|
CORRUPTION UPDATES 6 September 1 to August 6, 2006 The CORRUPTION UPDATES posts corruption news stories from California, the Nation and the World, and gives you the straight story. |
CORRUPTION UPDATE 6
Previous Corruption Updates: Page 5.
Next Corruption Updates: Page 7
New Rules Sought for Nevada Judges
“One proposal is aimed at distancing jurists from campaign donors; another would change how they are chosen and retain their positions.”
By Scott Gold, Times
Staff Writer
September 3, 2006
“LAS VEGAS — Weary of the perception that their courts are tainted by money, civic leaders in Nevada have launched a reform effort that would diminish the need for judges to moonlight as politicians and would force them to keep their distance from financial contributors.”
THE COMMITTEE SAYS:
LA TIMES SHAMES NEVADA INTO FAKE JUDICIAL CORRUPTION REFORM EFFORT:
This story follows up on the article of June 8, 2006, in the LA Times. Our review of the article is posted in the Archives, in Corruption Updates 1, bottom of the page. The original story revealed the unethical pattern of contributions surrounding Vegas Judge Gene T. Porter, but also exposed the disturbing pattern and pervasiveness of political influence peddling in Nevada's judicial elections.
The original article contained gems of political wisdom, such as the Nevada attorney who characterized his “contributions” as, : "Giving money to a judge's campaign means you're less likely to get screwed…. A $1,000 contribution isn't going to buy special treatment. It's just a hedge against bad things happening." The mafia called this “protection” money. The original article has spurred a move to reform judicial elections in Nevada. There are two plans for reform on the table in Nevada.
The first, presented by Washoe district judge Judge Adams, separates judges from “directly” accepting contributions. Judge Adams has petitioned the Nevada supreme court to prohibit “direct” solicitation of contributions by Nevada judges. Judge Adams is well quoted, saying things such as, "Judges and money do not mix," and that "The essence of judicial duty is independence. I don't think anyone can argue that it's a good thing for judges to be begging for money — period." The article does not specify how this “indirect” system of contributions would work. Logic would dictate that the purchase of political corruption would shift with the rules: influence would then be bought “indirectly”, rather than directly. A bit of an improvement, but is still preserves the corrupt contribution.. The problem with this is it still allows non-voters to get money into the election, and buy influence.
The second reform plan is a complex mixture of election and political appointments of judges. Judges would be appointed, and then be periodically affirmed by the voters. This solution only deepens the corrupt political influences in judicial politics, embedding the judges and parties, then endowing the judges with the power of incumbency.
The article cites significant obstacles to contribution reform, which shows the need for, and wisdom of, the democratic principals in our initiative to be applied to all levels of our democracy.
Neither of the proposed reforms offers the democratic simplicity of our voter-only contribution initiative. Our initiative, if applied to this situation, would maintain popular elections, but prevent contributions from any source other than the local voters. This would instantly eliminate the power of outside special interests to buy influence. With reasonable limits to contribution amounts, no local interest would be able to buy the election. Election success would require broad local support. And a reminder to all of our judges, attorneys, and politicians: BASIC LEGAL ETHICS REQUIRE YOU TO RECUSE YOURSELVES WHEN THERE IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. We cannot create ethical politicians, but we can create ethical contribution rules to regulate the politicians.
Other Articles on Nevada Judicial Corrution:
The Bite of Corruption
“Kickbacks, embezzlement and bribery are a way of life in Mexico, stunting the economy and poisoning the public trust. Some regions are cleaning up, but the capital remains a quagmire.”
By Marla Dickerson,
Times Staff Writer
August 6, 2006
THE COMMITTEE SAYS:
MEXICAN CORRUPTION: WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?
LATimes. Mexican corruption's personal, rather than formal, character distinguishes it from the USA.
This article cannot see what distinguishes the USA from the USM. We have a formalized system of impersonal corruption, while the Mexicans have informal, personal corruption. Our leaders steal with a pen and a promised payoff, and Mexico justs takes the money.
The article cited Mexican corruption as, “...an ongoing disaster. Mexican officials have estimated that as much as 9% of Mexico's gross domestic product is siphoned off annually to corruption. In 2005 that would have amounted to $69 billion, or more than the nation spends on education and defense combined.”
Let's look carefully at corruption in California, and compare our corruption disasters. Our legislature, formally and in the open, gave away our electrical system. Enron, and the big political contributors, then stepped in and ripped us off for billions. While the regulators twiddled their thumbs. That was the finest example of Democrats and Republicans working well together. The Dems deregulated, gave away, our public utility. The Republicans then withheld National Regulation by suppressing the FERC.
Recently, Boeing bought a procurement officer. Abramoff bought almost everyone, and the special interests just killed a bunch of bills in the California Legislature. American corruption was, and still is, the product of formalized system of corruption. Mexico is only has a different style, in that the corruption is informal.
In Mexico your bribe the cop to avoid trouble. As you've seen in the corruption updates, in the US you buy the legislature, the judges, and the regulators. Mexico has one advantage: everybody is working pretty much for themselves. In the USA it's hard to tell who's working for who. The formal corruption of the USA negates the need, in most cases, for personal bribery. We give checks to our corrupt players.
