Russ Feingold, Potential Senate Candidate, Rips Democrats For 'Corruption'

[ProSense]

Russ Feingold, Potential Senate Candidate, Rips Democrats For 'Corruption'

Benjy Sarlin

Ousted from the Senate in 2010, Russ Feingold, may have fewer Democratic friends to count on if he chooses to enter the race to replace retiring Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI). The progressive icon eviscerated his former colleagues in an e-mail for his advocacy group Progressive United on Tuesday, accusing two prominent Democrats of enabling "corruption" by opposing new transparency measures on political donations.

<...>

The names included House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO). In addition, the email targeted Sens. Mitch McConnell, (R-KY), Rob Portman (R-OH), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and Rep. Darrell Issa, (R-CA).

Feingold accused the group of backing "corporate interests in Congress" by opposing an executive order under discussion in the White House that would require government contractors to reveal their political donations.

"If we make contributions public, we can hold legislators and contractors accountable. We can shine the bright light of transparency on the whole practice of awarding government contracts, so the American people can truly see what is going on,"he wrote. "Let's start by holding the defenders of corruption accountable to their constituents right now."

more

I Support President Obama On This Executive Order

Business groups are clamoring for President Obama to take down his draft executive order, and making claims about how it'll chill their free speech rights. What's the hullaboo all about, you ask? You see, ever since Citizens United, corporations now have free reign to subvert our democratic process through unlimited amounts of money and they don't like it when the pesky commoners get in the way of that.

When President Obama released his draft executive order that would require businesses that contract with the federal government to disclose their political contributions, they shrieked and panicked. These big business interests are hoppin' mad that a Democratic President would make an executive order like this, and they've got their corporate lackeys in Congress doing their dirty work:

In a letter sent Monday to Obama, groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute, the National Retail Federation, the National Association of Manufacturers and others said that they oppose the draft order since it would inject politics into the federal contracting process. In addition, they said the draft order would chill their free speech rights.
...

The letter comes as the draft order has fallen under heavy criticism last week from several Republicans as well as a few Democrats.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.), chairman of the House Small Business Committee, held a joint hearing last week that blasted the administration on the draft order. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) also told reporters he opposed the draft order while Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) signed onto a letter with senators expressing concerns about it.

President Obama is facing tremendous pressure from these business groups and from some people in his own party in Congress for this draft executive order. We need to support him on this issue given this is the only way we can get around a gridlocked Congress to hold these corporations accountable in how they influence our elections. Can you help out by demonstrating your support by going to the White House Facebook page here?

<...>

[Enrique]

1. Hoyer and McCaskill

:bounce:

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. I need help with a post that also addresses corruption in the Dem party.

Please help me bring attention to a problem in my area, and, maybe, even in yours. People like Hoyer can't reach out to meddle in a local area, unless there's a network already in place:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1119084

Someone keeps unreccing it. I could use your help. If it's an innocuous position, what's the danger in putting it somewhere where we can talk about it?

[Scuba]

3. Atta Way Russ!!!

[Mass]

4. I have no problem with him ripping McCaskill and Lieberman.

They deserve it. And he rips the GOP as well.

[BlueIris]

5. Good luck, Mr. Feingold. nt

[zipplewrath]

6. This is all innuendo

"The document, which was first reported by the conservative Pajamas Media, represents just a small (and revised) chunk of the DISCLOSE Act, the election transparency law Democrats tried to push through Congress last fall. Under that bill, which fell one vote short of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, contractors would have been entirely prohibited from making political donations to federal candidates or parties.

“It was a ban and they are turning it into disclosure,” said Fred Wertheimer, the Founder and President of Democracy 21, a group that promotes greater donation disclosure. “It is becoming a condition of doing business with the government.”

White House officials did not immediately return a request for comment though a Democratic Hill aide confirmed that an executive order along these lines had been drafted.

Another plugged in Democratic aide said administration officials had been exploring a wide range of executive actions to pursue in light of lawmakers’ failure to push legislation. The toughest component of the talks, the aide said, was figuring out what would withstand legal challenges.
Advertisement

“I have had discussion with administration lawyers who will have to defend any administration action and or statute,” the aide said. “They want to be careful about being on a sound legal footing.”

How far along the order is remains a mystery, as does the willingness of the administration to take on the donations fight. Conservative commentators pounced on news of the draft order as evidence that the White House was doing an end-run around Congress to aide the Democratic Party’s political ambitions."

This is just inside the beltway rumors. Low level staffers trying to sound important and influence the larger process. There's no evidence that anything like this is going to be done. This is all based upon second hand or nameless sources. How about we wait until they actually do something....


Oh, wait, that's only the mantra if they are planning on doing something we DON'T like. In this case, we're supposed to believe they are actually doing this. That's right, I forgot how things work around here.

[bigwillq]

7. Good for Russ.

:thumbsup: