The Reward Method of Corruption

by: David Sirota

Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 08:00


The Reward Method of corruption is pretty straightforward: As opposed to the Payoff Method whereby a campaign contribution is made and then a favor is legislated, the Reward Method gives a politician a goodie after a favor is done, sorta like a dog being given a treat for rolling over.

We often think of this only in terms of campaign contributions, but as the Politico notes, there is another - arguably more powerful - Reward Method at work in Washington these days:

Very often, Fazio said, lawmakers don't deal much with lobbyists and interest groups from outside their districts or states. Members tend to see K Street as a fundraising destination instead of an educational opportunity.

If members are interested in someday making the trip across town, Fazio suggested they work more closely with Washington's influence class.

"If you want to be respected in the world of Washington outside the Capitol, you need to make yourself open to that, and you learn a lot," said Fazio, who moved in 2005 to the lobbying law firm Akin Gump.

Becoming a professional lobbyist can be a six- or seven-figure career, and because there's no longer any shame in a lawmaker or staffer selling off their public experience to the highest corporate bidder, a whole new incentive structure has developed: The one whereby lawmakers and staffers do legislative favors with an eye towards future K Street employment.

The problem with this is that it's very difficult to prevent. Whereas public financing of campaigns could stop - or substantially mitigate - the influence of campaign contributions, there's no real way to stop K Street from paying lots of money to employ legislators and staffers once those legislators and staffers leave government office.

Of course, public financing of elections should weaken the power of lobbyists in general (lobbyists, after all, derive a lot of their power from how much money they can direct to a legislator). But again, there's no real way to totally eliminate this incentive structure. Even a multiyear ban on direct lobbying after government service doesn't really end the influence a former legislator or staffer can peddle.

It's a vexing problem - and I'm curious if folks have any ideas as to what kinds of policies or tools could be employed to address it. Because make no mistake about it - the hope for future riches definitely impacts present-day legislating.

David Sirota :: The Reward Method of Corruption

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Reward Method of Corruption | 41 comments
It is a tough one. (0.00 / 0)
Instead of reducing the things that lobbyists can do for legislators, how about reforms tailored towards reducing what legislators can do for lobbyists?   Cut down on the list of things that lobbyists can do for their clients -- I'm thinking of things like earmark reform, wrangling over pet projects in Defense appropriations and the like.
Pay them more. (0.00 / 0)
Top government officials and legislators should be paid way more than they are. The extra expense would be trivial compared to the amount of damage done by corruption. We as citizens need to outbid the corporate lobbyists.

I would also suggest lavish retirement packages contingent on no post-government employment that creates a possible conflict of interest while in office. For example:

A Congress person who sits on the banking committee gets a generous lifetime pension after retirement from Congress, but if he or she goes to work for a bank, they lose most of their pension.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
No easy solution, but 8 suggestions (4.00 / 1)
I don't see an easy solution to this problem. The power elite have a massive amount of money and power and they'll find some way to use that to influence legislation. But I think a combination of changes could greatly reduce their influence:

1. Public financing of elections would greatly reduce the need for legislators to beg for money from lobbyists. This should make lobbyists less powerful and make constituents more powerful.

2. Strict bans on gifts and favors to legislators. This would also reduce the ability of lobbyists to appeal to legislators.

3. A three-year ban on legislators and staffers becoming lobbyists. This would greatly reduce the value of legislators to lobbying firms so then legislators would be less focused on pleasing the lobbying firms/potential employers.

4. Independent ethics committees. Committees run by outsiders would be more likely to criticize legislators for conflicts of interest.

5. More balanced Congressional Districts so that incumbents have less chance of getting elected without the support of their constituents. As it is, incumbents often can do anything they want (cater to lobbyists) and still get re-elected.

6. More investigative media that can call out legislators and lobbyists for their corruption.

7. More progressive media that can focus on real issues and offer progressive solutions instead of the distractions and smoke and mirrors that we usually get.

8. High taxes on high incomes would reduce the incentive to engage in corruption for high monetary gains. Right now, the enticements for selling your soul are very high. If there were a maximum wage of $250,000 (or a 100% tax on income above that level), it would greatly reduce the incentive to sell out and shift the focus back to doing praiseworthy service.