In Mexico, everybody gets the “opportunity” to flex their monetary muscle, to bribe and be bribed. In the USA, only the rich have the power to buy their way to the top, or, if they're in trouble, to buy the judge.
Another big difference is that the big players in the US pay their bribes up front. The major special interests fund their candidates fully before their crooked legislation is introduced , then hire them, and their friends and family, after they pay back their bribers, to continue and expand their political influences and connections.
The article cites the authoritarian government of Mexico as the traditional source of corruption. All power flows from the top, and all below must pay. I think we are more alike than different, by this definition.
Schwarzenegger on a big-time roll with voters and legislators
By Dan Walters -- Bee Columnist
Published 12:01 am PDT Friday, September 1, 2006
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/ca/story/14314428p-15222704c.html
“Is Arnold Schwarzenegger on a big-time roll, or what? “
“The Democrat-controlled Legislature has spent the final week of its 2006 session giving the Republican governor a cornucopia of measures that he will roll out in elaborate signing ceremonies in September -- thereby enhancing the image he seeks of an engaged and effective governor deserving of re-election.”
THE COMMITTEE SAYS:
ARNIE AND DEMS IN LOVE:
Sac Bee. The Unholy Alliance of Corruption and Trechery:
This article deals with the unholy alliance between Arnie and the Democrats, who seem to get along just fine. The point that this article never makes is that the Democrats and the Republicans are exactly alike in how they get their funding, and what they do for their “contributors” after getting their bribery money. The same special interest provide both parties with the majority of their funding. This funding (bribery) assures that the general welfare of our state will always be put second to the profits and interests of the special interests. Thus our infrastructure is broken, and our politicians live in luxury.
As we pointed out earlier, there was a corruption/bribery feeding frenzy at the state capitol during the end of the last legislative session. (See Corruption Updates 4, “checks in laws out,” and Corruption Updates 1, “big oil stalls bills”) The article below demonstrates that the governor and the legislature have much more in common, consisting of their fundamentally dishonest, corrupt politics, than their superficial differences.
With Bills in the Balance, Arnold Hauls In Checks
“Groups with an interest in pending legislation help California's governor raise $26.4 million.”
By Dan
Morain, Times Staff Writer
September 11, 2006
“SACRAMENTO —
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was not inspecting the orange crop
when he slipped out of the state for a quick trip to Florida,
and he wasn't eying a new set of wheels when he visited with car
dealers.”
“Nor was he parched when he bellied
up to liquor dealers in Lake Tahoe, or craving a burger when he
chatted with Jack-in-the-Box owners. Rather, he was gobbling up
campaign money at each stop.
As legislators were approving more than 1,000 bills in August, Schwarzenegger was crossing the state, and the country, soliciting campaign cash. Now, as he decides whether to sign those bills into law or nix them with a veto, he will be cashing checks from scores of contributors whose interests intersect with legislation.”
“Schwarzenegger is vastly out-raising his Democratic challenger, state Treasurer Phil Angelides. He has taken $26.4 million into his reelection account so far this year, compared with Angelides' $13.4 million, according to records filed with the Secretary of State's office.”
THE
COMMITTEE SAYS:
ARNIES' TURN TO BLEED SPECIAL INTERESTS
Arnie and the Democrats are soliciting and accepting bribes from every special interest that can scrape two coins together.
The Democrats in the Assembly just used the leverage of the ending of the legislative session to squeeze every penny they could get out of the special interests who were willing to pay premium prices to block or pass bills at the end of the session. The Democrats had the leverage, and they used it. Now it's Arnie's turn. As the article points out, those tainted bills are now on Arnie's desk, and he's out collecting the next layer of bribes.
Followthemoney.org reports that a total of 190 millions has been spent on the 2006 election cycle in California, so far. According to their totals, Arnie has 18.7 and Angelides 21.5 millions each, for a total of 40.2 millions. These figures are going to change. Go to our LINKS page to get a current total. Follow the money named the biggest political contributors in California this year as the finance, insurance and real estate industries, followed by the lobbyists and lawyers. Labor comes in a close third.
The “contributions” in the governor's race follow much the same pattern. Arnie's top contributors are the finance, insurance, and real estate industries. Angilides top contributors are lobbyists, his own wealth, the combined union power, and real estate. So what's the difference between these two tools of the special interests?
Although they look and act differently, they both get their money from the same rotten sources. The differences they spout off about are lies. Neither of them represents the voters of California. They are the only choices we are offered by the special interests. Who would we have running if candidates were funded by voters? Pass our initiative and you will see candidates actually canvass the state to gain the support of voters, rather than to collect the bribes of the special interests.
Both parties, and their candidates, are playing a sick game with our democracy. They have sewed up an alliance between wealth and political power that has excluded the will of the local voters. They have excluded democracy from our system. Our initiative will make it impossible for the special interests to regulate us, or our politicians. Our initiative will allow the voters to regulate our politicians, and the special interests. Our initiative will force politicians to ask the average voter for support. If the voters don't like the candidate, no special interest money could be dumped into elections to rescue these corrupt, incompetent, and very unpopular candidates.
More Articles on Arnie
Previous Corruption Updates: Page 5.
Next Corruption Updates: Page 7
