What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusiness - Read our developers’ points of view on the headlines making news.
72 Comments
- LiquidSpark, on 01/26/2009, -1/+50I hope that Obama will put his foot down on this kinda *****. Even though I doubt he will. It's disgusting and it's why people hate politicians.
- doiveo, on 01/25/2009, -1/+34Just the evolution of the system. To survive, they have to evolve as does the fight to stamp it out.
- haikuFU, on 01/26/2009, -1/+32The problem is, lawmakers profit immensely from the lobbyists. This ***** is LEGAL bribery.
The purpose of these people is to represent the people of their state/district in what they want. They aren't doing that at all. They're representing the people that are paying them off and giving them gifts.
That's *****. - tonmil, on 01/26/2009, -0/+17Bastards
- tokkio, on 01/26/2009, -1/+17The article seems to infer that even though someone is trying to do the right thing, evil men will find a way around it, so it's better not to do anything about it at all. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. People who can't govern, op-ed AP articles.
- B3bomber, on 01/26/2009, -0/+10For those that don't wish to log in by whatever means (note actual article has embedded links):
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's ban on earmarks in the $825 billion economic stimulus bill doesn't mean interest groups, lobbyists and lawmakers won't be able to funnel money to pet projects.
They're just working around it -- and perhaps inadvertently making the process more secretive.
The projects run the gamut: a Metrolink station that needs building in Placentia, Calif.; a stretch of beach in Sandy Hook, N.J., that could really use some more sand; a water park in Miami.
There are thousands of projects like those that once would have been gotten money upfront but now are left to scramble for dollars at the back end of the process as ''ready to go'' jobs eligible for the stimulus plan.
The result, as The Associated Press learned in interviews with more than a dozen lawmakers, lobbyists and state and local officials, is a shadowy lobbying effort that may make it difficult to discern how hundreds of billions in federal money will be parceled out.
'''No earmarks' isn't a game-ender,'' said Peter Buffa, former mayor of Costa Mesa, Calif. ''It just means there's a different way of going about making sure the funding is there.''
It won't be in legislative language that overtly sets aside money for them. That's the infamous practice known as earmarking, which Obama and Democratic congressional leaders have agreed to nix for the massive stimulus package, expected to come up for a House vote this week.
Instead, the money will be doled out according to arcane formulas spelled out in the bill and in some cases based on the decisions of Obama administration officials, governors and state and local agencies that will choose the projects.
''Somebody's going to earmark it somewhere,'' said Howard Marlowe, a consultant for a coalition working to preserve beaches.
Lobbyists are hard at work figuring out ways to grab a share of the money for their clients, but the new rules mean they're doing so indirectly -- and sometimes in ways that are impossible to track.
Congressional earmarks have had a bad name since the 2004 scandal that sent superlobbyist Jack Abramoff to prison and earned the congressional spending committees a new nickname: ''The Favor Factory.''
Obama, who campaigned promising a more transparent and accountable government, is advocating a system that will eventually let the public track exactly where stimulus money goes through an Internet-powered search engine. In addition, Democratic lawmakers have devised an elaborate oversight system, including a new board to review how the money is spent.
But none of that will happen until after the bill becomes law. Even critics of the earmarks system acknowledge that specifying projects upfront offers some measure of transparency.
''We hate earmarks, but at least it's a way of tracking where influence is had,'' said Keith Ashdown of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. ''There is a challenge now that projects will be added behind closed doors without a paper trail.''
Indeed, some lawmakers hearing from local groups say they're doing their own lobbying of governors and state and local officials who could have say-so over the funds.
''I've talked to my governor and suggested some things I think are important in our area,'' said Republican Rep. C.W. Bill Young, who represents St. Petersburg, Fla. ''He knows what the needs are.''
Democratic Rep. Ed Pastor of Arizona suggested it's not entirely accurate to say there will be no earmarks in the measure. ''There are and there aren't,'' Pastor said. ''A lot of it depends on what the formula looks like.''
For instance, the House measure, which includes $358 billion for road, water and energy programs among others, gives priority to transportation projects in high-unemployment areas that could be begun and completed quickly and that state and metropolitan transportation authorities have included in their long-term plans.
