Prosecute the torture.

April 16, 2005

Scandalous!

Tom Delay's House of Scandal website has a nifty little feature on their left sidebar where you can enter your state and find out "HOW TANGLED UP WITH DELAY IS YOUR MEMBER?"

Here's what they have to say about Little Missy Heart:

Just how tangled up in Tom DeLay's House of Scandal is Melissa Hart?

  • Melissa Hart has taken $15,000 from Tom DeLay's ARMPAC. No surprise that Hart voted with Tom DeLay 94% of the time between Jan. 1 2004 and March 31 2005.

    Is this the kind of government-for-hire that working families deserve?

  • Melissa Hart voted to weaken the ethics rules in a move that many say served only to protect Tom DeLay.

    Does the integrity of the House mean so little that Melissa Hart would sacrifice it to defend Tom DeLay?

  • When Democrats offered a solution to clean up the House by strengthening ethics rules, Melissa Hart voted to make sure it never even came to an up or down vote.

    So instead of a bipartisan effort to get government working for Americans, Melissa Hart stood for cronyism and partisan politics.

  • Melissa Hart voted to allow DeLay to continue serving as Leader even if he is indicted.

  • Is Tom DeLay's behavior the kind of leadership that should be REWARDED, not punished?


    1Contributions from ARMPAC:
    http://www.tray.com/
    $15,000
    2Voting percentage with DeLay:
    caluclated through: http://www.cq.com/
    94%
    3Vote to weaken ethics rules:
    H Res. 5, Roll Call #6, 1/4/05
    YES
    4Vote to table Democratic solution:
    H. Res. 153, Roll Call #70, 3/15/05
    YES
    5Closed door indictment rule vote:
    http://www.pcactionfund.org/votecount/dr.htm
    YES


    And here's what that have to say about Tim Murphy:

    Just how tangled up in Tom DeLay's House of Scandal is Tim Murphy?

  • Tim Murphy has taken $10,000 from Tom DeLay's ARMPAC. No surprise that Murphy voted with Tom DeLay 94% of the time between Jan. 1 2004 and March 31 2005.

    Is this the kind of government-for-hire that working families deserve?

  • Tim Murphy voted to weaken the ethics rules in a move that many say served only to protect Tom DeLay.

    Does the integrity of the House mean so little that Tim Murphy would sacrifice it to defend Tom DeLay?

  • When Democrats offered a solution to clean up the House by strengthening ethics rules, Tim Murphy voted to make sure it never even came to an up or down vote.

    So instead of a bipartisan effort to get government working for Americans, Tim Murphy stood for cronyism and partisan politics.


    1Contributions from ARMPAC:
    http://www.tray.com/
    $10,000
    2Voting percentage with DeLay:
    caluclated through: http://www.cq.com/
    94%
    3Vote to weaken ethics rules:
    H Res. 5, Roll Call #6, 1/4/05
    YES
    4Vote to table Democratic solution:
    H. Res. 153, Roll Call #70, 3/15/05
    YES

  • 13 comments:

    Ol' Froth said...

    We need to get this stuff on a billboard!

    Jonathan Potts said...

    This is great stuff. Not great that we have shady representatives, but that you're calling them to task.

    djhlights said...

    This should be on the campaign lit for whomever is running against these fools.

    Of course it would be nice to get somebody with some common sense that even stands a chance in those districts.

    Maria said...

    I didn't realize that the site was sponsored by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee when I posted it (even though the site makes no effort to hide that).

    Glad to see the party grow a set!

    Shawn said...

    Heh, now if only we Dems find viable candidates to run against these bozos!

    Anonymous said...

    ALL politicians take money from PAC's - just ask Hillary who's on her money trail.

    The Ethics committee never was the final judge - remember Barney Fag's boyfriend ran a male prostitution ring out of their house (no problem, safe seat, just vote for him again. Ethics says "don't do that again." Tough love, I guess), and the Ethics committee never found anything wrong with Rostenkowski, even though the courts did, and he went to the slammer.

    If Delay broke the law, he'll pay the price, and he should. W.PA finally has some effective reps, and you need better cannon fodder than this to combat them.