Good suggestions (0.00 / 0)
I was about to suggest a subset of these suggestions.

For #8, though, I'd leave a bit of space for state taxes (maybe 95% tax over some maximum?)...

Another idea (if one I don't favor much at the federal level) would be to pay legislators higher salaries. The lower the differential between legislator's salaries and lobbiest salaries, the less the incentive; for that matter were they higher, the incentive would be reversed...

[ Parent ]
Addendum to #1 (0.00 / 0)
Shorter election campaigns.

No reason that any election has to last much more than 3-6 months. Maybe even 1 month for the House races. NO WAY I'm willing to put up public money for a 2.5 year long Presidential, or Senate race.

Of course this will require significant reform of the Primary campaigns. I'm an advocate of a regional system, or a kind of elimination/runoff mechanism.  Not so keen on a national primary, though.

To me, a "campaign" should be a series of publically sponsored debates - including ALL candidates, not just those annointed by the main-stream, money-grubbing parties. No rallies. No conventions. This is a serious business and it should be conducted in seriousness.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
that requires a serious constitutional amendment (0.00 / 0)
Because what you're doing is cutting down on political speech, which is at the core of the First Amendment, and effectively making it more difficult for incumbents to be challenged.
[ Parent ]
So what? (0.00 / 0)
The problem to this, or any reform, is that the same pigs that feed at the trough are the ones that are in a position to change the system so that far less feed enters their trough.

It will not happen, short of a near revolution on the parts of the rest of us.

You're gonna have to explain how this benefits incumbents, who are the main beneficiaries of the surrent system.  If we take away the "reward" part (as described in the diary), the greedy will find other work.  Just like the bankster CEOs.  Once the money dries up, they're late for the door. Good Riddance.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
how it benefits incumbents (0.00 / 0)
Anything that limits the time during which an incumbent can be challenged, during which he still receives free media for his legislative acts, reduces the opportunity for a challenger to criticize and supplant him.
[ Parent ]
They can still be challenged by folks that are not campaigning (0.00 / 0)
Advocacy groups and activists. I know its a potential loop-hole. Other nations manage this kind of balance. How long is a typical campaign in the UK?  

I start by reducing the length because I see no way to run a long campaign for a small amount of cash.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
other countries don't have a First Amendment (0.00 / 0)
And as long as outside groups can engage in campaign-related speech, you'd see party organizations and Chambers of Congress boosting threatened incumbents during periods when they cannot.

I'd much rather the voluntary public financing route.  Give candidates incentives to not have to dip into the  trough of lobbyist cash.

[ Parent ]
Is speech in the USA any more "free" (0.00 / 0)
than that in the Western European democracies ?

We'll defend the rights of well-heeled players to buy influence among our political class and the basis of the 1st Amendment, but when it comes to locking street protesters in the "Free Speech Zone", well that's just a matter of National Security.

Take a look around - hasn't the influence of money - masquerading as "free speech" - pretty much put the entire future of our nation at risk? This is not "free" speech, its "High-Priced" speech and it runs counter to the security of our nation.

What "incentive" do you propose to offer? The same pay-checks as the lobbyists, only funded from my pocket?  No thanks.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
What I would do if I had the power to ... (0.00 / 0)
First of all, I'd amend the Constitution and make both the Senate and House 4-year terms ... offsetting half of the House and half of the Senate coming up for election every two years.  IMO, the House spends too much time running for elections and the Senate is the most self-satisfied of political mammals and needs to get off their plump asses more often to listen and meet with the American people.

Then, I'd make another law that states that anyone who was in office and lost their reelection ... or left voluntarily ... for the Senate or House is paid for the next four years at the same salary and benefits that they were when they were in office, but they can work nowhere else for pay.  What they can do is do charity work, community work, or prepare to run again which they can two years from their defeat or four years after their defeat ... or whatever else they choose to do besides work for money.