In California, Buffa, now board chairman of the Orange County Transportation Authority, said he's changed his strategy from asking for specific projects to pleading for more favorable general guidelines, including more money for infrastructure projects overall and a formula that lets cities -- not states -- decide how to spend it.
His organization has enlisted Potomac Partners, a large firm that specializes in lobbying for project spending, to help.
In most cases, lawmakers know exactly which projects in their districts can benefit from the money, even though the legislation won't spell them out. State and local officials have released lists of projects that could start quickly and be completed within a few years.
In Orange County, they include freeway improvements and the Placentia Metrolink station. The American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, which is pushing for more water projects to be funded, wants repair and restoration of beaches from Sandy Hook, N.J., to Newport Beach, Calif.
Members of Congress are privately outlining their priorities, too.
''Everybody's making their list and checking it twice,'' said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader. ''You are inevitably going to have a lot of projects that are not going to pass the smell test.''
Some groups are careful not to get too specific, fearing that public scrutiny could draw unwelcome attention to projects easily caricatured as special-interest goodies, such as a 2007 earmark for spinach growers that found its way into an Iraq war spending bill or the now-infamous ''Bridge to Nowhere'' in Alaska.
The United States Conference of Mayors released a 300-plus-page list of some $150 billion in ''ready-to-go'' projects that quickly became fodder for criticism. It included money for the Miami water park, which McConnell has ridiculed publicly, and a skate park in Portland, Maine.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials was more guarded about its list of 5,000 projects totaling $64 billion. No specific projects were mentioned -- just the number in each state and an overall dollar amount -- making it impossible for lawmakers, advocacy groups or members of the public to criticize any one item.
Peter J. ''Jack'' Basso, an association executive, said it's up to states to decide what goes on their ''ready-to-go'' wish lists, but that the projects must meet rigorous tests including clearing environmental reviews.
''We really rely on them to pick things that, frankly, are not bridges to nowhere,'' Basso said. - teh_spazz, on 01/26/2009, -2/+11I have changed my mind on Obama.
The fact alone that he publishes all his executive orders online is impressive. His work so far hasn't disturbed me, but he really needs to keep it up. I have faith in our new administration and I hope he can continue pushing against old Washington. - curtisag, on 01/26/2009, -1/+9This is why a Government as small as possible is the only solution.
- inactive, on 01/26/2009, -2/+10Unfortunately for us taxpayers, they are only changing the rules, the game goes on.
- TheTardis, on 01/26/2009, -3/+10Journalism is part of the transparency of democracy !
Let's keep this up!
It furthers hope, change and the Obama agenda ! - broncfan23, on 01/26/2009, -0/+6Wait isn't the person up for Deputy Secretary of Defense a former lobbyist?
I guess there are always exceptions. - hazypensieve, on 01/26/2009, -0/+6Did anyone really think lobbyists were just going to give up?
As sad as it is, such is the nature of lobbying. - inactive, on 01/26/2009, -2/+8Obama is trying to make politics honorable again. He's cleaning house after 16 years of "favors" to everyone. We're all tired of it...Go Obama.
- wineinc, on 01/26/2009, -0/+6Obama can't reform government by himself. As he has said many times, he's going to need help from us and like-minded elected officials. We citizens need to identify and promote congresspeople who are likely to act responsibly. On the left, we need more folks like Henry Waxman. I am having trouble identifying Republicans I would trust with my wallet. But my best guess is Arizona's Jeff Flake is another example of what we need more of, maybe.
I wish we could dig (or digg) Harry Truman out of his grave and put him back into the Senate. As a senator his "Truman Committee" saved us at least $15 billion by eliminating wasteful war spending. He did not impede the war effort. He just did everything he could to impede the war profiteers who sought to line their pockets with pork barrel spending. - superkendall, on 01/26/2009, -1/+6Actually it's exactly like that. Since evil men will get the hooks into the stimulus bill, companies and consumers are better off motivating themselves and the government should not be handing out large checks to people at random hoping something good will happen.
There's no such thing as a free lunch, and we'll all feel the hangover later from "free" money spent today. - superkendall, on 01/26/2009, -0/+5The best way to limit corruption, is to not place so much power into the hands of a few. That's exactly why decentralization is such a powerful force to clean politics and reduce government spending.
