Views » December 3, 2004

Souls for Sale

By Brian Cook

House Majority Leader Tom “The Hammer” DeLay (R-Texas) is the most loathsome politician to be retched onto the national stage in recent memory. To call him a shit would be to slander feces, which, to its credit, is the natural by-product of a nutritive process. DeLay can claim no such distinction.

The normally dormant House Ethics Committee recently hit DeLay with a barrage of rebukes for actions ranging from his shady fundraisers with energy execs to his misuse of Federal Aviation Administration resources for partisan purposes to his attempted bribery of a fellow House member’s vote. Meanwhile, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee has been investigating the ludicrous $45 million that two of DeLay’s close associates charged four Indian tribes in lobbying fees.

Then there’s DeLay’s political action committee. He created Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC) to fill the coffers of Texas Republican state legislative candidates, who once elected would redraw districts for the benefit of Texas Republican House candidates. TRMPAC raised $600,000 from corporations, a no-no according to Texas campaign finance laws. A grand jury investigation has returned 32 indictments, including two for money laundering against TRMPAC’s executive director and a chief DeLay aide. The two men had sent $190,000 in corporate “soft money” contributions to the Republican National Committee, which waited two weeks before reallocating it as legal “hard money” to seven Texas House candidates. DeLay has yet to be indicted, but Ronnie Earle, the Austin DA investigating TRMPAC, hasn’t ruled out that possibility, insisting that “anyone who has committed a crime is a target.”

To shield their rainmaker, House Republicans on November 17 rescinded a rule that would have stripped DeLay of his post should he be indicted. (In 1993, then-minority GOP members had created the rule to strip a slew of indicted House Democrats of their leadership and committee chair posts.)

As predictable as the Republicans’ rank hypocrisy was the Democrats’ “shocked” response. “Republicans have reached a new low,” lamented Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Added Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.): “The Republicans [have] sold their collective soul.”

Leaving aside the misshapen wraith the Republicans’ “soul” brings to mind, we should take Hoyer at his word. Who better than a Democrat to know how much a soul fetches on the free market? Were it not for the Dems’ own Faustian bargain with corporate lobbyists, they could have rid the nation of DeLay’s foul fundraising years ago.

In 1998, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sued three shadowy DeLay-related fundraising operations under the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. If certified by a federal judge, RICO suits allow plaintiffs vast access to all of the defendant’s relevant papers and records. When Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson certified the DCCC’s suit, it appeared the dark nexus of DeLay’s fundraising operations would finally see the light of day. But the DCCC settled the case before going to trial.

Many suspect the Democrats feared that going to trial would give the Republicans access to their own fundraising schemes and that any jury-mandated reforms of the campaign finance system would affect them as well. Thus, having temporarily slowed the DeLay juggernaut, the Democrats gave up the opportunity to institute lasting reform.

This consistent commitment to political expediency over principle suggests DeLay may be the unvarnished truth of the Democrats themselves. Like Kerry’s critique of Bush’s handling of the Iraq war, they don’t necessarily disagree with what DeLay does, just his excessive way of doing it. To remedy a campaign finance system that serves only the wealthy, Democrats need to examine their own culpability and offer real alternatives. “Clean Money, Clean Election” reforms that provide an even playing field for candidates would be a good place to start (www.publicampaign.org). There is no reason for DeLay.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  It only goes to prove the old saying:  “A good Republican will not only sell his own mother on the corner he will try to sell yours too!”

  Posted by magistre on Dec 4, 2004 at 9:41 PM

  Last I heard the republicans were considering changing THEIR rule.  Reguardless of if they have or are considering changing THEIR rule it is despicable.  I am a republican and Delay needs to step down, if he skirts around this that is unacceptable.  If you, as a party, are going to claim morality you need to act on it.

  Posted by giantsox on Dec 5, 2004 at 2:16 AM

  As the article says, they changed it on November 17th.  Many of the despicable representatives don’t even have the nuts to admit that they voted for it, since it was done in a voice vote.

  The rationale behind the move was that they were protecting Delay from possible prosecution by Travis County DA Ronnie Earle, who they say would be motivated by partisan politics.  Only problem with this argument is that in his tenure as DA Earle has prosecuted more than twice as many Democrats as Republicans for abuse of political power related crimes.  As usual, the Republicans won’t let facts get in the way of a good smear campaign.  Pathetic.

  Posted by Mattdog on Dec 5, 2004 at 4:34 PM

  Now this is the kind of article I respect, generally. It does indulge in some name-calling by “slandering feces”, which doesn’t impress me much, but by and large it’s a respectable piece. Doesn’t pretend to be “unbiased” (whatever that really means), but takes a real and unmistakable stand and, much more important, it backs itself with citations of evidence that can be checked and cross-checked, falsified or verified. It’s unfortunate that campaign finance isn’t a very sexy issue to the citizenry at large, unless of course there’s a massive scandal that can be reported by the networx. But keeping the campaign fundraising system on an ethical footing goes right to the heart of the legitimacy of our elections. Which makes the Dems failure to pursue authentic reform by settling the suit before trial as disgusting as DeLay’s shenanigans. I guess if one side is profitting by swimming in shit, the other side feels they must wade in as well. Just feeds the perception that it doesn’t matter which party you vote for, which benefits incumbents no matter how unsavory they are.

  Posted by Kuya on Dec 6, 2004 at 1:41 AM

  Do the Dems even HAVE a rule such as the one the Reps are bypassing?

  Posted by curious on Dec 6, 2004 at 3:26 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 8 posts.

Also featured Cutting Our Benefits
A Long Climb
People vs. Empire

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Brian Cook

• Watching The Watchers
  Mass Observation returns for the Obama inauguration. Posted on February 20, 2009
• Won’t Get Fooled Again
  (Well … maybe just one more time.) Posted on February 13, 2009
• Ban the Cluster Bomb
  More than 100 countries have agreed to stop using them. Guess which one hasn'tPosted on December 1, 2008
• Sleepwalking Through Seattle
  Battle in Seattle is a well-intentioned effort that ultimately misses the markPosted on September 19, 2008
• Unholy Allies
  In March 2007, Al Gore triumphantly returned to the Senate to testify before… morePosted on August 12, 2008