What this accomplishes is the following:
It keeps these public servants close to the pubic they serve.
Four years is a long time to wait for some back-stopped deal to come to fruition with many people in position to make these promises having already moved on and no longer in position to uphold them.
It puts the Senate and House more in flux which I think is a good thing.
It attracts people more interested in serving the public than using public office as a platform to future riches.

Some short-sighted folks would claim that it costs too much having these public servants on the public payroll for time when they are no longer in office, but IMO it would cost much, much less than the current system where these politicians are back-stopped by corporate America, wall street and lobbying groups as long as they make them their constituents rather than us.

Z  

Why not just go Unicameral? (0.00 / 0)
And end our model based on Lords and Commoners?

1 congress

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Even more interesting (0.00 / 0)
is the suggestion that we make the Senate elections nationwide via proportional representation. This would be a nice way to crack open the range political debate to include views that don't fit under either D or R tents.

Join the fight to give students a real voice on campus: Forstudentpower.org.
[ Parent ]
House geographical, Senate ideological (4.00 / 1)
This would also ensure that people were represented two ways: geographically in the House and ideologically in the Senate. Right now, people in small states are vastly over-represented in the Senate and people in large states, especially California, are severely under-represented. Those with particular ideological perspectives (like progressives) have no easy way to get representation.  
[ Parent ]
Once I get dreaming about it (0.00 / 0)
I'd like to maintain the Congress as a kind of national debate forum. Forget representative democracy and let the citizens vote on a quarterly basis for the policies they support.

The Congress' job is to research (they have staff) and debate the issues in a public forum. Based on that forum and interest groups or whatever information is available, the people vote directly.

We still elect the congress members, but because their job is to convey truthful and useful information to the public about any given subject, the criteria and power structures are very different.  Imagine an electoral system that actually incentivizes the Congress critters to be honest, straight-forward, and open.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Had to look that one up (0.00 / 0)
Z
[ Parent ]
I'd be more in favor of unicameralism if ... (0.00 / 0)
... the individual states had more rights.  As it is, I'd rather have a senate and a house.

Z  

[ Parent ]
Want to watch someone try to make a lead balloon float on this board ... (0.00 / 0)
"It's amazing how tone deaf our politicians are"

I don't know how many times I've heard that nonsense when politicians vote in ways that completely contradict what the people they purport to represent want.  The message from the lobbyists, corporate america and wall street is this:  you don't worry about the people or getting reelected.  You represent us, we are your constituency.  If you don't get reelected, well guess what?  We got you backstopped and you'll walk in to a millions of dollars a year "job" provided by us.  

This is why the netroots movement is going to fail IMO w/o the creation of a grassroots third party:  we can not backstop them and offer them millions of dollars  ... as a bribe ... if they represent us and do not get reelected.  It was only a matter of time before the two parties became hopelessly corrupted and non-responsive to the electorate.  We are at that nexus right now.  I know that it will be difficult to create a third party, although admittedly I have no idea how difficult, but otherwise you are working within the corrupted infrastructure of the democrat party and competing for intra-party power with the conduit to corporate cash, the dlc.  We have to go outside of that ... I don't think any other way will work.  

There is a time element involved here also that seems to be largely unappreciated by the progressive movement.  It will simply take too long to root out all the stronger forces within the party and the neutralizing forces within both the democratic and republican parties.  It will take way too long and we are already subjects as it is with the financial fascists that control these parties robbing us by the moment.  And their government is becoming increasingly authoritative and our civil rights are eroding by the moment as well.

So unless you want to continue being relegated to club status and to continue the absurdities of funding non-representation, we need to begin the hard work of forming a third party ... and soon.  Or else hope everything works out well with a revolution.

Z  

Focusing rowards running a 3rd party candidacy for President would be the best use of our fundraising abilities (0.00 / 0)
This third party would probably have to consist of both progressives and libertarians ... and labor ... these groups of people share a commonality in that they feel that both parties are currently hopelessly corrupted and there needs to be a real change to seize power from the two parties.  There would be some disagreements obviously, but at least it would be a much more honest debate IMO than what we get off of the cynicists sharing power now.

