Guess What Blanche Lincoln Has Been Up To To Make Your Life Worse Since Being Kicked Out Of The Senate?

John Boozman (R-AR) isn't a better senator than Blanche Lincoln was. When she was a congresswoman and then a senator she was generally rated an "F." Boozman is actually worse, although when you get down that low, there's no grade worse than an "F." There's no such thing as an "F-minus" or a "G." Boozman's ProgressivePunch score since he replaced Lincoln is a ridiculous 3.16 (out of 100) and for the current year, he scores a zero. He's generally dismissed as an ineffective backbencher with no influence whatsoever. No one cares what he has to say on the Science Committee or the Agriculture Committee and his role as the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Green Jobs and the New Economy (part of the Environment Committee) is to obstruct progress. One senator told me that "unless he's talking about optometry, he doesn't have much credibility on anything. He's a pretty lazy guy and just goes along with his leadership. He's good on issues that relate to eye health... If we ever win that seat back, he could go back to being an optometrist." That isn't likely, though. The Democrats aren't going to take back that seat-- even with Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket in 2016 when Boozman has to next face the voters. And if he does leave office, he'll probably do exactly what Blanche Lincoln did-- whore himself out as a lobbyist. It's what virtually all corrupt conservatives do after their time in Congress is up.

The reason a conservative numbskull like Boozman isn't much of a downgrade from Blanche Lincoln is because she was one of the two or three most Republican Democrats in the Senate. She was always agitating for more conservative, even reactionary, policies inside the caucus and always undermining progressive initiatives in committee (and especially when she was chair of the Agriculture Committee). She was a spokesperson for Big Business and for the wealthy within the Democratic caucus. And that's what she still is-- only as a slimy K Street lobbyist. In the Senate she was always referred to as the Senator from WalMart. She still works for them, now officially as a lobbyist. She also works for other retail groups and special interests looking for special treatment in the Senate-- and a way to plunder American taxpayers. One of her latest clients is the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), which hired her to help them get out of having to obey regulations that put the good of society ahead of greed and avarice. She's heading up their anti-regulatory Small Businesses for Sensible Regulations project. Who needs a Republican when Blanche is still creeping around the Beltway? Her goal is to make sure Business has as much say as possible in the process.

Last cycle, the lobbying firm she works for, Alston & Bird, handed out $495,617 in legalistic bribes to congressional campaigns, including $30,000 each to the DCCC, NRCC, DSCC and NRSC. As far as individual politicians, they gave over twice as much to House Republicans as to House Democrats and over twice as much to Senate Democrats as to Senate Republicans. They know who makes the rules in each body. Many of their biggest investments were wasted as their most favored corrupt politicians were defeated, like Allen West (R-FL) and Charlie Bass (R-NH) who they gave $10,000 each. Other big losers they backed-- all conservatives of course-- were Mary Bono Mack (R-CA), Robert Dold (R-IL), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), and Cliff Stearns (R-FL). And, needless to say, they handed out checks to corrupt party leaders like John Boehner (R-OH), Eric Cantor (R-VA), Paul Ryan (R-WI), Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Joe Crowley (D-NY) and Miss McConnell (R-KY).

In a post she penned for HuffPo earlier this month, Lincoln claimed her employers are "the quiet engine of our economy." Disgracefully, HuffPo didn't identify her as a lobbyist, just as the head of a "coalition," It's My Business, "giving a voice to the millions of people who have chosen to be entrepreneurs and have the opportunity to build their own businesses." Not a word about how much she's being paid to or by whom. Shouldn't we expect more from Huffington Post, even if they are part of AOL? Meanwhile paid whores like Lincoln are free to come onto their pages and talk about the government "targeting," investigating and prosecuting these quiet engines of our economy. Pure propaganda:

Throughout my career, I have been a staunch proponent for small businesses and entrepreneurs and I fought hard for their rights during my time serving Arkansas in the U.S. Senate. Their contributions to virtually every aspect of our economy simply cannot be overlooked.

It's My Business is carrying that same torch today. We are committed to protecting the right of independent contractors to choose a way of life that works best for them, and the right of businessmen and women to pursue a business model that provides lifestyle flexibility for them and their families and creates jobs and competitiveness for America.

But we can't do it alone. We are asking you to get engaged and take a stand, too. Tell your elected state and federal bureaucrats to stop their attacks on independent contractors. They are the embodiment of the entrepreneurial spirit in this country, not to mention a powerful engine driving our economic recovery. They deserve our protection. This country can't afford to let them down.

