From an email by ChangeCongress:

We've got great news to report about our campaign shaming Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) for taking $700,000 from the defense industry and Chamber of Commerce and then siding with them against rape victims and his constituents. Thousands of people have signed our national expression of outrage and told their friends to sign -- and the national and local media are reporting on our campaign!

We need to keep the momentum up. Can you check out our petition and sign today?

From the National Journal:

Reform group Change Congress launched a campaign yesterday to shame Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., for voting against legislation that would help ensure victims of rape have the right to bring their case to court. The government reform group hit cyberspace with an email asking people to sign a 'national expression of outrage.' Citing $700,000 in campaign contributions from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the defense industry, Change Congress accused Burr of putting special interests before rape victims.

The more signatures we get, the more the media will report on his campaign. We need to keep publicly shaming these politicians one by one until Congress realizes it's time to replace special-interest-funded elections with citizen-funded elections.

Until they do, Americans will continue to ask: Did you vote that way because it made good sense, or because it raised special-interest campaign dollars?

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1178)

PLAYS: (1023)

After defending the profits of the health care industry when a previous caller asked him if he thought health care should be a human right, Rep. Issa is then asked who his biggest individual campaign contributor is.

Issa: Ah, boy that's a good question. Ah...I guess I am. I put several million dollars of my own money over the years into my campaigns for the Senate, the House and recalling the Governor, so I'm probably at $11 or $12 million of my own money. After that there's probably somebody that's given me $20,000 or $30,000 over ten elections.

Here are some of Darrell Issa's recent top campaign contributors from from OpenSecrets.org.

2009-2010

Continue reading »

I wish I could say I was surprised, but pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturing is very big business in New Jersey and when those companies say jump, elected officials say "How high?" Wouldn't it be nice if they put as much thought into the health and safety of their constituents?

The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday that four New Jersey congressmen and its own former commissioner unduly influenced the process that led to its decision last year to approve a patch for injured knees, an approval it is now revisiting.

The agency’s scientific reviewers repeatedly and unanimously over many years decided that the device, known as Menaflex and manufactured by ReGen Biologics Inc., was unsafe because the device often failed, forcing patients to get another operation.

But after receiving what an F.D.A. report described as “extreme,” “unusual” and persistent pressure from four Democrats from New Jersey — Senators Robert Menendez and Frank R. Lautenberg and Representatives Frank Pallone Jr. and Steven R. Rothman — agency managers overruled the scientists and approved the device for sale in December.

All four legislators made their inquiries within a few months of receiving significant campaign contributions from ReGen, which is based in New Jersey, but all said they had acted appropriately and were not influenced by the money. Dr. Andrew C. von Eschenbach, the former drug agency’s commissioner, said he had acted properly.

The agency has never before publicly questioned the process behind one of its approvals, never admitted that a regulatory decision was influenced by politics, and never accused a former commissioner of questionable conduct.

“The message here is that there were problems with the integrity of F.D.A.’s decision-making process that have solutions,” Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, the agency’s principal deputy commissioner, said in a conference call with reporters.

Kent Conrad's co-op plan reminded me of the WaPo's failed "Mouthpiece Theater": It's about as insipid as humanly possible. The House of Lords really is more concerned with its members' campaign contributions than they are for the American people. Let's check to see how much jack Conrad has received from the insurance industry, shall we?

Conrad, Kent (D-ND) $828,787

Not a bad haul, eh?

If Conrad was trying to woo Republicans with his co-op plan that cannot work, guess again.

A key member of Republican leadership in the Senate declared on Tuesday that a cooperative approach to health insurance was merely a "Trojan horse" for a government-run system.

In a conference call with reporters, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said that while some progressives view the co-op proposal as an unacceptably watered-down alternative to a public insurance option, Republicans think it's still too similar. He indicated that both he and the party would oppose them.

"On the co-op... as Democrats have said, it doesn't matter what you call it, they want it to accomplish something that Republicans are opposed to," Kyl told reporters. "That is the step towards government-run health care in the country. The president himself said you can imagine a cooperative meeting that definition of a public option." Republicans see Trojans everywhere but they believe in abstinence only. Everyone knows a few of them are big teases but in the end they will just say no.

"It is [a public plan] by another name. It is a Trojan horse. And therefore no, I don't believe Republicans will be inclined to support a bill," he said.

Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My! What Jon Kyl is really saying is: Trojans and Horses and Socialists, Oh, My!

Hullabaloo:

Kent Conrad, the perpetual whiner who has been pushing this silly co-op nonsense for months now, set co-ops up from the get as a prophylactic for his fellow Democratic corporate lackeys. It has nothing to do with Republicans. Never did. It would be best if everyone just abstained from pretending that bipartisanship was ever on the table and faced the real problem: STDs (Supine Two-faced Democrats.)