I realize that there is a great cost involved in creating a third party, but it will never be much cheaper than now with so much of the populace looking for representation and beginning to realize that they are not going to get it off of the current system.  There is a very unique opportunity potentially setting up to make this even cheaper.  People in general still have faith in obama but all that it may take is another mishandled scandal ... and there are plenty of ways that could happen particularity within his wall street serving economic team ... and that faith could be lost.  

In the past, the middle ground people in the populace, the independent thinkers who haven't lobotomized themselves in the cause of blindly supporting either of these corrupt parties, voted for the other party once one disgusted them ... it was kind of like pingpong starting with clinton and then bush and now obama.  The 8 years of time between changes of party control of the government allowed them time to forget why they once hated the other party so much and also gave the opposing party time to craft a message that would entice them into believing that they were the better alternative.

If we have a big scandal within the next year that damages obama and the democrats, there won't be that period of time for people to forgive the other party, neither one of the parties will have any credibility and the economy will probably only be getting worse.  The middle ground will be exasperated and looking for an alternative to the two parties which sets up a potential sweet spot for a third party to come in and change the politics of this country and, more importantly, the government.

It's something to think about becoz do we really think that we can operate and get representation within the corrupted infrastructure of the democrat party?  I don't think so.  And there is a time element involved here as well for these financial fascists that effectively run this government are looting us by the minute.

Our fundraising power would be most effectively focused towards a presidential election since the infrastructure required to support a third party presidential candidate is much less than what would be required to get meaningful representation in Congress.  We ought to become more forward thinking and at least do some preliminary work to position ourselves to potentially take advantage of such an opportunity.  The presidency would be power that we could build off of to change the politics of this country and, more importantly, the government.  It is our best chance of quickly beginning to effectuate the drastic changes that are desperately needed within our government and our country.  

Z

[ Parent ]
Don't concentrate on the presidency (0.00 / 0)
It is much easier to establish a third party by electing people to Congress.

What you have to understand, though, is that the system is not inherently slanted against third parties.  Rather, the system is slanted against third parties that lack a geographic base.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
It would take many, many election cycles to have a real effect on Congress (0.00 / 0)
Again, there is a time element involved here that is very relevant.

These progressive netrooters, God bless them, they are able of mind and good of heart ... for the most part ... but even with all the money they've spent and the hard work they've put in over the past few election cycles, have they really gained any ground?  How many blue dogs have gotten in compared to progressives?  Who is obama last to meet with in the democratic party?  Has he met with them at all?  Who is the most irrelevant faction of the demcratic party?  Answer:  the progressives.

Perot, a right wing leaning politician, got 17% of the vote in '92 ... after dropping out.  If a critical mass of 20% or so of the populace back a 3rd party presidential candidate ... early on ... a synergy can develop from that becoz it presents a viable option to two thoroughly corrupted parties.

The danger of this is that if we don't win and we take away from the democrats vote, then a republican may win.  After 8 years of bush, we saw just how dangerous it is if that scenario played out.  But, at some point you have to make a move or you become a slave to that fear and settle for non-representation that is less damaging.

I'd like for the progressives/netrooters to develop an enforcement arm and some high level strategy.  At the very least, they should draw a line in the sand and say if this isn't done then we are moving on to developing a third party.  obama promised change ... he promised to reign in executive power ... he hasn't, he's furthered it.  He promised to reign in wall street ... he has empowered them further.  He promised to pursue efca ... he's making noises behind the scenes that he's disinterested in seeing that bill on his desk becoz the economy is so bad (which ought to be a big reason TO want to pass efca) and who knows what finagling that the traitor emanuel is doing in congress to ensure that bill will indeed not make it to his desk.  What's left?  Universal health care, of course ... something else he ran on.  But he stands against a one-payer system.  If they play the same games with this that they've played with the other issues, then the progressives should yank their fucking heads out of the donkey's ass and move on becoz with the democrats holding the executive office and the senate and the house, there ought not to be any more excuses.  But, but ... there will be and it will be that we need to elect better democrats to get the job done.  Meanwhile, the corrupted party leadership and infrastructure of the democratic party deceitfully works against that very thing.