Yesterday, The Hill pointed out that "[t]here are several bills now pending before Congress that would overhaul the rulemaking system, ranging from measures that would give lawmakers the power to veto major rules to a push to limit the regulatory authority of certain agencies." Lincoln is worried these Republican measures may not pass and she's hoping Obama will institute some of things her employers want even if Congress does try standing up for the public good and insists there's a "frequent disconnect between regulators and the people who must comply with the rules they write." Business always wants to dictate the rules under which they operate. That's why they pay sleazy people like Blanche Lincoln such huge salaries.

Read More

Things Are Bleak In Boehnerland This Week

Boehnerland, the community of revolving door K Street lobbyists who run the House Republican caucus through their man John, is very troubled this week. The unexpected defeat of the Farm Bill has shaken up the lobbyist community to its core.

“We were shocked. We were watching the vote on TV and in the final minutes were saying ‘what are they doing? This thing isn’t going to pass!” said one commodity group lobbyist.

“I’m shocked,” said another lobbyist. “Our job as agriculture is to go to the House and say Mr. Speaker what is your plan for getting this done?”

The intense blame game that broke out immediately after the bill was rejected in a 195-234 vote will only make it harder to get a bill over the hump, supporters of the measure said.

...Lawmakers on the House Agriculture Committee were holding calls and frantic closed-door meetings with lobbyists to discuss their next moves, sources said.

One lobbying source said salvaging the bill may have to wait a few months.

“Bringing the bill back while the House is being hyper-partisan on this issue is probably not going to work,” he said.

The House bill was heavily backed by commodity groups, from rice and peanut producers in the South to corn, wheat and soy growers in the Midwest to the American Farm Bureau Federation and National Farmers Union.

It won only 24 votes from Democrats after the party balked over the inclusion of $20.5 billion in cuts to food stamp programs.

One lobbyist noted the bill appeared to lose support after an amendment requiring food stamp recipients to be working or looking to be worked-- sponsored by Rep. Steve Southerland (R-Fla.)-- was added to the bill. The solution, the lobbyist said, is to move the bill to the left.

“The Southerland amendment was a bridge too far for the Democrats,” the lobbyist said.

This source said Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) need to agree on a number for food stamp cuts. The Senate farm bill, approved in a bipartisan vote, includes $4 billion in cuts to food stamps.

Another lobbyist wasn’t so sure that would work.

“I don’t know how you solve this. If you reduce the food stamp cuts to $16 billion how many Democrats do you gain, how many people do you lose?” he said.

The gloom in the official statements from farm organizations was pervasive.

"Rather than pass a bill that reduces the deficit by $40 billion while meeting the commitments of a farm bill, the country was treated to more Washington dysfunction,” USA Rice Producers' Group chairwoman Linda Raun said. “Patience in farm country is wearing thin.”

Southerland's toxic amendment was #102, the very last amendment voted on before the bill itself. It passed 227-198. It was a bridge too far for half a dozen Republicans-- vulnerable northerners, Chris Gibson (NY), Pat Meehan (PA), Mike Fitzpatrick (PA), Peter King (NY), Richard Hanna (NY), David Joyce (OH) who are desperate to not be seen as lackeys for Confederate hardliners-- and only one slimy, corrupt Blue Dog/New Dem voted for it, Jim Cooper of Nashville.

Ron Kind (D-WI) had introduced an amendment that would have seriously reformed welfare to rich farmers by limiting government subsidies to wealthy farmers netting over a quarter million dollars annually. It would have saved $11 billion a year. That was voted down 208-217. 74 Republicans joined the vast majority of Democrats to back it. Big Ag shill Mike Conaway (R-TX) wasn't one of them. He called Kind's proposal a "slap in the face" to farmers that is supported by "radical environmental groups." Kind begged to differ:

"Unless my good friend wants to include the National Taxpayer Union, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Citizens Against Government Waste, Americans for Tax Reform, Committee for Responsible Taxation, American Commitment for the Center for Individual Liberty, 'R' Street Competitive Enterprise Institute in that category of radical environmental groups ... they've all come out in support, endorsing this legislation."

For the most part, the only Democrats who joined Cantor and the corrupt GOP establishment in voting against it were the sleazy corruptionists who suck up legalistic bribes from AgriBuisness (primarily New Dems and Blue Dogs) like John Barrow (GA), Henry Cuellar (TX), Jim Costa (CA), Sean Patrick Maloney (NY), Bill Owens (NY), Ron Barber (AZ), etc. That's why Chris Hayes called the bill (in the video above), very appropriately, a "colossal piece of crap" and "Robin Hood in reverse."

Another amendment that failed came from California rightist Tom McClintock, who wanted to eliminate funding to promote and expand farmers markets (something that is very popular in his own state). It was defeated in a bipartisan landslide 156-269. Only one Democrat voted for it, sleazy Florida New Dem Patrick Murphy, and 76 Republicans crossed the aisle to vote with the Democrats against McClintock's unpopular proposal.

