A number of Mike Capano’s constituents here in the Cambridge area noticed that our local Congressman recently received a $5,000 re-election campaign contribution from lobbyists for Citigroup, Inc.
We have tried to contact him and his staff to get more information about this, but so far, we have had no luck.
So, a petition has been started to encourage him to return this money; here is the petition on Change.org:
http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-congressman-mike-capuano-dont-accept-cash-from-citigroup
We recognize that in the grand scheme of things, $5,000.00 is not that big of a deal, but we are hoping our Congressman will use this as an opportunity to set a better example for our democracy. Doing so could help inspire people in other places to scrutinize the funding of their own local politicians, and in turn, that could help us change the culture of acceptance when it comes to wholesale political bribery.
What do BMGers think about this? Would people like to see our Congressman return this money to Citigroup and take a stand against funds that are tied to corporate lobbyists? Or are we just wasting our time?
Every individual should be treated equally under the law and ethics regardless of profession. If you or I can give $2300 to a candidate so can someone who happens to be a lobbyist. Yes, $5000 isn’t much, just a little over two people maxing out as a matter of fact. Rather than nag him about perfectly legal sources, ask him how he plans to vote on matters which may affect Citigroup.
Congressman Capuano has established that he can take the banks’ money and still vote against them, as he did on Dodd-Frank. Instead of wasting time attacking people who are on your side, maybe you should go after people who do change their votes based on the banks’ donations, like Scott Brown.
By the way, I don’t see how a vote for Dodd-Frank is a vote against Wall Street banks. I see Dodd-Frank as an official reinforcement of the policies and practices that led to the great financial collapse of 2008 (because Dodd-Frank did left the most profitable parts of the derivatives market unregulated, and it did not break up the six Too Big To Fail banks.
But more to the point, it’s about setting an example. Nothing about this petition is nagging or attacking our Congressman. Rather, it’s creating an opportunity for all of us to work together to set a better example for democracy — in turn, this could inspire others to do the same.
Anyone who has spent even a small amount of time with Congressman Capuano knows that a contribution -be it $5 of $5,000 – won’t influence him on any vote, policy or statement.
Mike Capuano sets examples every time he votes. He doesn’t need to make some phony pledge on this issue.
Congressman -keep taking their money and voting for the 99% as you have always done. There is a sense of ironic justice in doing so.
There’s nothing “phony” about this petition. This is real money, and our Congressman has the power to decide whether or not he wants to accept this cash from Wall Street lobbyists.
The point of all this is we have a money problem in our system of campaigns and elections. I don’t think anyone would dispute that assertion.
Now, if I say: “Elizabeth Warren shouldn’t take money from lobbyists” then lots of people will jump up and down and say “oh, but Scott Brown will win if she unilaterally disarms.” Fair enough.
So instead of that, now I am saying, let’s pick a “safe” Congressman — someone with the power and experience and strength to be in a position to actually set a better example for our democracy, and let’s ask him to set that example.
If we cannot ask him to do that, then how are we ever going to seriously resolve the issue of money in politics?
And besides — the act of voting in the United States Congress has lost virtually all meaning, thanks in no small part to the shenanigans of the Republican party — and so, in this context, the most powerful thing our Congressman could do is set a strong, personal example in favor of democracy.
In sum, if our progressive hero isn’t going to take a stand against dirty money in politics, then how on Earth are we ever going to resolve the number one issue of our time — money in politics?
by treating it as a systemic problem and not something for one person to solve. You change the rules by changing the rules, not by punishing people for being better by forcing them to live by a different set of rules than everyone else. Pushing for legislation to fix the issue where it can be fixed and a constitutional amendment to fix it where it currently can’t be fixed, is the way to resolve the problem. Not unilateral disarmament.
I cannot think of any system problem that our Congress has solved in the past twenty years or so…
Maybe — just maybe — they solved the problem of telemarketers interrupting your dinner. What else?
I am pushing for legislation to fix the issue and I am also pushing for a constitutional amendment — lots of people are pushing for these things — but — why resist the notion that we should also push for high standards from our Representatives? I think the higher standard of conduct would make the systemic-level reforms more likely.
(which I put in quotes because even the safest can fall to major political earthquakes) a key factor in staying safe is raising enough money to keep opponents away. We simply do not have the luxury of chancing this. I’d more respect someone who wins and works to change the rules, than one who plays by his own rules to make a point and risks losing. As for Dodd-Frank, while it is often cited as an example of legislation that could have been more progressive being watered down, voting yes on the final version is still a good thing.
Speaking about “someone who wins and works to change the rules” — that reminds me of this article my buddy was telling me about yesterday — it explained how Congressman Capuano helped block a Democratic party effort to end the “revolving door” between Captiol Hill and K-Street. I really hate to be negative but I just had to put that out there.