Nothing I wrote has anything to do with government spending. In fact I support the government spending around 500 million less a year. Mindless sheep like you working in both parties is why we are 10 trillion dollars in the red and growing. I guess you will be happy when the dollar falls down to a peso.

I would support the following;

1) Stop all donations from unions, corps…… to elected officials. The constitution guarantees free speech to people not groups. They can advocate all they want on the issue and even lobby but no money should change hands.

2) Full disclosure and no bundling of donations

3) Eliminate all franking, lawmakers can use the internet and town hall calls saving tax payers around 500 million a year.

4) Lawmakers must spend 90% of what they raise in a given election or give it to charity. Stopping lawmakers from abusing the war chest.

5) Full disclosure of any group running an ad.

http://www.snapdrive.net/files/546501/PB%20SwearIn.jpg

I do not know nor am I making any excuses for Rep. Broun. The point I was making is Harry is right about the difficulty of raising millions of dollars and keeping independence. This is a problem for both parties. As we fund out Abramoff had no problem buying support from both sides.

Broun’s platform of low taxes and less regulation would do nothing but win adoring fans from those in the business PAC community with deep pockets.

I don’t buy your veiled attempt to excuse Broun’s hypocrisy.

The real reason Broun was unable to raise a bunch of money is because he is a freshman (with not even a half a term of seniority) in a party that is deep in the minority. He might as well be a member of the Bull Moose Party.

People addicted to Meth steal and Congressman worried about their campaign accounts compromise their beliefs. No revelation there.

The only enlightenment is Broun, a guy who wanted to be viewed as different and more principled then a typical politician, proved he was not different than the majority of Congress.

He did what he had to do and did not break, or even bend, any laws. While he could have been a little smarter about it, what do you expect…he is Paul Broun Jr.

This is the best summary of Paul Broun, and his ability to sell-out his beliefs, I’ve ever read.

A few points.

1. It is perfectly acceptable, and common, for Congressional staff members to move back and forth on the campaign payroll. Of course the big no no is paying a staffer to do campaign work with taxpayer dollars; obviously Broun does not have this problem.

2. Folks who brought up Broun’s past financial troubles, and were chastised, should feel completely vindicated. Broun has proven to be irresponsible with money once again, this time it’s effectively an insolvency of his office versus insolvency of his past personal estate. Yes, it’s quite legal for Broun to sit in his office, all alone, with his thumb up his rear for the rest of the year, but it’s also pathetic. I suppose he’s going to have to panhandle to other Congress folks, like Bohener, for spare money; can’t wait to see what other beliefs he sells out in exchange for the caucuses’ spare change.

3. There is a bipartisan Congressional franking committee that reviews all documents and letters to be mass mailed to the district. So there is not a legal debate as to whether his Federally funded mail was campaign spam or legitimate constituent service. Keep in mind the franking committee’s job is not to make sure a given Congressman is staying within budget. I suppose they assume if you’re elected to Congress you’re not a complete blithering moron who is unable to balance a checkbook.

It’s normal for people to move back and forth. I would assume that every GA office does that.

But, when they move people to the campaign payroll, those people are working on campaign business, not official business.

It would be unusual, and I think problematic, to have the campaign pay people to work in the official office. So, I do think it’s different.

Rep. Broun has put himself in a position financially where he can not perform his official functions without private donors. That’s a very vulnerable place to be ethically.

What types of subject matter make a mailing look like a political ad versus constituent service?