Now Boehner has to decide if he will make the bill worse to get some of those Republicans back on board by, say cutting more billions out of food stamps, or making the bill less toxic to lure Democratic votes. He has to have some kind of a vote to send to the Senate-House conference committee!

Read More

Big Business Has A Friend-- Congress

Monday we looked at Jason Farago's definitive Cory Booker analysis in the Guardian. One conclusion that struck me was about his lackey-like relationship with Big Business in general and Wall Street in particular.

Booker has the unwavering support of the big bad industry just across the river from Newark. Since his days as a city councilor, he has hoovered up cash from the financial services sector-- but unlike many other tri-state Democrats who seduce the Street in a marriage of a convenience, Booker legitimately thinks that big money knows best and the public sector should do its bidding. When, in May 2012, Booker confessed that he found it "nauseating" for the Obama campaign to impugn Mitt Romney's career in private equity, Democrats were shocked. They shouldn't have been.

Booker's whole career has been a testament to a poisonous financial-corporatist consensus, which dresses up the interests of big money in post-ideological garb. (That helped him win the support this weekend of the most powerful man in New Jersey: George Norcross III, the feared political boss and owner of the Philadelphia Inquirer, who said he liked Booker because he was "a Democrat that's fiscally conservative yet socially progressive.")

Because I used to be a corporate CEO, I still get corporate CEO magazines and communications. One came this week that I actually opened instead of deleting. It was celebrating the easy access corporate CEOs and their agents have to Members of Congress. They cited a study based on a survey by George Washington University that included 328 congressional staffers from both sides of the aisle. No telling how many of their bosses are as subservient to Big Business as Cory Booker, but the study found that "65 percent of Hill staffers have a positive opinion of corporations-- calling them very or somewhat trustworthy. Additionally, the poll finds that 71 percent of Hill staffers found meetings with CEOs and top executives to be helpful when learning more about the issues that affect business." Just under half the Capitol Hill staffers surveyed say the same positive predisposition towards organized labor. 64% of Hill staffers said that meeting with corporate lobbyists was a helpful activity in formulating policy, while only 45% reported that meeting with labor lobbyists was useful.

This is great news for the business community since many corporations and associations host congressional fly-ins for their employees and membership base. A face-to-face meeting with a legislator helps you connect with your legislator and his or her staff on a personal level and can be important in building relationships for you and your organization. As proven by the study, elected officials enjoy meeting with their constituents, but many people compete for their time. When meeting with your elected official or staffer, be sure to remember the following to ensure an effective meeting:

Be Flexible
When scheduling an appointment, provide as much advance notice as possible and try to be flexible about dates and times. If you have to schedule a meeting on your own, keep in mind that your legislator will be able to spend more time with you if you schedule the meeting at his or her district office when Congress is not in session.

Be Prompt and Professional
Once you have made the appointment, be sure to keep it. It is wise to confirm your appointment a day or two in advance and plan to arrive a few minutes early. Dress professionally and make sure you are prepared to deliver your message persuasively.

Respect the Legislator’s Schedule
Remember that your legislator’s time is limited, and you are there to discuss important issues. Know in advance how long the legislator can speak with you and make certain the meeting does not exceed the allotted time. Be sure to stick to your topic, keep your comments and questions brief, and allow time for your legislator to ask questions and provide you with feedback.

Be Organized for the Meeting
Know your issue and the facts behind it thoroughly before you reach the meeting. If several people will be attending, designate one individual to act as spokesperson for the group and make sure you are all agreed on the message you are there to deliver. When you arrive at the meeting, introduce all of the attendees and allow the spokesperson to explain why you have requested the meeting. Be as specific as possible to help your legislator better understand the big picture.

Clearly State Your Position and Seek Feedback
Explain specific reasons you support or oppose the issue, including the impact of the issue on your business, your community, colleagues and industry. Stick to the issue at hand; bringing up other topics will lessen the force of your message. Ask your legislator’s position on the issue, but don’t try to force him or her to commit to a position. Request that you be kept updated on the issue and be sure to provide your contact information.

Avoid Arguing
While you are entitled to disagree with your elected officials, remember that you are not just there to win: You are there to build a positive relationship. Becoming argumentative will not help. Even if you are unable to persuade your legislator to your point of view, it is always best to leave on friendly terms so that you will be welcome another time.

Provide Leave-Behind Information
Whenever possible, leave appropriate documentation that supports your position with the legislator. Such leave-behind information will help the legislator remember your views and allow him or her to refer back to them after the meeting is over.

