The Cunningham Effect
ShareWe'll leave it to others to debate the merits of Amtrak, but this story from yesterday's NYT could be important for reasons that have nothing to do with the wisdom and/or feasibilty of a quasi-public nat'l passanger rail service.
Note especially these two 'grafs:
"Mr. Knollenberg, a seven-term congressman, is one beneficiary. In the 1998 and 2000 elections, employees at Soave Enterprises were his second-largest contributor, beating out major companies like General Motors, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Mr. Knollenberg has received roughly $46,000 from Mr. Soave, his family and employees at Soave Enterprises since 1997, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, which tracks campaign finance. He also said Mr. Soave had helped him raise money."
Could the eye-popping case of the Dirty Duke milking his seat on the Approrprations Cmte, along with the parallel Abramoff case, portend a new era of more aggressive scrutiny of what had previously been "business as usual" between Members and lobbyists/contractors in the appropriations process? In "business as usual" we mean to practice of lobbyists and the contractors and PACs they represent giving generously to the campaigns and leadership PACs of Members who obtain earmarks for them. Members will, perhaps fairly, point out that there is nothing nefarious -- and certainly nothing corrupt -- about their efforts to include language in spending bills that will redound to the benefit of what are often some of the largest employers in their districts. But don't be surprised to see an aroused DC press corps sniff out more "connect-the-dots" stories like the above where the words "Knollenberg" and "Soave" can easily be replaced by any number of Members and donors.
Advertisement
Join the Discussion