And gee, I wonder how many of the people voting for this expensive pork barrel of a bill are the same Blue Dogs who are restricting health care because of "fiscal responsibility"?

The Democratic-controlled House is poised to give the Pentagon dozens of new ships, planes, helicopters and armored vehicles that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates says the military does not need to fund next year, acting in many cases in response to defense industry pressures and campaign contributions under an approach he has decried as "business as usual" and vowed to help end.

The unwanted equipment in a military spending bill expected to come to a vote on the House floor Thursday or Friday has a price tag of at least $6.9 billion.

The White House has said that some but not all of the extra expenditures could draw a presidential veto of the Defense Department's entire $636 billion budget for 2010, and it sent a message to House lawmakers Tuesday urging them to cut expenditures for items that "duplicate existing programs, or that have outlived their usefulness."

While the administration won a big victory when the Senate voted July 21 to end the F-22 fighter-jet program, the House's imminent action demonstrates its continued rebellion on many other Obama administration military spending priorities. Gates continues to struggle with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who are loyal to existing military programs benefiting contractors that provide jobs and large campaign donations.

House appropriators want to buy, for example, extra C-17 transport planes and F-18 jets, as well as four extra military jets used by lawmakers and Pentagon VIPs. And they want to keep alive a troubled missile-defense interceptor program and continue the troubled VH-71 presidential helicopter program.

Gates vowed in April to fundamentally overhaul the military's "approach to procurement, acquisition and contracting" and urged Congress to support the termination of many traditional weapons programs in favor of more spending on counterinsurgency efforts and operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In this round, those Democratic and Republican lawmakers who support maintaining or expanding programs that Gates proposed to eliminate or trim appear likely to prevail, because an unusually restrictive rule for floor debate agreed upon Wednesday will allow only amendments that could strip less than half of the spending the administration did not request.

Roughly $2.75 billion of the extra funds -- all of which were unanimously approved in an 18-minute markup Monday by the House Appropriations Committee -- would finance "earmarks," or projects demanded by individual lawmakers that the Pentagon did not request. About half of that amount reflects spending requested by private firms, including 95 companies or related political action committees that donated a total of $789,190 in the past 2 1/2 years to members of the appropriations subcommittee on defense, according to an analysis by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonprofit watchdog group.

What is wrong with these supposedly centrist democrats? Do they hate the American family? Are they so deep into the bag of the health care industry? Howie Klein emailed and said:

Let's see, $1,306,872 in direct "contributions" from the Medical-Industrial Complex and another $402,231 in "donations" from Big Insurance.

You get the picture. She actually openly supported it, but now maybe her massive campaign contributions has changed her mind.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) pledged her support for a public health care option in April, two months before she announced opposition to such a plan, according to a signed letter she sent to a major reform coalition dated April 11.

Read the letter, obtained by the Huffington Post, here.

"I'm not open to it. I'm not open to a public option," Landrieu told the Huffington Post early Tuesday afternoon. "However, I will remain open to a compromise, a full compromise. Public option is not something that I support. I don't think it's the right way to go."

The idea that we don't have the "single payer plan" not on the table to negotiate with is insane to me. Instead of at least using it as a bargaining chip, we start with the public option. And now these American hating politicians will try to comprise the heck out of the public option. You know what that means. They will try to make it worthless so the health industrial complex prospers at the expense of the health of the American family. I promise you we are not standing down. Some of us are in the middle of planning an action. I'll let you know about the details when we have it...

Never let it be said that lobbyists are too dumb to figure out a way around any rule we pass to keep them from paying off politicians:

WASHINGTON — On a mild evening last September, Citigroup lobbyists mingled with South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn at a rooftop reception — complete with miniature putting greens — as the company hosted a party to honor the third most powerful Democrat in the House and raise money for one of his favorite golf charities.

Health insurers and hospitals, meanwhile, are donating millions to help build an institute in Boston to celebrate the career of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who is attempting to overhaul the nation's health care system.

Despite a ban on gifts to lawmakers and limits on campaign contributions, lobbyists and groups that employ them can spend unlimited money to honor members of Congress or donate to non-profits connected to them or their relatives. The public — until now — had little insight into the scope of this largely hidden world of special-interest influence.

Under ethics rules passed in 2007, lobbyists for the first time last year had to report any payment made for an event or to a group connected to a lawmaker and other top federal officials.

USA TODAY undertook the first comprehensive analysis of the lobbying reports and found 2,759 payments, totaling $35.8 million, were made in 2008. The money went to honor 534 current and former lawmakers, almost 250 other federal officials and more than 100 groups, many of which count lawmakers among their members.

The total cost is roughly equivalent to what the U.S. government spends to operate Yellowstone National Park each year.