- inactive, on 01/26/2009, -0/+5The need to make blanket laws. if they make laws with loop holes its like there is no law.
its like saying u cant do this on Monday and Wednesday, then of course people will do the same stuff on Tuesday and Thursday.
The law should say NO MONEY, NO GIFTS, PERIOD. - spookyttws, on 01/26/2009, -1/+6 How amazingly surprising! /s
Of course there will always be lobbyists in Washington but Obama is doing his best to block their direct control over congress. Corruption is ever present, but we can always find ways to limit it. - Nothlit, on 01/26/2009, -2/+7You think this is something new? Bush's executive orders were published online as well (archive.org confirms this). You just never cared to look.
- Charlotte_Web, on 01/26/2009, -5/+9Want to know who to blame?
Democrats own the House. Democrats own the Senate. Democrats own the White House.
Democrats are completely in charge. - inactive, on 01/26/2009, -1/+5***** BRIBERY
- Charlotte_Web, on 01/26/2009, -1/+5Democrats are trying to fix things?
The Democrats are the ones who vote on the budget and the spending! They have complete control!
Lobbyists are not the fourth branch of government! - pbarney, on 01/26/2009, -0/+4I'll give you $20 to retract that statement.
- aletoledo, on 01/26/2009, -2/+6Obama did this during the campaign as well. Instead of asking lobbyists for money, he simply asked their wives for the money. The same things will always happen in a monolithic, centralized government, they just change the names a little to confuse people. So it's not "earmarks" it's just stimulus packagae work projects that are able to be fast tracked.
- Waiting2awake, on 01/26/2009, -0/+4Just saying .... It would appear that the people and their "leaders" have a hold-counterhold relationship. For ever hold we use on them to rein in their spending of our money, to actually do their jobs and being accountable to the people, they in turn figure out a way to counter that hold and do what they want anyway......
Don't people and society deserve better than this? Maybe the problem isn't to be found in the laws that have been passed, but rather the people that they are supposed to be enforced on? - jgzman, on 01/26/2009, -0/+4Oddly enough, I feel that the stimulus package should have earmarks. I mean, we're looking to spend a lot of money, and to spread it around, right? That's the point of the bill. So I am perfectly happy that we should carve the bill into small pieces, and label each one with who is gonna get it, provided that it is divided fairly
The place I don't want earmarks, is the bill for funding the Iraq war, or the bill for improving our schools. I can't stand to see votes 'bought' with earmarks. Remember senators, you are for the country too, not just your own states. Just because a bill will not directly benefit your own state dosn't mean you should vote it down. - Charlotte_Web, on 01/26/2009, -1/+4Waitaminute... I thought this past election was about "hope" and "change"... where's the "change" that America voted for?!?!?
This is just business as usual, and no "change" is taking place. Lobbyists can't skirt an earmark ban without politicians as willing accomplices. In fact, it's more on the politicians, since they ultimately decide how to spend the money; the lobbyists just make the requests.
And which political party is in control of Washington these days? - inactive, on 01/26/2009, -0/+3*snerk* The bailout money is going to go to putting sand on beaches and building waterparks?
There is something seriously, seriously wrong with America. Wake up or die in your sleep, people. - aletoledo, on 01/26/2009, -1/+4If Obama truly cared about "doing the right thing", he would try to limit the corruption in washington by reducing opportunities for corruption, not increase them. I don't think Obama is so naive to think that he would change anything in the system, he merely wants to get his slice of the pie.
- kkonarik, on 01/26/2009, -1/+4Aye, But can the Politicians say NO!!!! Whether Dem or Pub the majority of them will line there pockets. This "Stimulus Package" shouldn't exist to begin with. Read the article http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/we+have+the+evidenc ...
- Charlotte_Web, on 01/26/2009, -0/+3Lobbyists don't pass the budgets and the spending bills!
Congress does, and the President approves!
Who controls Congress? Democrats
Who controls the Presidency? Democrats
Where in that formula do you see lobbyists having any official power to pass spending bills?!?
This is what Democrats wanted -- complete control! And now the blame is on their shoulders! - aletoledo, on 01/26/2009, -3/+6Don't confuse them with facts, it detracts from the warm and fuzzy feelings they get after an Obama speech.
- banderwocky, on 01/26/2009, -0/+3He should publicly chastise and call these guys out in his weekly address.
- Apocrypha, on 01/26/2009, -2/+4Lobbyists should just be put in jail. It's that simple.