Follow Up with a Personal Letter
Be sure to send a thank-you letter after the meeting, regardless of whether you were able to reach an agreement. A thank you letter demonstrates that you appreciate the value of your elected official’s time and allows you to reiterate your position and underscore your concerns.

I bet it didn't take many personal follow up letters from Steve Jobs and Tim Cook of Apple to members of Congress to curry favor with the government, not if you read a new report from the Associated Press about domestic spying the same way I do:

Apple says it received between 4,000 and 5,000 requests from U.S. law enforcement for customer data for the six months ended in May.

The company, like some other businesses, had asked the U.S government to be able to share how many requests it received related to national security and how it handled them. Those requests were made as part of Prism, the recently revealed highly classified National Security Agency program that seizes records from Internet companies.

Prism appears to do what its name suggests. Like a triangular piece of glass, Prism takes large beams of data and helps the government find discrete, manageable strands of information.

Prism was revealed this month by the Washington Post and Guardian newspapers, and has touched off the latest round in a decade-long debate over what limits to impose on government eavesdropping, which the Obama administration says is essential to keep the nation safe.

Apple Inc. said that between 9,000 and 10,000 accounts or devices were specified in data requests between Dec. 1, 2012, and May 31 from federal, state and local authorities and included both criminal investigations and national security matters.

...Facebook Inc. has said that it received between 9,000 and 10,000 requests for data from all government agencies in the second half of last year. The social media company said fewer than 19,000 users were targeted.

I had dinner with an old friend over the weekend who designed-- and then ran-- a computer system for a sensitive division of one of Wall Street's biggest banks. He told me the feds asked them for access to between 30,000 and 50,000 individual accounts annually and claimed it was covered by "money laundering" statutes, although it was clear to the bank that very little of it involved a search for money launderers. The news didn't come as a surprise to me, just as the revelations in the press about Prism and other NSA domestic spying didn't come as a surprise to me. I have, after all, always taken President Eisenhower's 1961 warning about the power of the Military Industrial Complex to heart. He was certainly in a better position to understand it than any president who came after him.

Read More

Buck McKeon's Family Opens A Defense Industry Lobbying Firm To Enrich Itself At Taxpayers' Expense

The other day it was revealed that three stooges named Steve McKeon, Daniel McKeon & Joe McKeon opened up a new shoppe-- a war industries lobbying shop. Joe is Buck's failed businessman brother who's gone bankrupt at everything he's tried. Steve and Daniel are Buck's nephews. Buck himself was appointed Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee by Boehner and, despite, a serious national security breach connected to McKeon's overt corruption, has refused to make him give up the chair, despite demands from other Republican committee members. And, keep in the back of your mind that Buck McKeon has taken in more in legalistic bribes from war industries than anyone else in Congress-- more than Boehner, more than Cantor, more than any senator. He started the Congressional Drone Caucus-- officially, the Unmanned Vehicle Caucus-- and he got the legislation carefully crafted by the drone manufacturers through Congress. Buck insists he'll be scrupulous in making sure there are no conflicts of interest with the family firm and the taxpayers money, although his history would indicate that the entire enterprise was planned out as one giant conflict of interest.

Roll Call, in their Moneyline column-- "Inside the flow of money in politics"-- points out the obvious: "More than likely the McKeon name will help business." For his whole shady career, McKeon gas taken in an astronomical $1,396,400 in legalistic bribes from arms manufacturers and related war-oriented firms. In way of comparison, McCain has only gotten $1,230,052 from these same galoots. Lindsey Graham, another demented war-monger has only taken in $354,966 and John Boehner and Eric Cantor only got, respectively $385,100 and $430,750. In the 2012 cycle, McKeon topped everyone else again-- both Houses of Congress. Last year alone, he took in more than the second and third biggest recipients combined:

The drone manufacturers have been particularly generous to him. His family firm, Golden Oak Consulting of Santa Clarita started last May as bribes from the arms manufacturers were gushing into McKeon coffers to the maximum extent allowed by the very lax laws. He needed to figure out a way to get even more-- and that's where ne're-do-well brother Joe and his kids came in. Their first arms manufacturing client was  Threat Deterrence of Alexandria, Va., a computer software firm dealing with defending against various kinds of threats.

The company website states, “we have worked inside some of the most capable threat mitigation agencies in the world. These agencies include the United States Intelligence Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, national Security Agency, US Joint Special Operations Command, US Congress and many other threat support organizations.”

