et tu, culture of corruption?

Ahh, the sweet taint of cold hard cash. Luckily, Democrats are immune to its contamination. You see when the left says they are free of any ‘scandalized contributions’ what they mean is that even the most vile, corrupt, and contaminated money becomes clean once it’s in Democrat hands. It’s better they keep the money (that they never received from Abramoff), so it can stay clean:

Sen. Patty Murray (D), “…returning contributions from Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff would ‘taint’ the tribes.”

OLYMPIA -- Sen. Patty Murray said Friday that returning contributions from Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff would "taint" the tribes.

The state's senior senator, a Seattle Democrat, said there was nothing wrong with accepting more than $40,000 in campaign donations from out-of-state tribes represented by the disgraced lobbyist.

Abramoff's excesses have been halted, and Congress is considering myriad ethics reforms, she said. ~seattle.pi.com

Yes, Democrats are a special breed. I'm not at all surprised they'd say giving the money back would 'taint' the donors, what surprises me is that they slipped and said it publicly. Maybe it's a culture thing? Maybe they really believe themselves when they say they are above it all, untouched by the vulgarities of life, living on a higher moral plane, where even doing what they define as evil and corrupt, (when it's done by others), is quite the opposite in their case.

Reid has assailed Republicans' ties to Abramoff while refusing to return any of his own donations. He argues there's no need to return the money. ~AP story via breitbart.com

No need? But I thought any appearance of impropriety is proof of corruption? ...Apparently not.

Usually, what this debate consists of is blaming Republicans for corruption when an (R) is involved and demanding their: resignation, impeachment, tar-and-feathering... or what have you. But when a (D) is involved it becomes a campaign finance issue. Meaning that the Democrat or leftist politician is not to blame, IT'S THE MONEY! Otherwise upstanding and conscientious (Democrat) public servants are somehow duped, (similar to the vote on the war I might imagine), into taking money and doing favors for contributions. It's all really, 'money corrupting the political process'.

"Contaminated by contact"

What is it about lobbying that is supposed to be corrupt? Is it the money? Or is it what politicians do for receiving the money?

We're told that 'the Abramoff scandal' is a devastating blow to the Republican party and that NO Democrats have EVER received ANY money from Abramoff and as such are entirely clear of this scandal.

Sen. Harry Reid (D), for instance, is on the frontline slinging mud at Republicans for their 'corrupt ties' to Abramoff. Any money any Republicans received from him and his ilk surely means they are dastardly corrupt indeed. As Harry Reid describes it, the Republican party is more dangerous and corrupt than the mob!

I have been in public service for over 40 years and never been as disillusioned as I am today. In 1977, I was appointed chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission. It was a difficult time for the gaming industry and Las Vegas, which were being overrun by organized crime.

During the next few years, there would be threats on my life, FBI stings and even a car bomb placed in my family's station wagon. What is happening today in Washington is every bit as corrupt as when Las Vegas was run by the mob, but the consequences for our country are worse.

These Republicans have created the most corrupt government in our history. Their "K Street Project" is a shakedown machine that would make the mafia blush. We cleaned up Las Vegas, and we will clean up Washington DC. ~usliberals.about.com

I am reminded of Jimmy Swaggart's passionate and over the top sermons against sexual immorality just before he was caught with a hooker.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wrote at least four letters helpful to Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff, and the senator's staff regularly had contact with the disgraced lobbyist's team about legislation affecting other clients.

The activities detailed in billing records and correspondence obtained by The Associated Press are far more extensive than previously disclosed. They occurred over three years as Reid collected nearly $68,000 in donations from Abramoff's firm, lobbying partners and clients.
~AP story via breitbart.com

Oh, no... not ONE Democrat has ever accepted even ONE dollar of tainted money from Abramoff-- EVER. Apparently meaning that donations from his firm, lobbying partners, and clients is completely different from donations from him as an individual, and no doubt if more than ONE democrat has ever accepted more than a dollar the statement is still true, semantically.

Incredibly, Democrats have no shame at all when pointing the finger at others for the stuff that they do. To brazenly say that Republicans are like the mob and mention car bombs, and death threats in regards to how corrupt Republicans are -- for what? Receiving campaign contributions from or directed by a lobbyist? I guess these Democrats actually think that the American people are that dumb. (Insert liberal quoting Goebels here.)

Yet, part of the fallback accusation is that more Republicans received 'tainted money' than Democrats. Surely just receiving a contribution is not corrupt?

[HARRY REID:] Think about this, the "pay and play" program. You as a lobbyist, you pay, and we Republicans will take care of you legislatively. That's why it hasn't come to the forefront. The arrogance of power, the culture of corruption has not come to the attention of the American public as it has the past several months.

JIM LEHRER: But it's been going on for years and years-- the very things that you and the Republicans agree on to correct have been legal up till now. In other words, these are not the things that Abramoff is charged with or any of these people that you say are going off in handcuffs, right? pbs.org

'Pay and play' corruption...?

Reid also intervened on government matters at least five times in ways helpful to Abramoff's tribal clients, once opposing legislation on the Senate floor and four times sending letters pressing the Bush administration on tribal issues. Reid collected donations around the time of each action.

Ethics rules require senators to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest in collecting contributions around the times they take official acts benefiting donors.

Abramoff's firm also hired one of Reid's top legislative aides as a lobbyist. The aide later helped throw a fundraiser for Reid at Abramoff's firm that raised donations from several of his lobbying partners.

And Reid's longtime chief of staff accepted a free trip to Malaysia arranged by a consulting firm connected to Abramoff that recently has gained attention in the influence-peddling investigation that has gripped the Capitol. ~breitbart

Which is more corrupt? Money or Politicians?

So, instead of seeking real solutions it just becomes yet another political attack on Republicans. The truth is that it is people who are corrupt. Money is just money. It's neither good nor bad, but like an automobile or a toothpick, it is useful and essential depending on what you need it for. But, because of a skewed and widely held definition of money, what it is, how it is acquired, and the particular system within which we all acquire it, many have accepted the false premise that it is money that corrupts politics.

The truth of the matter is that it is politics which corrupts money, not the other way around. Luckily, I am here to give you a different/alternative perspective. To 'open your mind to treason' as it were. (Don't be afraid... it is only your worldview which is in danger.)

Let's start with why in the world anyone would want to give money to a politician, a class of people generally ranked below car salesman and crack addicts. Do you ever ask yourself why there are people lined up with bags full of cash to give to this politician or that? Is there ever a legitimate motivation for giving a politician money?

Turns out, there is. It's called politics. The ability to participate in politics specifically is what freedom of speech is all about, first and foremost. (You didn't think it was just so you could put a crucifix in a jar of urine did you?)

It seems that, in times past, opposing the political party in power meant that you might get jailed, executed, or have all of your property confiscated-- just for supporting the rival party. This may soon be the case again however, because some of us are trying to define money itself as corruption, rather than any act of corruption itself.

I can't think of a worse solution to a false problem than 'nationalizing' political campaigns.

For many years, America’s reliance on privately financed campaigns has effectively disenfranchised large portions of society. With each year, the voice of the average American is becoming increasingly weaker, while the influence of large corporations and special interests groups grows stronger. But it is the fundamental right of every American to have full access to and an equal voice in our political system. The legislative staff of Public Campaign works with Congressional offices to advocate legislation that protects this most fundamental right. We believe that comprehensive campaign finance reform that embraces full public financing – Clean Money Campaign Reform – is the mechanism to reclaim democracy of, by and for the American people. publicampaign.org

"Not one dime went to any Democrat or any Democratic organization" ~Howard Dean, DNC Chairman

[H]egemonic Word count: 1607