Rick Santorum, the worst choice possible for lobbying reform

January 13, 2006

Last week, as the Republican establishment grew increasingly nervous about the Jack Abramoff affair, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist leaked word that the Senate GOP would “get ahead of” the scandal by promoting a reform measure that would change the way lobbying is done on the Hill. Frist tapped one member to take the lead in shaping a reform proposal: Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

I suppose it’s possible to think of a worse choice, but I’m having trouble imagining who that might be. Santorum, of course, is the same senator who’s helped lead the notorious “K Street Project” for Senate Republicans. Indeed, Santorum has personally led, for several years, a series of meetings with top lobbyists to discuss job openings at the biggest and most important industry trade associations and corporate offices — so Santorum can help fill them with loyal conservative Republican activists.

To help further highlight why Frist made a ridiculously bad choice to lead a “reform” initiative, the Pittsburg Post-Gazette reported today that Santorum gets more re-election money from lobbyists than any other incumbent senator.

Sen. Rick Santorum, who has been tapped by fellow Senate Republican leaders to draft legislation tightening restrictions on lobbyists, has received more money from lobbyists than any other congressional candidate so far in the 2006 election cycle.

Mr. Santorum, R-Pa., received $145,946 from lobbyists in the period from the start of the 2006 election cycle through Oct. 31, 2005, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics based on the most recent data the Federal Election Commission has published.

Six years ago, before Santorum took a leading role in the K Street Project, he was 14th among incumbent senators accepting campaign contributions from lobbyists.

Picking Santorum to take the lead on lobbying reform is like picking Pat Robertson to lead a “respect diversity” class. You’ll get a result, just not a good one.

I guess you could say Santorum “knows” lobbying reform. In the Biblical sense.

  • Of course they are picking Santorum. He is going to ram through some cosmetic “reforms” that are likely to benefit the GOP machine more than Democrats. Then he is going to crow about how he (and the GOP) is responsible for the “reforms,” all in a bid to boost his flagging re-election campaign. These “reforms” are guaranteed to be lame and ineffective but if spun correctly might look less lame and ineffective.

    The fact that this is rank hipocrisy and makes anyone who knows anything about the K Street Project laugh, is beside the point. The current incarnation of the GOP is not exactly know for holding its people accountable much less punishing them for bad behavior even if it is known for hipocrisy as well as spewing disgusting, over-hyped, self-serving propaganda.

  • I should have added that they seem to be taking a page out of the playbook of early police departments that hired criminals to catch criminals.

  • ET notes:

    “The fact that this is rank hipocrisy and makes anyone who knows anything about the K Street Project laugh, is beside the point.”

    Blame apathy, blame the Dems, blame the MSM – the sad reality is that the number of Americans who “know anything about the K Street Project” or why this is hypocritical in light of that knowledge is likely less than 1%.

    This is the real reason the Rs can get away with what, to us, looks to be shameless utter BS. It gives the appearance that they are doing something; the MSM, cowed into a bizzaro version of “neutrality,” reports the phony effort at face value; the R’s give it a clever sound-bite name like “Leave No Child Behind” and voila! the masses think all is well again and go back to their apolitical lives.

    no i’m not cynical and jaded, why do you ask?

  • Between our impotent media and our public’s lack of curiosity, together with the public’s overall ignorance of anything that doesn’t directly affect each individual (individual self interest) this likely will not matter. Except possibly in PA where the local press may push it if Casey or the other Dem candidates point out the hypocrisy.

  • Slightly off topic, the Post-Gazette was rather tough on Ricky today. An article on his shifting position on the Iraq war was also in today’s paper.

    Sen. Rick Santorum yesterday answered questions about his view of the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq with a fierce defense of President Bush’s course and argued that Americans who are not committed to it don’t understand that national security and Western democracy are at risk if the United States fails.

    Echoing recent speeches by Vice President Dick Cheney, Mr. Santorum, R-Pa., warned that American soldiers are fighting to save “modern culture, Western democracy and the global economy,” which he said are threatened by the spread of radical Islamic fundamentalism.

    Santorum new position on Iraq: The front line in the cultural wars.The only problem is that here at home he is on the side fighting against “modern culture”. Okay that wasn’t the point of the article. Rather it contrasted this new found enthusiasm for the Iraq debacle with his position from late last year.

    Last fall, as polls showed dropping support for Mr. Bush and Mr. Santorum, it appeared that the senator was trying to distance himself from the White House. At the time, Mr. Santorum was critical of White House handling of Social Security and of extending the president’s tax cuts and suggested that Mr. Bush needed “to better define this war.”

  • A slogan for the culture of corruption – no politician left unslimed.

    Tainted political money must be so pervasive and intertwined with corporate interests , and absolutely necessary to becoming a successful congressional candidate, that I wonder if ANY (republican or democratic) congressional member could lead an ethical reform without fear of exposing their own personal campaign finances . If the game is corrupt, then those who play the game cannot have too high a standard of ethics.
    Clever how the system screens out those who would reform it.

    • Comments are closed.