- yerdaddy, on 01/26/2009, -0/+2Kill it with fire.
- astrocreep2k, on 01/29/2009, -0/+2Wow.. pretty wrong on that one now weren't we? How much does Acorn get from the stimulus package? Keep drinking the kool-aid my friend.
- noahhoward, on 01/30/2009, -0/+2Or we should make it a capital offence so it can only happen once.
- wineinc, on 01/26/2009, -0/+2I totally agree lawmakers and government bureaucrats ought to not accept any gifts from anyone. That's a simple pragmatic solution to a long standing problem. While there are regulations in place that go part way in that direction, clearly more can be done.
The problem gets more intractable when you try to prevent the wives and relatives of the politically connected from receiving gifts. Then there's the even harder problem of limiting donations to political parties.
I'd sure like to read some good ideas along those lines. Got any? - IKORKYI, on 01/27/2009, -0/+2at what point do we hold the people being lobbied accountable? its not always the drug dealers fault for providing...
lobbyist are paid to find ways to influence, and unfortunately they will always find a way. is it really possible to get rid of "earmarking" in any form without having the representatives stop putting it in/allotting the money to pet projects? at least obama inspires a new caliber of politician...so far... - Charlotte_Web, on 01/26/2009, -0/+2DEMOCRATS CONTROL CONGRESS.
It is their POWER, their RIGHT, to vote down earmarks as they come up.
SO WHY AREN'T THEY DOING IT? - hazypensieve, on 01/26/2009, -0/+2It's called campaign donations.
- wineinc, on 01/26/2009, -0/+2I'm not trying to sound like a troll, Apocrypha. But you know it's not that simple. Spewing out emotion driven sound bytes does not get us closer to good government. It just empowers entrenched political machines. Take some responsibility and think!! Sending all the lobbyists to the gulag is what Stalin and Mao would do. Be a responsible citizen and find a real workable solution that can work in a democracy. For instance, you could publicly identify and pressure the government and corporate entities in your state, county, and city which use these lobbyists.
Before any responds with pointed questions about what have I done lately for my country and community, I'll reply that except for spending a couple weekends out of state canvassing for Obama, I've not done much. But that's going to change. This is a time of crisis. We ordinary voters really need to push for better government at all levels to root out the rotten practices we've tolerated far too long. - wineinc, on 01/26/2009, -0/+2We citizens should do the same. We get the government we deserve. The trick is the citizenry has to be vigilent and informed enough to put effective people in government rather than just re-installing party hacks whose only priorities are to steer funds to their corporate patrons.
- sigg14, on 01/26/2009, -1/+3lobbying the gov should be made illegal, and anyone in gov caught taking money from lobbyists should be jailed for life. or hung
- funkyloki, on 09/24/2009, -0/+2Remove corporate citizenship, and you remove the ability of corporations to lobby politicians. In fact, you lose the whole unaccountability thing that corporations love so well. If the people who worked for a corporation or who owned a corporation were directly responsible for the actions of their company (read: themselves), I think they would be a little more socially conscious. They would also lose the ability to donate funds to a campaign, as citizen donations are the only acceptable donations.
I think that is a perfectly workable and reasonable solution. - 3tcp, on 01/27/2009, -0/+2It doesn't matter if the organizations are directly responsible. They have the ear of so many rich donators that politicians need the support of the organization to persuade the donators to give them money for their campaigns. The system is corrupt and dependent on furthering individual issues to the detriment of the greater good of the americna people but until the people who are writing the checks care more about the entire platform than just two or three issues this problem will persist.
- theutopian, on 01/26/2009, -1/+3You're an idiot.
- 3tcp, on 01/27/2009, -0/+2'Hope' that they would 'change' the rules so that we would be more oblivious to the manner and degree in which the american public are getting ***** over. That is the way lobbyists interpreted Obama's campaign, they'd just have to work their magic on more people in different levels of government.
As long as the government has as much spending power as they do it will be rife with corruption. If you want to clean up washington take the money and power out of their hands. - 3Den, on 01/26/2009, -0/+2What law and loop-hole are you referring to?
- doublebummer, on 01/27/2009, -0/+1If Obama has any balls then he will veto the first cut of this bill. Unfortunately he wont.
-
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is