Golden Oak Consulting also registered on May 21 to lobby for GoPro of San Mateo, Calif., which makes waterproof and shockproof cameras. In 2011 the company launched a military helmet mount for its camera. A press release stated “We developed our NVG Mount to make it simple for them to attach their GoPro cameras to the helmets they’re already using every day. The men and women serving in the military and civil services are out there every day, working in some of the most extreme conditions on earth. We are hopeful that our products can help them with their work…”

The managing partners of Golden Oak Consulting are Steve McKeon, Daniel McKeon and Joe McKeon. These are the first two federal lobbying clients for the firm.

Golden Oak Consulting is also working with another company, DuraSeal Coatings, a nanotechnology company, in Kansas City, Mo. A Golden Oak Consulting press release stated, “Golden Oak is looking forward to enhancing DuraSeal Coating’s current value position and is committed to building DuraSeal Coating’s position in the new Government market.” DuraSeal Coatings wants to sell products to the Department of Defense. In September of 2012, another firm, J. M. Burkman & Associates registered to lobby on behalf of DuraSeal Coatings in the Defense area, and specifically the “sale of coatings products to DOD.”

Folks in the Santa Clarita area are used to seeing scams perpetrated on innocent families by vicious predators who all happen to be named McKeon. This is a news account of one of the "scrupulous" McCain clans forays into what anyone would call "bad behavior," especially since it always seems to involve Mormons taking advantage of non-Mormons.

The largest creditor of a defunct retail clothing chain co-owned by U.S. Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon has accused the company-- and most of its owners-- of fraud and misrepresentation.

The accusations are part of a civil suit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court Wednesday by Coast Business Credit, a division of Southern Pacific Bank. Coast claims McKeon's four brothers, all part-owners of Howard and Phil's Western Wear, owe it about $4 million.

Under a preliminary sale agreement, expected to be finalized today, Coast will receive roughly $550,000 for the remaining assets of the broken company. But that is just a fraction of the money Coast says it is owed, and in its suit it seeks to foreclose on homes owned by the four brothers to cover part of the shortfall.

In its suit, Coast says Howard and Phil's "deliberately overstated the value and/or amount of the finished goods inventory... with the intent to deceive Coast" into giving it large cash advances.

The suit says Joseph B. McKeon, John D. McKeon, Monte B. McKeon and Timothy McKeon "participated and conspired in the submission of false reports to Coast."

Yeah... real scrupulous. It's hard to understand why even a crook like Boehner won't cut McKeon lose as the chairman of such an important and sensitive committee.

Read More

The DCCC's Plague Of New Dem Self-Funders... And Worse

Umm... actually, corporate-oriented New Dem Suzan DelBene wrote herself $5 million in personal checks to crush her middle class opponents and buy a House seat

Because of the innate nature of the Republican Party and what it has come to represent-- basically the longtime conservative quest to preserve the status quo or the reactionary quest to push for a status quo ante-- it surprises no one when you see multimillionaires like Darrell Issa (R-CA), Michael McCaul (R-TX), Fred Upton (R-MI) being "entitled" to committee chairs. Of the multimillionaires who are 50 richest Members of Congress 32 are very conservative Republicans.

Perhaps you've read that the DCCC also recruits multimillionaires to run as Democrats. Not every single multimillionaire is a villain, of course. But, all things being equal, you can probably count on most of them to not relate to the problems faced by ordinary working American families. It's sad when that doesn't only apply to Republicans but to Democrats as well. Last year Steve Israel helped crush working and middle class aspirants who wanted to run for Congress while clearing a path for more sickening ego-driven millionaires. And once they become DCCC-preferred candidates, Israel squeezes them to become politically-unhealthy self-funders.

These were some of his top recruits last cycle and how much they spent from their personal fortunes to buy their congressional seats:

• Suzan DelBene (New Dem-WA)- $2,796,879 (63%) after spending $2,284,034 (57%) in 2010
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)- $2,757,452 (63%)
• John Delaney (New Dem-MD)- $2,370,556 (54%)
• Elizabeth Esty (New Dem-CT)- $545,195 (17%)
• Bill Foster (New Dem-IL)- $500,000 (14%) after spending $545,000 in 2010 and $1,998,223 (41%) in 2008
• Denny Heck (New Dem-WA)- $99,000 (5%) after spending $350,000 (18%) in 2010

Each one rushed to join the super-corrupt, Big Business-oriented New Dems. What a coincidence! NOT. And what about Patrick Murphy, the spoiled rich kid and lifetime Republican who switched parties so he could be in Congress? He's a New Dem too, of course, but he only self-funded to the tune of $66,743. But don't worry, his rich Republican daddy started his own superPAC, American Sunrise, to funnel much more substantial sums into Patrick's campaign. And now that he's in Congress, he's been voting with the Republicans on financial and economic issues and working with right-wing crackpots to undermine the progressive agenda.

