browsing the FEC web site

All this talk about Jack Abramoff has drawn me back to one of my favorite online databases: The Federal Election Commission. Sure, there isn't a lot of detail here but it's still fun to check out.

When I was in grad school I performed a thorough examination of every political contribution David Duke ever received for his various campaigns for senator, president, etc. Remember him? He was the former Ku Klux Klan leader who decided to go "legit" and become a politician. He did manage to win a seat in the Louisiana legislature, as a representative for a New Orleans suburb. But his other campaigns never really flourished. Anyway, I was interested in seeing who was contributing money to Duke's campaigns. Then I cross-referenced all those donors to see what other politicians these people supported. It wasn't a scientific study by any means, but I did see some interesting things. Duke's supporters really liked to give money to Jesse Helms and Pat Buchanan. And many of them also seemed to really hate Hillary Clinton. Why else would a bunch of Louisiana Republicans donate money to Rick Lazio, the empty suit Long Islander who ran against Hillary during her initial senatorial campaign?

Anyway, the FEC database allows you to search campaign donations by occupation. Just for fun, run a search for lobbyist. See how many lobbyists pop up as campaign contributors in federal elections. Then bear in mind that people aren't required to list their occupations. In fact, they rarely do... Well, Bill Clinton always does. Apparently he likes to fill in the line for occupation with the words "Former U.S. president."

Of course, the number of lobbysists who brazenly disclose their occupation is depressing. Even more depressing is seeing some of the names of these lobbyists. Within half a minute I noticed one "lobbyist, who until 2004 was a U.S. senator. John Breaux, D-Louisiana. I guess this is a growing trend, since at least 272 former members of Congress have registered as lobbysts since the Republicans "signed" their Contract with America more than a decade ago.

I am of two minds about the Abramoff scandal. Part of me really enjoys watching the Republicans scatter and duck for cover. After all, this is a Republican scandal, no matter how much the MSM tries to "Fair and Balance" the story by insinuating that Democrats are also in trouble. That's BS.

On the other hand, the scandal is disheartening to someone left of center like me, because aside from theh Abramoff mess, it's pretty clear that lobbying is out of control for both parties. Only the Democratic Party's lack of power is protecting it from scandal, I think. Who lavishly lobbies the minority party?

In any case, the Abramoff scandal is not cause for celebration for liberals. Both parties are bought and paid for. Think about it. You just read that sentence "Lobbying is out of control" and said to yourself, yeah, so? Tell me something I didn't know, Mr. Obvious.

It shouldn't be this way. Lobbyists basically write legislation and rules and regs these days. Everyone knows it. But it's barely news anymore.