal to negotiate for lower prices under Medicare.” “

Secretary Leavitt said he did not want the power to negotiate drug prices. “I don’t believe I can do a better job than an efficient market,” he said.”

The approach that Mr. Leavitt described as unacceptable is already used in other government programs. Under federal law, drug makers must provide a discount, or rebate, equal to at least 15 percent of the average manufacturer price for most brand-name drugs covered by Medicaid, the program for low-income people. Federal law also guarantees discounts for the Department of Veterans Affairs, which negotiates with drug makers to secure discounts on top of those guaranteed by law.”

THE COMMITTEE SAYS:

FREE MARKET ENDS AT PHARMACY

BUSH FREE MARKET IDEOLOGY ENDS WHEN SENIOR CITIZENS NEEDS ARE AT STAKE

This is hilarious. The Republicans have been advocates of the free market, unless the free market practices, which include negotiating the best prices, harm their big contributors.

An advantage of the free market is that its sole intent and goal is to produce profits. This produces efficiency.

This advantage becomes a problem when the pursuit of profit fails to provide basic, decent social services for the middle and lower classes, or our senior citizens.

We are in just such a disadvantageous situation right now, in providing our senior citizens the drugs they need.

So, rather than relying on free market principals to allow the government to represent the seniors, and negotiate for them collectively, lowering the costs for both the seniors and the government, the “free marketers” are willing to subsidize the drug companies, and create a new extra layer of middlemen between the seniors and the drug companies.

The free market is a problem when the pursuit of profit is insufficient to provide decent health care or a decent education for our poorest and weakest citizens.

None of this would be possible unless the pursuit of profit has replaced our democratic principals in our political parties, in the conduct of our elections, and made our government no more than an instrument for attaining personal profit.

The role of the government is to provide for the general welfare of the people, not the private profit of the few.

It is apparent that many politicians and a large portion of our people have abandoned their duty to the Constitution, and the general welfare of our country behind a free market smokescreen that is a thin cover for their unbridled greed and irresponsibility.

Search the Corruption Database under

Lobbyists

Big Money Politics

 

Top of Page

9) THE ARTICLE ABSTRACTED BELOW WAS PUBLISHED BY THE SF CHRONICLE, 11-13-06:

Mounting benefits tab can't be ignored
Future in flux for government retirees' costly health care

- Lynda Gledhill, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau
Monday, November 13, 2006

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/11/13/MNG23MBN5F1.DTL

&type=printable

(11-13) 04:00 PST Sacramento -- The future cost of providing health care benefits to millions of retired public-sector employees in California could reach $140 billion and lead to spending cuts in areas such as education and transportation if governments don't set more money aside to meet the obligations.”

New federal accounting rules will soon force public agencies -- from the state to local school boards -- for the first time to report the cost of future retiree medical benefits.”

...The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office estimated that the state could be looking at future bills of anywhere from $40 billion to $70 billion. The report by the California HealthCare Foundation combines that total with the projected unfunded liability for local governments and estimates a total bill to California taxpayers of $80 billion to $140 billion over 30 years.”

Some local governments are beginning to address the looming costs by either setting money aside now or renegotiating their union contracts.”

...governments may find they have no choice but to cut benefits or find the money from other sources in budgets, such as school or transportation funding, said Paul Chaney, a professor at Vanderbilt University's Owen Graduate School of Management.”

...Chaney said some governments may even be faced with revoking benefits, something that would spark an outcry from workers.”

THE COMMITTEE SAYS:

COSTS OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMING DUE

YEARS OF SWEETHEART CONTRACTS FOR UNION POLITICAL SUPPORT GOING TO COST TAXPAYERS BILLIONS WE DON'T HAVE

Our politicians have written checks that can't be cashed. All of the promises to State employees made by generations of California politicians are sweetheart deals to cement union political support.

The true cost of this political bribery is going to be borne by the people. The people who don't have fat pensions and benefits.

While these political payoffs were being made to elite unions, the conditions and wages of the average worker in California have slipped to the level of peasant wages.

Maybe we should open up these elite jobs to the same pressures that the rest of the workers are experiencing in California. The unions seem to be able to protect their special privileges, while letting the rest of the workers go to hell.

I'll bet we could find very cheap laborers who expect no benefits, overtime, dignity or decent wages to do almost any job in the State. The rest can be outsourced to India. Give them what they have given us.

The unions, and their politicians, have sold the average American laborer down the river.

The Committee has little sympathy when the unions lose what they denied to the rest of us.

Search the Corruption Database under

Unions


Top of Page

10) THE ARTICLE ABSTRACTED BELOW WAS PUBLISHED BY THE SACRAMENTO BEE, 11-13-06:

Reid backed planned bridge near his land

The Associated Press

Last Updated 2:16 pm PST Monday, November 13, 2006

http://dwb.sacbee.com/24hour/politics/story/3418247p-12553724c.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., backed funding for a bridge between Nevada and Arizona that could affect the value of property he owns nearby.”

The planned span over the Colorado River between Laughlin, Nev., and Bullhead City, Ariz., got an $18 million boost in last year's massive federal transportation bill.”

Reid, who's in line to become Senate majority leader after last week's election, owns 160 acres of undeveloped property in Bullhead City, several miles from the proposed bridge sites. Development is booming in the area and local officials in Laughlin and Bullhead City support a new crossing to ease traffic on the one existing bridge. They also expect it would add to property values.”

Reid and other incoming Democratic leaders have promised to bring more openness to the practice of earmarking, where lawmakers insert funding for pet projects into legislation with little scrutiny.”

