If you have "no place to go," come here!

CREW's selective morality

DCblogger's picture

Welch gives back Rangel contributions

Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said Welch should go further and recuse himself from the Rangel investigation entirely.

“That’s definitely a problem,” Sloan said. “If you have taken money from the guy, you shouldn’t be judging him. Even if you are objective, there’s a real appearance problem.”

The ethics committee expanded its investigation of the Ways and Means Committee after questions were raised about a potential quid pro quo involving a donation to a City College of New York education center bearing Rangel’s name, and Rangel’s alleged legislative favoring of the donor.

Hospitals, firms in healthcare back Kennedy institute

Drug companies, hospitals, and insurance firms have helped to amass $20 million to finance a nonprofit educational institute in Boston that will honor Senator Edward M. Kennedy, using his career as a case study of a powerful senator.

Please explain t me why one is a scandal and the other is OK?

Charlie Rangel is a cosponsor of HR 676 while Kennedy has backed away from his historic commitment to single payer. I have seen this way too often, how special interests maneuver putative reform organizations into manufacturing scandals against progressive in such manner as to advance the interests in entrenched corporate interests. For CREW it is all about shouting about reform without regard to the consequences for the real lives of real people. I don't know what CREW's health insurance is like, but I suspect it isn't very good.

Ever since Watergate there has been campaign finance reform and pseudo ethics investigations, and ever since Watergate the country has been pushed to the right. But people like CREW never learn. The whole campaign finance reform/ethics reform push is a giant distraction to be selectively invoked to defeat progressive legislation.

And we keep falling for it.

No votes yet


gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

I think a focus on who gets money from whom is a distraction, but so long as we have a system set up that self-selects for almost entirely wealthy people to run for office we have a problem. The need to raise a lot of money to run for office (and it's starting to permeate to state house offices) keeps a lot of good people from running and/or winning. That is a huge problem. The selective pressure of our current campaign finance system is a huge problem. It discourages too many good people from running.

Campaign finance reform would increase the pool of good candidates. No matter how good Obama turns out, he is a product of a system that rewards money and image rather than accomplishment, just as Bush was. Even if Obama is the second coming--and he *may* be--this way of electing a leader is still a crap shoot. Its not good. I have first hand experience with a state assembly race where the GOP candidate self-financed his campaign to the tune of $7 or $8 million--for an assembly seat. I have also seen very good US Congressional candidates fail to gain traction because they don't have money. That's a very real problem.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

they've done so much work, on so many issues, while more "famous" lobby shops and so called progressive orgs have done little more than host Beltway parties...thinking on it: if i'm going to give anyone a pass, it's CREW. they've got to sin a lot harder than this before i'll dismiss them. jmho.