Tom DeLay was one of the most powerful men in America until Wednesday, when he was indicted on charges alleging campaign financing violations in Texas. As Republican Majority Leader in the House, he has used his corporate and political connections to raise huge sums for himself and fellow Republicans, cementing both the Republicans' control of the federal government and of the Texas state government by a brassy redistricting effort that even attempted to use the power of the federal government to herd reluctant Texas Democrats back to town. He was already ethically challenged before the indictment, called before the House Ethics Committee on three different issues last year and up for another grilling on his golfing outing paid for by lobbyist Jack Abramoff (who is facing his own criminal woes).
At the base of his power are two organizations--Texans for a Republican Majority (Trmpac) and Americans for a Republican Majoirty (Armpac). With Trmpac, DeLay is described as "[writing] a new chapter, which was exporting the federal power of his office back to his state." How a Tested Campaign Tool Led to Conspiracy Charges, New York Times, Sept. 29. The Times goes on to quote Fred Wertheimer, a long-time promoter of improved campaign finance laws, as saying:
"This was a classic example of the DeLay system at work, because you had corporations who really weren't interested in Texas politics giving large sums to Trmpac because they were interested in the power of House Majority leader DeLay."
The enormous political stakes and the coziness of large corporations and powerful Congressional positions suggests that the influence that corporations can gain with their contributions to campaigns is enormous. It may not be that they are simply buying laws in their favor, but it looks and smells like something awfully close to it. That is the reason that many are calling for politicians who have received some of the DeLay largesse to turn it back. See, for example, this blog on Illinois 15th Congressional District Representative Tim Johnson.
The Republicans' pick as DeLay's successor is not much of an improvement. While stylistically different from DeLay (described as approachable while DeLay is an in-your-face "Hammer"), Blunt has the same ties to the corporate lobbying bankrolls that DeLay exploits and came to his post on Mr. DeLay's coattails. He seems little likely to recognize the need to turn the Congress from their current agenda for the wealthy to one that pays attention to the needs of ordinary Americans. A Times editorial notes that the Republicans' talk of having selected a conciliatory personality suggests that Congress thought its challenge was to find "their own intramural peace rather than the nation's fraying commonweal."
Surely at some point the politicians who control the White House and both houses of Congress must realize that they are supposed to be governing for all Americans, and not just serving as lackeys for the wealthy corporations and owners who got them into office. Governing for us all requires listening to the concerns we are expressing more strongly day by day--our belief that the loss of more lives and more billions in Iraq is meaningless and it is therefore time for an honorable exit so that the Iraqis can determine their own future without the terrorism that followed in the wake of our invasion and occupation; our desire to salvage what we can of this beautiful earth to share with future generations, rather than permit it to be ravaged for cheap, unsustainable profits that will merely line the pockets of the already wealthy; our conviction that we are morally required to care for the least among us as though they were the greatest among us, whether they are gay or lesbian, single mothers or proud families of four, poor and black or wealthy and white.
Are they listening? The appointment of Blunt, with everyone tacitly acknowledging that DeLay will retain his influence from the wings, suggests that they are not.
Comments