Today's Boston Globe ran a great big picture of one of the most disappointing of the Democratic freshman, New Hampshire conservative Ann Kuster, grubbing for money in a feature called For Freshmen in Congress, Courting Cash Is Job 1. Having money to defend your seat in elections is obviously essential, but if it's job 1, you don't deserve to be in Congress. And it helps explain why Kuster brags about voting whichever way Steve Israel and the DCCC tell her to vote, no matter how much she disappoints her own electoral base.

At a party-sponsored orientation session, the freshmen-- many still giddy from winning close races in which they espoused grand plans to change the Capitol’s toxic atmosphere-- were schooled in their party’s [does the DCCC define "the party?"] simple list of priorities for them.

Raise money. Raise more. Win.

The newcomers were told to devote at least four hours each day to the tedious task of raising money-- so-called dialing for dollars-- so they could build a war chest and defend their seats, according to those present. That’s twice as much time as party leaders expect them to dedicate to committee hearings and floor votes, or meetings with constituents.

Some members were flabbergasted. One rolled his eyes and walked out of the room.

But just about everyone in Congress signs on. Four months into a new session, Democrat and Republican freshmen in targeted districts say they often spend up to half their days raising money, whether through dreaded “call times” at a party-run phone bank near the Capitol, or attending fund-raisers.

“It may not be exactly like the Bataan Death March, but there are some similarities,” said one freshman representative who did not want to speak on the record for fear it would harm his campaign.

The all-consuming quest for dollars is part of Washington’s permanent, intensely waged campaign for party dominance. It cuts deeply into the typical day of lawmakers, robbing them of time they could spend building relationships with colleagues, dealing with constituent problems, and delving into policy issues. It is a major contributor to party gridlock, and keeps lawmakers dependent on the good graces of lobbyists and other special interests seeking favor on Capitol Hill.

The chase for campaign money is especially grueling for the 18 freshmen who have already been identified as top targets by the opposition in the 2014 election.

Almost immediately after being sworn into office-- or in some cases even before-- targeted politicians in both parties have been forced to defend themselves against negative attacks, bankrolled, in many cases, by the growing array of groups freed to spend without limit on elections by the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling.

Democrats and Republicans alike are compelled to sign confidential agreements with their parties’ campaign committees, pledging to meet specific fund-raising goals each quarter in exchange for a commitment of heavy financial support as the election draws near. Both parties’ campaign committees monitor their members’ progress weekly.

The Democrats’ program to protect its most vulnerable-- called “Frontline"-- commonly requires a member to promise to raise $250,000 per quarter.

Such benchmarks have had a measurable effect. The average amount raised by each freshmen in the first quarter has jumped 76 percent over the past decade to $188,313, according to data compiled for the Globe by the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that advocates for open government.

Members routinely duck out of the House office buildings, where they are prohibited by law from campaigning, and walk across the street to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee offices in the salmon-colored party headquarters. There, on the second floor, 30 to 40 legislators and their staffers squeeze into the “bullpen,” as some members have dubbed it-- a makeshift call center of about two dozen cubicles, each 2-feet wide and equipped with two land lines.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and its GOP counterpart, the National Republican Congressional Committee, function “basically like telemarketing firms,” said Tom Perriello, a Democrat from Virginia and former Frontline member who lost in 2010 after one term in the House. “You go down on any given evening and you’ve got 30 members with headsets on dialing and dialing and dialing, trying to close the deal.”

The room, devoid of decor or character, is abuzz with the sound of members courting money in all the accents of America. But it can be depressing, participants say, to witness fellow elected officials methodically working through the list of names and numbers that a staffer has organized into thick binders, or index cards, or a computer database-- only to have appeal after appeal rejected in the full hearing of their peers.

But despite such inevitable humiliations, they drive on.

“This is a deadly dull business, and you need to do anything you can think of to motivate yourself to continue doing this,” said the freshman lawmaker who compared it to the Bataan Death March.

...Party leadership is sensitive-- up to a point-- to criticism by members that the focus is too heavily skewed to fund-raising at the expense of governing. Tim Walz, a representative from Minnesota and chairman of the Democrats’ Frontline Program, said, “Unfortunately in the era of Citizens United fund-raising is a part of life, but the needs of your district and advocating for constituents always come first.”

When members are not engaged in the requisite “call time,” they attend breakfast, luncheon, and evening fund-raisers at one of many restaurants with private function rooms dotting the Hill or in one of the handsome lobbyist-owned townhouses located blocks away from the Capitol.

At a March fund-raiser at the Democratic National Committee headquarters, party leaders debuted the committee’s list of the 26 most endangered House members in the 2014 election, half of whom are freshmen.

