Colbert Nails Democrat on Special Interest Cash

by: AdamGreen

Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 13:44


Did you see the Colbert Report last night?

Stephen Colbert nailed the connection between special-interest campaign contributions and results in Congress (in a way only he could).

In the process, he also nailed Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), who Colbert accuses of selling out to the Payday Loan industry for a mere $10,000. Gutierrez dramatically watered down his "Payday Loan Reform Act" in a way that will make the Payday industry billions -- at the expense of the little guy.

It was a smart investment for the Payday industry. But it's horrible for our democracy.

Colbert's segment basically made the case for why Congress needs to pass the bipartisan Fair Elections Now Act, which would put in place public funding of congressional elections (while still allowing Obama-style small donations, matching them four to one).

Colbert Pic

Check out the Colbert video for yourself on the Change Congress website by clicking here. On that page, you can also take action to get Congress to pass this crucial reform bill.

(If you want to help spread the reform message to others, share this post over email, Facebook, or Twitter. #gutierrez #politics #money. Disclosure: I work for Big Reform group Change Congress.)

AdamGreen :: Colbert Nails Democrat on Special Interest Cash

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
It's probably the only way to get (4.00 / 2)
real change.  So long as big money is in politics, it will rule.

Unfortunatley, Obama's rejection of public financing seems to have killed the movement.  


It's quite completely clear (4.00 / 1)
that no Republican -- not a single one -- will line up for "reform" that favors "Obama style" contributions.

And why indeed should they? If, demonstrably, the demographics of "Obama style" contributions favor the more technologically savvy and more affluent white collar class that votes for Obama, how is that an unbiased "reform"? And such contributions also favor unions, who, Republicans will claim, can put a great deal of pressure on their members to contribute to Democrats, likewise distorting the outcome.

Given that Obama broke his own promise to take public financing, and did so only because it served his own political campaign, what sort of credibility does he have on being an "honest broker" regarding these reforms? What credibility does any Democrat have, given their own support of Obama's choice?

And if there's one piece of legislation that simply demands bipartisan support, it should be campaign finance reform. No independent observer is going to find legislation to reform campaign finance as being fair toward both sides if, uniformly, one side is opposed to it.


[ Parent ]
actually (4.00 / 1)
There are Republicans on this bill. Specter in Senate and 2 in the House.

[ Parent ]
Hardly enough to matter and (4.00 / 1)
I don't think counting on Spector is smart.  Remember, he voted for EFCA, when it would be vetoed.

Does Pres. Obama support this?  


[ Parent ]
Specter (4.00 / 2)
is the main sponsor, with Durbin. He can definitely be counted -- it's his bill.

And saying "isn't enough to matter" is not productive analysis. Do you know how many co-sponsors there are currently? At introduction, 10-12. 3 Republicans. That seems like a good proportional start.

Obama was a sponsor last Congress. Durbin, who is the other lead on this, is pretty close to Obama.  


[ Parent ]
I hope you're right. (0.00 / 0)
I guess I'm cynical, but the effort is worth making.

[ Parent ]
Specter (0.00 / 0)
is the main sponsor, with Durbin. He can definitely be counted -- it's his bill.

And saying "isn't enough to matter" is not productive analysis. Do you know how many co-sponsors there are currently? At introduction, 10-12. 3 Republicans. That seems like a good proportional start.

Obama was a sponsor last Congress. Durbin, who is the other lead on this, is pretty close to Obama.  


[ Parent ]
It's Amazing how (0.00 / 0)
quickly the Corporate media has been able to shift the discussion away from "Banksters", robber barons, breaking up the corporations which are "too big to fail," Pay-to-play and generally all things involving bought government.
 Now, instead of discussing corporate influence on government, the talk is shifted back to astro-turf protests and the wickedness of "big government."  I think the Tea Party can count itself as a major success, not because anyone takes them seriously, but because they've sucked all the air out of the other topics.  
You'd think something like what Colbert is talking about might get some play...  But, you know, there are corporate financed, anti-government protests to stroke.

Absolutely true, but NOTHING... (4.00 / 1)
...will change. There is a naive assumption that goes something like "if only we got corporate $$$$ out of the system" and "received millions from small donors" the system would change. The sooner people realize that this is NOT about "the people" and has ALWAYS been about corporate/elite interests the better.

You can have a senario where citizen donations could dwarf corporate money and the direction of policy will invariably go towards the corporate side. It's ALWAYS been about "them" and will be for the forseeable future.


hulu clip embedding annoys me, since I can't see them. (4.00 / 1)
As an ex pat not currently in a US I always get annoyed when people direct me to hulu clips, as they block non US IP addresses.  Just saying.

I'm glad it's done

This segment was really not fair to Gutierrez (0.00 / 0)
Gutierrez assumed the chairmanship of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over payday lending at the beginning of this Congress.  At a hearing a couple of weeks ago on this very bill, he was pretty clear that he'd introduced the bill because he thinks there needs to be some governance of payday loans, given that increasing numbers of people lack access to traditional (and better) forms of credit.  

If you take his word that he thinks some form of governance of payday loans does need to be enacted (and, frankly, given that it doesn't appear that Colbert's people so much as spoke with the Gutierrez camp about the bill, I don't see a lot of reason not to), he couldn't do so through a 36% APR cap.  Why?  Because there would be no chance of getting it through the subcommittee, much less through both houses of Congress and signed into law.  

That doesn't mean, by any stretch of imagination, that progressives shouldn't push for a better bill (and process reforms like better campaign financing).  However, the attacks on Gutierrez as having sold out and all of that really aren't merited.

John McCain


Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search