What will likely happen is that the democratic party will string them along again for a few years with no real progress towards universal health care or efca or reigning in wall street or reigning in executive power and the progressive netrooters will have done no work at building the infrastructure necessary to gain any leverage or power and then they'll be forced ... once again ... to back the lesser ... all on this faint, increasingly pathetic, hope that they can change the party within.  

Tick, tick, tick, tick ...    

Z  

[ Parent ]
I suspect that if you did a game theory analysis... (0.00 / 0)
it would show that it's much easier to take over the existing parties, from below, as Thom Hartmann has continually suggested, in the case of the Democrats.


435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com
[ Parent ]
True (0.00 / 0)
as long as the overarching system is based on two parties.

Breaking the Two Party Tyranny is essential to developing a viable multi-party system.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Does game theory take into account the rules of a particular game? (0.00 / 0)
Becoz the rules of this game is that you are going against the party leadership, the dccc and the dscc that do their damn best to make sure that centrist democrats and blue dogs get the party's nomination and they do that by dishing out funds that they collect via the corporate cash conduit, the dlc, to those candidates.  Additionally, they frequently try to slant the rules of the primaries in favor of the centrists and blue dogs.

Blue dogs are a dlc dem's best friend ... the blue dogs piss on our back and the dlc dems tell us that it is raining.

Z

[ Parent ]
What generally happens (0.00 / 0)
Is that if a third party is successful enough, it is either consumed by a pre-existing party (or most of its platform is), or else an old party implodes and the new party takes its place as a new alignment is created.

I don't know what Thom Hartmann is saying, but what I would advocate is to pick a couple of states and try to get the netroots to fund a massive takeover of the state party apparatus.  If that works, then expand the effort and retake the Democratic Party back state by state.  I'd probably try to avoid any states with big city political machines for the initial batch.  I would target states based on state party weakness and not on wishes of head-hunting the most egregious Democrats out there.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
permanent ban (0.00 / 0)
If we could get a law passed that placed a lifetime ban on x-elected officials and all staff from lobbysts jobs, this portion of the money corruption political problem would be solved. As you point out, this problem is multi-faceteted, and requires several corrections to end it's democracy destroying ability.

Government by organized money is no better than government by organized mob..... FDR
It's not just lobbyists that back-stop (4.00 / 2)
It's also wall street and corporate America.  Look at what rahm and gramm got ... and who they got it from ... when they left the government.

Z

[ Parent ]
It's not just lobbyists that back-stop (0.00 / 0)
It's also wall street and corporate America.  Look at what rahm and gramm got ... and who they got it from ... when they left the government.

Z

[ Parent ]
Staffers the problem (4.00 / 1)
"Mother Jones" has an article entitled "Revolving Door, Bailout Edition" (April 9,2009).  According to the article out of 30 lobbyists working on the bailout (many for Citigroup) connected to Congress, 29 are former staffers and only one (Dick Gephart) is a former member of congress.

Former staffers frequently lobby their ex-bosses.

A quick look at the retirees from 2006 found most really did retire.  Some taught.  A very few worked for think tanks like Heritage (Ernest Isttook in a think tank?) or political law firms (not directly as lobbyists, Jim Davis).  A few like Billy Tauzin (not a 2006 retiree)really hit the big time but that is rare.  I'm looking for Tom Davis and eventually Joe Barton to make this group.

Staffers need the regulation more than ex-law makers.

Not to mention that the staffers' connections are probably more effective (4.00 / 1)
unless the ex member is a powerhouse like Gephardt, it's probably more valuable to have a lobbyist that has inroads with an active Congressional office, and all of the other staffers, and the ability to forge legislation that this implies.  
[ Parent ]
The best solution I can think is to unemploy bad lawmakers as quickly as possible (0.00 / 0)
That was the thrust of my proposal for a modern day ostracism, viz., to negate the priveleged fundraising advantage that incumbents have. It's bad enough to be stuck with a Senator for 6 years who cares more about lobbyists than his constituents. It's that much worse to be stuck with that same bozo for 12 years.

Eventually, we need a recall process for both Senators and Representatives. That mean a Constitutional amendment. I don't want anybody to be stuck with a bad Senator for even 6 years.

We deserve better than that.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

What concerns me even more than this problem (0.00 / 0)
is the 'information' problem.  

