RE: The "Tollbooth." Wanna try to get a word in edgewise? No problem. Just bring your checkbook!

Politicians’ Extortion Racket

By PETER SCHWEIZER

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — WE have long assumed that the infestation of special interest money in Washington is at the root of so much that ails our politics. But what if we’ve had it wrong? What if instead of being bribed by wealthy interests, politicians are engaged in a form of legal extortion designed to extract campaign contributions?

Consider this: of the thousands of bills introduced in Congress each year, only roughly 5 percent become law. Why do legislators bother proposing so many bills? What if many of those bills are written not to be passed but to pressure people into forking over cash?

This is exactly what is happening. Politicians have developed a dizzying array of legislative tactics to bring in money.

Take the maneuver known inside the Beltway as the “tollbooth.” Here the speaker of the House or a powerful committee chairperson will create a procedural obstruction or postponement on the eve of an important vote. Campaign contributions are then implicitly solicited. If the tribute offered by those in favor of the bill’s passage is too small (or if the money from opponents is sufficiently high), the bill is delayed and does not proceed down the legislative highway.

House Speaker John A. Boehner appears to be a master of the tollbooth. In 2011, he collected a total of over $200,000 in donations from executives and companies in the days before holding votes on just three bills. He delayed scheduling a vote for months on the widely supported Wireless Tax Fairness Act, and after he finally announced a vote, 37 checks from wireless-industry executives totaling nearly $40,000 rolled in. He also delayed votes on the Access to Capital for Job Creators Act and the Small Company Capital Formation Act, scoring $91,000 from investment banks and private equity firms, $32,450 from bank holding companies and $46,500 from self-described investors — all in the 48 hours between scheduling the vote and the vote’s actually being held on the House floor.

Another tactic that politicians use is something beltway insiders call “milker bills.” These are bills designed to “milk” donations from threatened individuals or businesses. The real trick is to pit two industries against each other and pump both for donations, thereby creating a “double milker” bill.

President Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. seemed to score big in 2011 using the milker tactic in connection with two bills: the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act. By pitting their supporters in Silicon Valley who opposed the bills against their allies in Hollywood who supported the measures, Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden were able to create a sort of fund-raising arms race.

In the first half of 2011, Silicon Valley had chipped in only $1.7 million to Mr. Obama’s political campaign. The president announced that he would “probably” sign antipiracy legislation — a stance that pleased Hollywood and incensed Silicon Valley. The tech industry then poured millions into Mr. Obama’s coffers in the second half of 2011. By January of 2012, Hollywood had donated $4.1 million to Mr. Obama.

Then, suddenly, on Jan. 14, 2012, the White House announced that it had problems with the antipiracy bills and neither passed. “He didn’t just throw us under the bus,” one film executive and longtime supporter of Mr. Obama anonymously told The Financial Times, “he ran us down, reversed the bus and ran over us again.”

To be sure, not all legislative maneuvers are extortive; sincere and conscientious political deeds occur. Still, the idea that Washington gridlock is an outgrowth of rank partisanship and ideological entrenchment misses a more compelling explanation of our political stasis: gridlock, legislative threats and fear help prime the donation pump.

The reason these fund-raising extortion tactics succeed is that politicians deploy them while bills are making their way through Congress, when lawmakers possess maximum leverage. That’s why at least 27 state legislatures have put restrictions on allowing state politicians to receive contributions while their legislatures are in session.

Why not do the same in Washington? It would reduce politicians’ penchant for cashing in on manufactured crises. Perhaps it would even compel Congress to be more efficient while in session.

We have focused for too long on protecting politicians from special interests. It’s time we stop pitying the poor politicians and start being wary of them — for they play the shakedown game as well as anyone.

Peter Schweizer, a fellow at the Hoover Institution, is the author of “Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes and Line Their Own Pockets.”

URL @ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/op...X4BpmbztA&_r=0

Money talks bullshit walks.

LittleEva, that is the STUPIDEST response to that post any one could fathom. You are THE quintessential dimwit.

LittleEva, that is the STUPIDEST response to that post any one could fathom. You are THE quintessential dimwit. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Didn't read the op did you little Eva? I knew you had a hard time grasping a whole sentence, but now you are stumbling over four words. About time for your old dim ass to throw in the towel and retire to the home.

So, LittleEva, from that we can only presume you mean that anything offered to a politician, other than money, to influence or support a position, is bullshit. Is that correct, my feeble-minded friend?

So, LittleEva, from that we can only presume you mean that anything offered to a politician, other than money, to influence or support a position, is bullshit. Is that correct, my feeble-minded friend? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

OMG little Eva have one of your grandchildren explain it to you. Tisk Tisk poor COG is slipping fast.

Peter Schweitzer 's remedy is standard liberalism and not a solution to runaway government that is increasingly corrupt (by money and power) and disconnected to the will of the people.

The solution is a smaller, less intrusive federal government. Take the power out of Washington and return decision making to the States.

Peter Schweitzer 's remedy is standard liberalism and not a solution to runaway government that is increasingly corrupt (by money and power) and disconnected to the will of the people. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

"Standard liberalism?" Are you kidding?

The author merely suggested that it might be a pretty good idea to do something about perverse financial incentives and the corruption-enabling practices he described.

In what universe is that an element of "standard liberalism?"

The author suggests the solution is more government regulation to solve the problem...it won't......the problem is too much money flowing into Washington....it is corrupting the process.....