As lawmakers mingled with lobbyists-- who paid up to $5,000 for the privilege of some face time at a gathering of elected officials-- House minority leader Nancy Pelosi called out legislators’ names, ceremoniously disbursing tens of thousands of dollars from her own campaign coffers over the course of the evening. Her personal largesse is just the beginning of support they will receive from the party and party leaders, as they seek to defend themselves and their seats from partisan fire.

Party leaders introduce freshmen to lobbyists right off the bat and actively encourage them to start working the phones, said Representative Alan Grayson, a Democrat from Florida who was a Frontline member in 2009, lost his seat in 2010, and was reelected in 2012 in a newly created district that’s considered safe.

The pressure to raise money opens the door for special interests, a timeless source of ready money, now available in greater amounts than ever.

"Of course they are all people with specific agendas, generally corporate agendas. So that’s how the ball gets rolling in terms of the interaction that leads to lobbyists influencing legislation, and members turning to lobbyists for money," Grayson said.

Some of the newer lawmakers say privately they feel frustrated by the grinding process and the accommodations it requires. But most declined to even talk about the grab for cash, seeking to downplay the demands of fund-raising on their time and attention.

New Hampshire’s Ann McLane Kuster, a freshman representative elected in November, is among the Democrats’ Frontline corps who has plunged into the fund-raising fray with gusto. She tapped Washington lobbyists, unions, special-interest groups, and ordinary citizens for $316,880 in contributions in the first three months of the year. That is more than double the average haul of House freshmen in safe districts and places her eighth among freshmen Democrats.

But Kuster would not discuss details of the fund-raising side of her new job. Through her staff, she rebuffed multiple requests for interviews on the subject of the permanent campaign. Approached in a Capitol hallway and asked to describe her views of the rush for money, she replied only, “I am fortunate to have great support."

“I’m not distracted by any kind of campaigning at this point,” Kuster added, before hustling off. “I’m not thinking about the politics.”

A crucial swing state, New Hampshire has been the scene of some of the most intensely partisan campaigns in recent years. Kuster’s district has switched between Democrats and Republicans three times in the past four elections. In the last election, Kuster was the top recipient of DCCC money.

Even before an opponent has formally announced plans to challenge Kuster, the National Republican Congressional Committee has begun weekly attacks on her, hoping to soften her up for an eventual GOP rival. It released a Web video highlighting nearly $11,000 Kuster owed in local property taxes. In April the NRCC, in a publicity stunt, delivered tax preparation software to Kuster’s office.

Keep in mind what Grayson said about the sleazy K Street lobbyists many of his colleagues are on the phone with all day begging for money: "[T]hey are all people with specific agendas, generally corporate agendas. So that’s how the ball gets rolling in terms of the interaction that leads to lobbyists influencing legislation, and members turning to lobbyists for money." So far this cycle, Grayson is the only incumbent on the Blue America endorsed-candidates list. There's no chance Ann Kuster will be back on that list this cycle.

Read More

Lobbyists Trying To Decide Who To Make Chair Of House Armed Services Committee When McKeon Retires Or Is Indicted

Wednesday, Michelle Ringuette from Amnesty International pointed to Buck McKeon's shameful hypocrisy over the den of torture that Guantánamo has become. But McKeon is unlikely to be in Congress much longer and the Military Industrial Complex top lobbyists are already working out who they want Boehner to make the next chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

McKeon, struggling with a still under wraps national security scandal stemming from his gambling addiction and immense sums he owes organized crime operative (and China puppet) Sheldon Adelson, is under immense pressure to retire. He's already told his closest associates and staffers that he won't run for reelection in 2014 and will seek a lobbying job instead. One of the most bribed congressman by the Military Industrial Complex in the history of the country ($1,396,400)-- and the father of the domestic spying drone industry-- should have no problem finding a job on K Street.

And the Military Industrial Complex will have no trouble in finding another patsy to run the House Armed Services Committee for them whether it's Boehner or Hoyer-- K Street's two top employees in Congress-- calling the shots. Their top candidates, along with the legalistic bribes they have accepted from arms makers, are:

• Mac Thornberry (R-TX)- $546,550
• Randy Forbes (R-VA)- $524,450
• Mike Turner (R-OH)- $446,720
• Adam Smith (D-WA)- $472,700

Politico coverage is-- as expected-- hackish and plain wrong. Even the DCCC, which ignored McKeon's obvious vulnerabilities in 2012 has moved to recruit Lee Rogers to run again in 2014 after seeing polling that shows McKeon would probably lose next year. Last year his 56-44% victory over Rogers was the closest call of his career... but budding pundits Juana Summers and Austin Wright have decided he "looks like a shoo-in." That's the problem with a shockingly shallow and lazy Beltway-based punditocracy.