Most of the money — about $28 million — went to non-profit groups, some with direct ties to members of Congress. In two cases, USA TODAY found, the donations to non-profits associated with a member of Congress came in response to a personal appeal for funds from the lawmaker.

"It's another example of the many pockets of a politician's coat," says Ellen Miller of the Sunlight Foundation, a watchdog group. The spending amounts to an "end-run" around campaign-finance laws "that are designed to limit the appearance of undue influence," she says.

The money came from companies, trade associations and labor groups that lobby Congress and the government on a range of issues, from seeking a share of last year's $700 billion financial bailout package to trying to shape the debate on climate change.

The donations cover various activities — from a golf tournament that raises money for a lawmaker's non-profit to gifts to the alma mater of a powerful House committee chairman.

"You can still have a gala or something or the other for a charity and earn some favor with members of Congress, which is what the gift ban was put in place to avoid," says Dan Danner, CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business and a veteran Washington lobbyist.

Now if only we could get the appointed judges to recuse themselves on similar conflicts:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that elected judges must step aside from cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias.

By a 5-4 vote in a case from West Virginia, the court said that a judge who remained involved in a lawsuit filed against the company of the most generous supporter of his election deprived the other side of the constitutional right to a fair trial.

With multimillion-dollar judicial election campaigns on the rise, the court's decision Monday could have widespread significance. Justice at Stake, which tracks campaign spending in judicial elections, says judges are elected in 39 states and that candidates for the highest state courts have raised more than $168 million since 2000.

The West Virginia case involved more than $3 million spent by the chief executive of Massey Energy Co. to help elect state Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin. At the same time, Massey was appealing a verdict, which now totals $82.7 million with interest, in a dispute with a local coal company. Benjamin refused to step aside from the case, despite repeated requests, and was part of a 3-2 decision to overturn the verdict.

The Massey Energy case was about as clear a case of a corporation trying to buy a verdict as I've ever seen - so egregious, it inspired John Grisham's "The Appeal." Nice to see this ruling.

  What's a Republican candidate to do when he's rightfully accused of being beholden to the interests and agenda of Big Oil? Why, wrongfully accuse your opponent of being beholden to the interests of Big Oil. Just a day after getting publicly busted for taking highly dubious campaign contributions from a Queens, NY, couple with ties to the energy industry, the McCain campaign is selectively citing a Center for Responsive Politics report to make the ludicrous argument that Obama is in the pocket of the oil industry. New McCain communications flack Nicole Wallace -- formerly of Bush Co. -- took to "Morning Joe" this morning to push this deceptive storyline, only to get busted on it despite Joe Scarborough's most valiant effort to cover for her.

Download | play   Download | play (h/t Bill W.)

Wallace: "The money story of the week was the day after Barack Obama launched his ad - John McCain, George Bush, blah blah blah, Big Oil -  turns out Barack Obama has actually received more money from Exxon-Mobil and from oil than John McCain has..."

A couple things here. First, it is true that Obama has received more contributions from employees of Exxon Mobil than McCain. But it's also true, however, that McCain has received more than three times overall ($1.3 million) from the industry than Obama has.

(note the recent spike after McCain announced his full-throated support for off-shore drilling)

Second, as Steve Benen notes, there's a big difference in the types of contributions flowing to each candidate:

There’s a qualitative and quantitative difference between some low-level Chevron employee chipping in to the Obama campaign, and the kind of bundling we’ve seen from oil executives working on McCain’s behalf. There’s money from the oil industry and then there’s money from the oil industry.

Exactly. Say my wife works as an accountant for Exxon Mobil or Chevron and donates to the Obama campaign. It can hardly be argued that he is being influenced by the industry by taking her contribution. McCain and the RNC, on the other hand, are collection huge, bundled donations that certainly seem to be affecting the GOP energy platform.

Benen also makes this crucial distinction which seems to elude the shrieking wingnuts and clueless pundits:

Let’s not miss the forest for the trees — the problem isn’t just that McCain is taking Big Oil’s cash, it’s that he’s pushing Big Oil’s agenda. That’s a much bigger deal.

That's the point that needs to be hammered home. Regardless of who the contributions come from, the real issue is whether or not those contributions unduly influence the candidate's policy toward the respective industry. If Obama wants to take money from employees of oil companies then use that money to get elected and slap a huge windfall profits tax on the industry, by all means, go right ahead. But to somehow argue that Obama is in the pocket of Big Oil -- when he receives 1/3 of McCain's total large-sum contributions, mind you -- is just rank dishonesty.

Again, it should come as no surprise that this deceitful line of attack comes just one day after McCain is forced to return over $50,000 in questionable oil money. I'm pretty confident that the majority of Americans are smart enough to realize how laughable it is for a Republican to accuse a Democrat of favoring the Big Oil agenda. Then again, the idea was to divert attention away from McCain and his shady dealings. In that vein, it looks like it just may have succeeded.