The solution isn't more regulations; the problem is too much concentration of power (and money) in the hands of Washington politicians..............the only real solution to the problem is to downsize the federal bureaucracies and return the powers back to the states !

Politicians always find a around the rules; that is what the Leadership PACs are - a way around previous attempts to reign in influence peddling and corruption.

"Standard liberalism?" Are you kidding?

The author merely suggested that it might be a pretty good idea to do something about perverse financial incentives and the corruption-enabling practices he described.

In what universe is that an element of "standard liberalism?" Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

as long as you've been around Whirl-a-turd you still haven't figured out what universe he's in ?

we need a poll ...

I actually read the article; I don't think CM did....he doesn't seem to grasp the notion that Schweitzer proposed more regulations to solve a problem that previous regulations didn't solve..

The problem with Washington isn't we need more regulation but we need less influence; the only way to reduce that is to downsize the bureaucracies and reduce power in Washington. Return most functions back to the states.

In fact Schwitzer looks to the States to solve the problem; he just wants to federalize what the states are doing...again, downsize Washington and return the power to the states. That is best tonic for what ailes Washington and America.

I actually read the article; I don't think CM did... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Say what??

I'm the one who posted the article. Remember?

Here's a very simple little thing about regulations that you need to keep in mind:

Some regulations are desirable and even necessary. Many result from (frequently forlorn) attempts to reach a desirable outcome by scattershooting regulations almost everywhere, irrespective of whether they're good, bad, or ugly. (And, of course, we have all too many of the latter.)

See the difference?

If so, it seems to me that you might not be on board with the practice of allowing untrammeled levels of corruption.

By the way, Schweizer is a conservative. Ever heard of Stanford University's Hoover Institution? If not, look it up. I hardly think that he's promoting what you referred to as "standard liberalism."

as long as you've been around Whirl-a-turd you still haven't figured out what universe he's in ?

we need a poll ... Originally Posted by CJ7

Lord only knows what universe he inhabits, but it seems to be quite an insular bubble, doesn't it?

In his little fantasy world, anyone to the left of Limbaugh is assumed to be a flaming liberal.

Just because you posted (the article) , doesn't me you read, much less understood the Schweizer piece.

And yes I know who Schweizer is, beyond being affiliated with "Stanford based HI" (wtf does Stanford have to do with conservative credentials), he writes for Breitbart.com. But writing for Breitbart or being an author of Hoover Institute articles doesn't prove up Schweizer's conservative pedigree.

If you read the Schweizer piece you missed one of Schweizer's key points -

"That’s why at least 27 state legislatures have put restrictions on allowing state politicians to receive contributions while their legislatures are in session.
"

"Why not do the same in Washington? It would reduce politicians’ penchant for cashing in on manufactured crises. Perhaps it would even compel Congress to be more efficient while in session. " MORE FEDERAL REGULATIONS THAT WON'T WORK AND WILL EXPAND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT !

Clearly Schweizer thinks the solution is in more federal regulations; why you buy into this line of thinking is a sign of your own stupidity...

More regulations haven't stopped the ramp up of Congressional corruption/greed. It only presents a minor road bump.

The only real solution to the arrogant corruption that defines Washington is to downsize it. Return the power to the states ! Take the money and power away from the federal bureaucracies and the Congressional politicians and aids who control them.

OMG snick

Just because you posted (the article) , doesn't me you read, much less understood the Schweizer piece...

If you read the Schweizer piece you missed one of Schweizer's key points -

"That’s why at least 27 state legislatures have put restrictions on allowing state politicians to receive contributions while their legislatures are in session.
"

"Why not do the same in Washington? It would reduce politicians’ penchant for cashing in on manufactured crises. Perhaps it would even compel Congress to be more efficient while in session. " MORE FEDERAL REGULATIONS THAT WON'T WORK AND WILL EXPAND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT !

Clearly Schweizer thinks the solution is in more federal regulations; why you buy into this line of thinking is a sign of your own stupidity... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

No, I didn't "miss" one of the author's key points. Go back and read my prior posts; especially the one about some regulations being desirable, and in many cases necessary. This shouldn't be a "conservative vs. liberal" issue. All of us should be in favor of better, more responsible governance, and of getting the corrupting influence of money out of politics to the maximum extent possible. In any event, your characterization of the article as "standard liberalism" demonstrates a truly stupefying level of ignorance. You (of all people!) would do yourself a favor by refraining from hurling insults at the intelligence of those with whom you disagree, especially during the course of discussing an issue of which you obviously have no understanding.

Do you seriously have no clue as to why many of us regard you with utter contempt? You habitually come in here and spam the forum with countless redundant threads, often accompanied by loony rants and gratuitous insults. Recently you even extended a middle finger toward others in this forum by defiantly stating that you'll just spam the place with as many redundant threads as you damned well please, and nobody can do anything about it. How charming.

And you seem to inhabit the sort of insular bubble dominated by right-wing bloggers and talk show hosts. Remember all the threads you started about a year ago for the sole purpose of reporting how well Romney's campaign was doing in certain states? You gloated loudly and constantly about his big upcoming "victory." (Oops!) You've continually demonstrated a level of cluelessness that's simply astonishing. You rarely make even a rudimentary effort to comprehend or learn much of anything about anything.

Sadly, the conservative and libertarian sides of this forum's debates are dominated by a handful of C student-types who are far better at annoying and insulting people than they are at offering any cogent arguments.

If you and a couple of other maroons are actually secret progressives on a quest to make conservatives and libertarians look as obnoxious and as stupid as possible, you're doing a helluva job!