“Congressman McKeon represents what’s wrong with Washington-- from out-of-touch sequester policies that hurt the local military to ethical questions that raise real concerns,” said Jesse Ferguson, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Even if McKeon decides to run, Ferguson said, Democrats would make it a tougher fight this time around.

“There are enough Democratic voters in this district, so Congressman McKeon should certainly be worried that this Republican congressional agenda makes him vulnerable and his best bet might be to get out while he can.”

McKeon took the helm of the committee in 2011, replacing Missouri Democrat Ike Skelton. McKeon had served as the committee’s ranking member from 2009, when President Barack Obama picked John McHugh, a New York Republican, to become secretary of the Army.

The Flash Report, an influential California political blog, reported last month that McKeon had been “talking with prominent political leaders in his district and informing them that he may be retiring at the end of his current term.” The site said it was “only a matter of time before McKeon makes his announcement formally.”

McKeon’s staffers have told industry leaders a decision could come before the end of this year.

But whether McKeon runs again or not, because of committee term limits, the Armed Services Committee could get a new chairman next Congress, provided Republicans hold the House and McKeon doesn’t receive a waiver to retain his seat.

Industry sources [which industry sources, the politics industry or the weapons-manufacturing industry?] pointed to Texas Republican Mac Thornberry as the committee’s “heir apparent,” and said he has been actively working to position himself to succeed McKeon... He has also been working to prove his fundraising mettle, hoping to show Republican congressional leaders that he has what it takes to be a successful committee chairman, according to a GOP defense industry source.

While it’s still early in the 2014 cycle, Thornberry has already raised more than $37,000 for the National Republican Congressional Committee. During the 2012 cycle, he raised more than $267,000.

And the list of top donors to his campaign committee reads like a who’s who of premier defense firms. Last cycle, Thornberry received major donations from Northrop Grumman, Textron, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and United Technologies, among others.

“He’s definitely been trying to position himself for that eventuality,” an industry lobbyist said. “If it’s not this cycle, it will certainly be the next one.”

Still, the lobbyist cautioned, “It’s never a lock with this leadership. … They’ve kind of thrown out the seniority system. It really has to do with what your current relationship with the leadership is.”

Thornberry could face GOP challenges from Virginia Rep. Randy Forbes, who chairs the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, or Ohio Rep. Mike Turner, who chairs the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee. In conversations with lobbyists and industry sources, their names came up time and again as possibilities for the committee chairmanship.

Both Turner and Forbes have similar ability to attract the defense industry’s top donors. Last cycle, Forbes raked in high-dollar contributions from SAIC, BAE Systems and Raytheon, while Northrop Grumman and SAIC made big donations to Turner.

Neither Turner nor Forbes has contributed to the NRCC so far this cycle, according to Federal Election Commission records. Spokesmen for the two declined comment.

A Republican congressional aide suggested Thornberry isn’t necessarily a lock if McKeon were to retire.

“I think Mr. Turner and Mr. Forbes are really the ones to look toward. Mr. Thornberry didn’t move up. He’s not really someone that people look to as a heavyweight on HASC issues,” the aide said, adding that Forbes and Turner-- both subcommittee chairmen-- are “the ones that people talk about and look to as national security experts.”

When it comes to fundraising, the aide said, “You can probably put a corpse in a wheelchair and they can raise money as a committee chair. Just raising money is a small part when it comes to running a massive and important organization such as a House Armed Services Committee.”

Even so, another industry lobbyist said he didn’t believe Forbes or Turner would mount a serious challenge to Thornberry.

“Mac is the vice chairman and McKeon is making it clear to people that he would like him to succeed him,” the lobbyist said. “In the end, I don’t believe that they will [challenge Thornberry]. I think they’re going to make some noise about it, but they’re not serious contenders.”

“It’s Mac’s turn-- he’s got the seniority,” the lobbyist added. “They’ve skipped over people who had seniority before, but it wouldn’t make sense to skip over someone who’s got the experience and has done all the right things. …They only skip over people who are pains in the ass.”

But McKeon might not be in a position to get what he wants, the GOP aide said.

“I find it interesting that anyone would think that Mr. McKeon, the guy who was responsible for not standing up to leadership on sequestration, would get to name the next chairman,” the aide said. “If McKeon can’t stand up for the prerogatives of the committee as well as speak out on an issue as devastating as sequestration, what ability does he have to help name a name?”

And, of course, no one thinks it in the least bit odd to go to a much of overpaid, sleaze-bag lobbyists, whose primary function is robbing the taxpayers blind, to find out what plans Boehner has for staffing one of Congress' most important committees. But like the man said, "You can probably put a corpse in a wheelchair..." or a drone.

Read More