    Jonathan Potts said...

    The point was not to deny that other members of Congress, from both sides of the aisle, take PAC money, nor to imply that the Ethics Panel has been a vigilant watchdog of good government in the past. The point is that the rules were changed to benefit one powerful member, and that may be the result of the fact that he has spread around a lot of money.

    xranger said...

    Which rules?

    Lot of consternation on the left about rules, but noone cites them.

    Maria said...

    "Which rules?"

    Simple enough to find which rules if you really wanted to know. But that's OK, I'll do the work for you:

    "Washington -- The 109th Congress opened with a partisan fight Tuesday, as Republicans pushed through a rule change that will make it much more difficult for the House to investigate potential ethical violations of its members.

    Republicans said the change was essential to provide due process rights to all members, but minority Democrats angrily said it was a transparent attempt to protect Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas from more ethics investigations.

    Republican leaders had originally planned a wider set of ethics rule changes but backed down Monday evening amid opposition from some of their members, Democrats and congressional watchdog organizations.

    The rule change approved Tuesday will make it more difficult for the Ethics Committee to begin a formal investigation of a complaint. It was adopted 220-195 as part of the overall rules that will govern the House over the next two years."

    [snip]

    "The new rule requires that ethics complaints against House members die without an investigation after 45 days unless the Republican chairman and Democratic ranking member of the bipartisan 10-member Ethics Committee agree to let them proceed. The Ethics Committee also could provide a majority vote to allow a complaint to continue, meaning one member would have to side with the other party to produce an investigation.

    Currently, if the committee hasn't acted within 45 days of a complaint, the case automatically goes to investigators. It was just such a procedure that led to the investigations of DeLay, a prodigious fund-raiser known for maintaining iron discipline in the Republican caucus."

    From HERE

    Also know as the "It's my ball and I'm going home" rule.

    Maria said...

    I should have added this bit:

    "Those investigations resulted in committee letters of admonishment to DeLay in cases involving fund-raising; lobbying a Republican House member to change his vote against the Medicare drug benefit bill; and his effort last year to use the Federal Aviation Administration to find Democratic Texas state legislators who flew out of their state to stall action on a DeLay-inspired redistricting plan."

    That's right, the Bugman was admonished THREE times before by the BI-PARTISAN" committee...of course that's also before the Bugman got rid of any Republicans on the committee who were willing to put ETHICS ahead of politics. Imagine that! An ETHICS committee which put ETHICS first!

    xranger said...

    First two rules seem reasonable enough - if there is no fire after 45 days, the smoke signals were wrong.

    More importantly, what exactly do you feel the ethics committee should do - they are not a court of law. If Delay, or any politician breaks the law, indict them.

    Just getting an ethics committee reprimand in your 201 file means nothing.

    Remember Al Gore "No governing agency" about campaign finance rules? Politicians of any party will bend the laws to suit them, and be shameless in doing it.

    Ethics Committee? Find another topic, this is a non-starter.

    NEXT!

    Shawn said...

    Well, "X", what you need to remember is that while this isn't new news that it suddenly re-appeared. The "why" is obviously that someone wants rid of him. As to the "who", it has been intimated that Karl Rove has begun to view DeLay as a liability and is quitely working to undermine him. And before you dismiss this as preposteous, ask yoursef this - where was the RNC when Bob Dornan was crying foul over what he thought we dirty tricks on the part of the Sanchez campaign in '96?

    Maria said...

    "First two rules seem reasonable enough - if there is no fire after 45 days, the smoke signals were wrong."

    There's no fire or smoke to worry about because the new rules say unless the Republican Chaiman agrees THERE IS NO INVESTIGATION.

    See no evil, etc.

    "More importantly, what exactly do you feel the ethics committee should do - they are not a court of law. If Delay, or any politician breaks the law, indict them."

    I expect the Ethics Committee to act ETHICALLY. Are you saying that they should be disbanded or only act if a Democrat's ethics are in question? Did you call for the committee to be disbanded prior to Delay's problems?

    "Ethics Committee? Find another topic, this is a non-starter."

    You WISH! LOL