BCT Editorial – 4/11/05

This page was last updated on April 14, 2005.

One master; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 11, 2005.

I was wondering when the Times would jump on the “get DeLay” bandwagon.

The editorial wants us to believe the Times is concerned about money in politics in general, but I have my doubts given the editorial focused on a specific individual – a political opponent, no less – and its similarity to DeLay “hit pieces” in other liberal outlets.

For what it’s worth, I don’t know if Rep. DeLay has acted improperly anymore than I know if any other Congressman has acted improperly. All we’ve had is innuendo and recycled “news” stories. Even The New York Times was caught trolling for authors who would write anti-DeLay opinion columns. If DeLay opponents believe they can prove Rep. DeLay did anything illegal, they should file charges.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The time has come to cleanse the Augean stables that Congress has become.

“House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is under fire, and deservedly so. From questionable free trips to having family members on his political action and campaign committees, from accepting corporate donations for his defense fund to questionable campaign finances back home in Texas, DeLay has become the poster boy for the way in which money has corrupted Congress.”

[RWC] “Deservedly so?” The editorial fails to note many of these charges were made at least two years ago and that no charges have been filed in all this time. Indeed, so far no one is even claiming Rep. DeLay did anything illegal. As the rest of the “get DeLay” team, the Times is simply recycling old news and passing off innuendo as fact.

Recycling old news is a common practice. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette recently had a column on this subject. It took that author 10 paragraphs to get around to mentioning that no one had accused Rep. DeLay of doing anything illegal.

“To concentrate on DeLay, though, would be to miss the source of the stench - Congress has been turned into a tool of the money interests. DeLay is not the exception; he is the rule.”

[RWC] The author wants us to believe he is not picking on Rep. DeLay, yet he mentions DeLay’s name four times, dedicates four paragraphs to Rep. DeLay, and yet doesn’t mention anyone else even once.

The author could have convinced me this wasn’t a hit piece if he had mentioned House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had been fined $21,000 by the FEC for illegal campaign contributions or that Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) had been fined $130,000 in 2003.

“DeLay is right when he says (as reported by The Associated Press) that the payments his wife and daughter have received from his political action and campaign committees, more than $500,000 since 2001, are something that other lawmakers have done.”

[RWC] The author wrote this sentence to make it sound like Rep. DeLay is doing something unethical. The author fails to mention Rep. DeLay’s wife and daughter run his campaigns. Those “payments” were wages. I don’t know the going salary for campaign managers, but $500,000 for two people for four years doesn’t sound outrageous. That’s $62,500/person/year before federal payroll taxes, or about $53,000/year after Socialist Security and Medicare taxes but before income taxes.

The phrase “the payments … are something that other lawmakers have done” makes it sound infrequent and/or in the past. In truth, the practice is common. Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) is only one example. Going back 44 years, what about JFK appointing his brother Robert to Attorney General?

“He is right when he says that he thought a 1997 trip to Moscow had been paid for by a nonprofit organization. It’s the same don’t-look-too-hard, don’t-ask-any-questions mentality that allows members of Congress to enjoy free golf outings and other excursions courtesy of major corporations or wealthy individuals and claim they did not receive special treatment.”

[RWC] When the author mentioned “major corporations or wealthy individuals,” I wonder why he didn’t include labor unions?

“Almost every member of Congress has two constituencies - a voting constituency and a money constituency. However, they only serve one master - the money constituency.

“One reason for this is congressional gerrymandering. Voters don’t so much elect their representatives as much as those officials (courtesy of their cohorts in state legislatures) pick their voters.”

[RWC] I can’t be sure, but I suspect the author wants us to believe all redistricting is gerrymandering because a lot of recent redistricting has occurred because Republicans are winning in previously Democrat strongholds. If the reverse were true, I doubt the Times would be worried about gerrymandering.

“Another reason is that the money constituency provides them with the campaign funds that allow them to scare off potential opponents.

“It’s hard to defeat a well-funded incumbent who has had his/her district gerrymandered to minimize any possible political challenge.”

[RWC] True, but how does the Times explain Rep. Melissa Hart? Given political demographics in her district, even a marginally capable Democrat should be able to win. Indeed, Ms. Hart faced a weak candidate the last two elections yet won by relatively small margins.

Don’t get me wrong; I don’t support gerrymandering. I’d like to see districts that make geographic sense regardless of who gets elected.

“The corrosive effect of gerrymandering and money - the two are intertwined - cannot be underestimated. The American people aren’t stupid. They know that when it comes to congressional elections, their votes, lip service to the contrary, don’t count.”

[RWC] I wonder if this was the Times position prior to 1994 when Democrats controlled Congress almost exclusively for over 60 years.

“They know that when the general election rolls around, they don’t elect lawmakers as much as they do rubber stamp a fait accompli.

“Both parties are addicted to special interest money, and neither is looking out for the good of the American people. It will take a Herculean effort, but a third party must rise in American politics, one that looks out for the greater good of all, not an elite few and their trained sycophants in Congress.”

[RWC] I’d like to know the author’s definition of “special interest.” The truth is, every group or person that contributes to a candidate or party is a “special interest.”

I wonder if we would have seen the last sentence if Democrats still controlled Congress. On second thought, I know the answer.

Does anyone care to guess the economic, political, and social philosophies the Times would like to see in a “third party?”