THE COMMITTEE SAYS:

HARRY REID MAKING HIMSELF RICHER

RATHER THAN RECUSE HIMSELF FROM AN OBIVIOUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST, HE EARMARKED IT

The Democrats and Republicans have shared a secret world of bribes, luxury boxes, corporate jet rides, and earmarks. A world of Privilege, wealth, and luxury beyond the imaginings of the average voter.

They make themselves rich, they make their friends and supporters rich. With our money.

Far be it from the Committee to insist that this era of luxury and privilege should end.

Search the Corruption Database under

Reid


Top of Page

11) THE ARTICLE ABSTRACTED BELOW WAS PUBLISHED BY THE LA TIMES, 11-13-06:

Campaign fund reform deserves another chance

George Skelton, November 13, 2006

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-cap13nov13,1,7328557.column?coll=la-headlines-politics

Voters last week elected 34 new state legislators, people who have never held office in Sacramento. You'd like to think some, at least, will show up wide-eyed and idealistic.”

“But only one thing is certain: Within a short time, each will pick up the business cards dropped off by lobbyists and begin making calls for political money. It's never too early to start planning the reelection campaign and hitting up special interests to bankroll it.”

There's a more contemporary classic observation from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who lamented three years ago, before he himself began grabbing roughly $100 million in political donations:
"Special interests have a stranglehold on Sacramento. Here's how it works: Money comes in, favors go out. The people lose."

Under the "Clean Money" proposal, state candidates could have received public funds for their campaigns if they agreed to tight spending limits. Candidates running against self financed opponents, or attacked by rogue "independent expenditure committees," could have gotten extra public money.”

There was a sooty piece to this Clean Money initiative. The sponsoring California Nurses Assn. was trying to sell it as the remedy to special interest dominance of Sacramento. But the nurses union itself is a special interest. And Prop. 89 would have benefited the union by weakening the insurance industry for the nurses' expected future battle to pass a universal health care initiative.”

Most legislators prefer raising money on their own because that's how they got elected. They're comfortable with the system, even if it is inherently corrupt. Now, after the vote of the people on Prop. 89, they can rationalize not even feigning an interest in public financing.”t

So it's back to the ballot. Someday.

But if there isn't going to be some public financing system, we ought to erase all the contribution limits that have spawned unaccountable "independent expenditure committees" and money-laundering through political parties. Allow candidates to raise all the money they can from any source, while expediting public disclosure.

THE COMMITTEE SAYS:

THE CYNICS SOLUTION

ANOTHER QUITTER ADVISES GIVING UP IN THE FACE OF OBIVIOUS CORRUPTION. SKELTON IS HONEST,CLEAR, AND WEAK

Again and Again we are faced with a free press full of quitters. They whine about how democracy is too messy, rules are too hard to follow, and about how corruption is inevitable. Lay back and take it like a man. Its always been like this. Be positive about it.

Those days are coming to an end.

The system they are all complaining about is not democracy, it is democracy broken by bribery. It is a democracy of criminals. Rather than facing it directly, and measuring the true difference between what we do, and what we say, the press advises we should quit.

To keep fighting corruption we must know why we are fighting.

We are fighting for the right of our citizens to elect their own representatives, rather than the representatives of the special interests.

Our Constitutional Democracy once provided triple protection for the citizen: It protected your personal sphere, your philosophy, under religious freedom. It protected your physical space, in the fourth. These philosophical and physical protections were supported by the franchise, which would assure that politicians would be dependent on the people, and therefore protect their rights.

Until the politicians and parties were bought out by well heeled special interests. None of these protections are active today.

By following the advise of the press, and quitting the fight for democracy against these thieves and cheats, we would be consenting to the loss of our Constitutional protections, and our honor.

Quitting means abandoning those protections, and making liberty the prize of political combat. Quitting means that the special interests will continue to raffle our rights away in pursuit of complete, undisputed, control of our government.

Quitting means that our political leadership and their policies, will continue to be illegitimate.

No decent American would consent to this surrender of our democracy to the special interests.

Also See:

Corruption Updates 8, 4th article on page, NYC FINDS “CLEAN CAMPAIGNS” NOT ENOUGH TO STEM TIDE OF SPECIAL INTEREST CORRUPTION”

Corruption Updates 12, 6th article on page, “PROP 89: A BRIEF ANALYSIS: Is “good” relative? It is, in 89's case”

Corruption Updates 18, 8th article on page, 10-11-06: “FATAL FLAWS IN PUBLIC FINANCING DERAIL LA PLAN HALFWAY MEASURES AT REFORM PROVING FATALLY FLAWED”

Corruption Updates 22, 11th article on page, 11-13-06, “THE CYNICS SOLUTION: ANOTHER QUITTER ADVISES GIVING UP IN THE FACE OF OBIVIOUS CORRUPTION. SKELTON IS HONEST,CLEAR, AND WEAK”

 

Search the Corruption Database under

Reform

Fake Reform

Previous Corruption Updates: Page 21

Next Corruption Updates: Page 23

 

Contact Us: Committeefordemocracy.org

ALL ARCHIVES

Home Page

Top of Page

 



 

THE INITIATIVE

WHY
HOW TO HELP

THE PLAN

IMPORTANT DATES
 
 
CORRUPTION UPDATES
ALL ARCHIVES
Corruption Database
ARCHIVE I
ARCHIVE 2
ARCHIVE 3
ARCHIVE 4
ARCHIVE 5
ARCHIVE 6
ARCHIVE 7
ARCHIVE 8
ARCHIVE 9

WHO WE ARE

CONTACT US

 
 
ARCHIVE I:
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
ARCHIVE II:
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
ARCHIVE III:
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
ARCHIVE IV:
Page 14
vPage 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
ARCHIVE V:
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
ARCHIVE VI:
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29

ARCHIVE VII:

Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
ARCHIVE 8
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45