19 March 2009

Is this unreasonable?

Is it too much to ask that elected officials not be allowed to participate in any way with legislation that involves one of their campaign donors?

OpenSecrets.org reports that over the last decade, AIG has contributed over $9 million to federal candidates and parties (on both sides of the aisle).

Now, if a senator received a few thousand from AIG over the last couple campaigns for the Senate, isn't he or she likely to want to help them out in return? The senator gets a couple grand, AIG gets a few million, everyone's happy, right?

Oh yeah, except that the money AIG gets is really mine. And yours. Doesn't cost the senator a dime. He's just repaying bribes using the money of the American taxpayer, the slimeball.

To to sum up, anyone who received money from AIG in the past should not be allowed to sponsor legislation or vote on any bill that involves tax dollars going to AIG. This principle should apply to every organization and individual who donates money.

It's not that hard, right?

1 comment:

LaPaube said...

B, you're basically talking about eliminating any type of lobbying of the Congress. Everybody who ever asks something of the members contributes to a lot of campaigns. And nobody gives money to the Treasury, which is the agency that's really pushing to keep AIG alive. I guess the question is if you think that lobbying should be abolished or not, which is a valid discussion but it's more complicated than most people think.

I wouldn't worry about Congress being overzealous to help AIG anyway, or any other company. Listen to Senate Minority Whip John Kyl: "We have a real problem in this country. And the administration needs to get serious about solving it." Talk about passing on a leadership opportunity.