On a lot of specialized policy areas, there really is very little independent information gathering.  The result is that legislators looking to learn about that policy area so as to make quality legislation often find themselves learning about this policy from the lobbyists themselves.  

Beyond increasing the size of the House (so that individual legislators have more time), and investing more in increasing the size of congressional staff, I don't know much aobut how to deal with this.  (though, now that I think of it, this would make an individual ex-House member/staffer less valuable to lobbying firms, too)

Bigger Congress (0.00 / 0)
I'd love to see the Senate doubled to 200 Senators with half of them elected via a national vote and proportional representation (as suggested by Liberaltarian above). I'd also love to see the House expanded to 600-800 so they each represented fewer people.

With a larger Congress each legislator would have less power and be less valuable to lobbyists and they would each have more time to study issues, hold hearings, and do committee work.

Of course, amending the Constitution to make this happen would be a lot of work. But it might save us a lot of work down the line.

[ Parent ]
Some Merit (0.00 / 0)
Changing the size of the Senate attacks directly the grand compromise worked out for the Constitution.  The Senate seats belong to each state, not the citizens in the state.

The House really should be expanded.  The House was frozen a century ago when the US population was a third of what it is now.  House seats used to be apportioned based on what the real population was, with the House size fluctuating as necessary.  Unfortunately, to get the ratio back to what it was a century ago, the House would have to expand to something like 1400 members.  Personally, I think it would be great, but I could not imagine trying to manage a legislative body of that size.  Even the committee system would begin to break down with that many members.  Ideally, the expansion would be accompanied by a major campaign finance reform which would force all campaign funding to be publicly generated.  That would really open the House to new members.

[ Parent ]
really, the senate should be abolished (0.00 / 0)
There is no large state/small state cleavage anymore. Rhode Island has nothing in common with Wyoming.  There isn't much reason to protect "small states" anymore. Urban/rural is waaaaay more meaningful  
[ Parent ]
Also, Buckley v. Valero would need to be overturned (0.00 / 0)
Before REQUIRING public financing. And there is still a first amendmendment problem with issue ads that I don't think is really resolveable. Campaign finance is harder than it is made out to be.  
[ Parent ]
How does corporate personhood play in? (0.00 / 0)
Just a question for the group, I guess. Is the legal status of corporations as persons connected to the ability of lobbyists to act on their behalf? It seems to me one of the most far-reaching reforms would be a movement to rescind the personhood of corporations as an absurd abrogation of the Constitution's intent. Certainly, powerful corporate interests would look for and find ways around the absence of citizens rights for corporations, but their ability to maneuver and influence public policy could be reduced considerably.
This is a big one (0.00 / 0)
And it really does not require a ton of legislation, just a few courageous AGs and local politicians.

Every corporation is registered and receives a corporate charter in one state of the union.  Start revoking charters for the worst public citizens after the worst scandals (think AIG) and you'll see how the power calculus between legislators and business changes...

[ Parent ]
It's Not Just the Politicians (0.00 / 0)
Does anyone think for one moment that this problem of people who formerly received government paychecks but now shilling for private interests is the exclusive province of the elected politicians and their staffs?  What about all of those ex-military chieftains who go on to multi-million dollar executive positions with the defense firms they used to oversee.  What other reason could account for the reason that so many of those big defense system contracts are over budget, behind schedule, and under performing.  The officers who oversee the contracts let the defense contractors get away with peddling the garbage and agreeing to inflated prices.  Then, the officers signing off on the contract amendments sign on with the defense contractor for their sweet, post-retirement sinecure.  It's a great system and the average voter gets to pay for it (in dollars, while the average grunt, etc typically gets to pay for it in blood).  The same could be said for other major contracts by other departments too, but DoD just represents the biggest pool of dollars.
Tried to give an answer here (0.00 / 0)
Short of paying these guys more there are only so many things to do. One would be drastically increasing transparency of lobbying contacts and opening up closed doors on the Hill to preempt actions made that could improve future job negotiations. See here:

http://blog.sunlightfoundation...

The Reward Method of Corruption | 41 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox