I'd like to make a respectful plea for an effort to refrain from overly simplistic populist outrage. I’m not accusing Steve of doing this; I’m just saying that this post could inspire it.

Some months ago, Steve did a post on a trip he made to Europe where he was sitting in business class, while a U.S. government official who participated in the conference traveled like a sardine in a middle seat back in coach.

Steve suggested that the person in question worked hard, had an enormously difficult job and that he might actually do that job better if he were permitted to travel in a modestly better style. I think Steve was right about that.

It's easy to mouth off about how terrible our elected representatives are; how venal, self-serving and stupid they often behave. But I think this is too simple-minded. The fact is that Congressmen and Senators have to maintain two homes, they often work nights and weekends and they are away from their families for long periods of time. For all of this they are actually rather poorly paid; they serve at a significant financial sacrifice. Those that don't come to the job wealthy are highly unlikely to retire wealthy and while many take lucrative lobbying jobs after they leave congress, the vast majority do not.

I would also respectfully point out that many of the perks people object to for members of congress might also apply to "think-tankers" who are, after all, employees of corporations that are supposed to be "not-for-profit." It is this non-profit status that provides them with their tax advantage without which their fundraising would be impossible.

In this post, Steve mentions,

"I would note this story that recently appeared about the Blackstone Group's President hosting a "private equity big-wigs" fundraiser for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi."

As Steve may or may not know, it's not just Nancy Pelosi who is doing fundraising from the Blackstone Group. The CEO of Blackstone, who is actually a huge Republican fundraiser, is Steve Schwartzman. His former partner and mentor (now retired), Pete Peterson is listed on the roster of donors at the website of the New America Foundation. Peterson made most of his money at Blackstone; he's a billionaire. Like politicians, Development Directors at non-profit institutions go where the money is; Blackstone has the money; that's why they're approached by Pelosi; it's why they're approached by the New America Foundation and it's why they're approached by every competent fundraisier in the Untied States.

Populist outrage can be fun; but it is rarely truly edifying. I know that Steve Clemons, Steve Coll and others don’t bull any punches because their employer gets Blackstone money. Why should we automatically assume that Nancy Pelosi changes her views because the Blackstone people held a fundraiser for her?

Well put, Wig. And I'd add, "We shouldn't assume anything about J
Street's independence just because a few of their donors are Arabs
or Iranians."

I hope it's not indelicate of me to point out the irony of the juxtaposition of this post with the one right above it.

In this post, Steve implies (although he doesn't actually say it) that there is something nefarious about the "Blackstone Group's President hosting a "private equity big-wigs" fundraiser for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi."

The post directly above this one features an attractive photograph of the learned, prolific and enormously wealthy George Soros. In the 2010 cycle alone, Open Secrets reports that Soros has donated $20,000 to the DSCC; $15,000 to the DCCC; and another $15,000 to a variety of Democrats ranging from Charles Schumer to Donna Edwards to Paul Hodes.

Over the past 10 years, Soros has given as much or more to Democratic candidates and to 527 organizations as any man alive.

I think Soros is brilliant and public spirited even though I frequently disagree with him. I know that Steve respects him tremendously.

My question to Steve is this,

Do you think there is anything more nefarious about the President of Blackstone donating to Nancy Pelosi than it is for George Soros to donate to literally hundreds of democratic candidates and political committees?

Wig, I know Soros is a major donor for the Center for American Progress. Does he support the New America Foundation too?

He was one of the founders of J Street, then stepped away from it so as not to be too obvious.

Wig writes: 'Do you think there is anything more nefarious about
the President of Blackstone donating to Nancy Pelosi than it is for
George Soros to donate to literally hundreds of democratic
candidates and political committees?"

I think it's mostly a matter of whether one agrees with the aims of
the funder in question. In Pelosi's case, the funder seems to want
her to go slow on financial reform. Does one think that's good or
bad for the country.

"I think it's mostly a matter of whether one agrees with the aims of the funder in question." (Sweetness)

So a billionaire funding politicians and PACs on a large scale is legitimate if he's on your side of the political aisle, but nefarious if he's on the other side?

One hears this logic often, but usually not stated that bluntly.

Nadine, I think you either 1) remove all money from the equation
across the board, or 2) you give as much money as you can to
the causes you support.

It's something of a complex question, but I think I prefer the
first option. But as long as that isn't going to happen, then you
have to go with option 2.

Another option is to limit the amount of money that can be
given, but that seems to redirect, rather than restrict, the money
flow.

The bias that Wig may be detecting in Steve's comment--I'm not
sure it's there, but it may be--probably comes from the fact
that he agrees with many of Soros' positions and doesn't agree
so much with Schwartzman's aims.

This is a blog, so editorializing is perfectly fine and to be
expected.

But here's a little trivia...Soros is also a Schwartz, man...and so
am I! Hungarians, both!

Here I was, enjoying a little civil discussion with well-founded points of argument, when good old Nadine chimes in with what, at first, appears to be legitimate questions (which they were). But then throws in that petulant little turd of a comment:
"He was one of the founders of J Street, then stepped away from it so as not to be too obvious."

I don't dispute that Soros was one of the founders of J Street. That fact is certainly easy to verify. But to add that he stepped away so as not to be too obvious is a bit of editorial free-wheeling that displays a your true bias - not that it was all that hidden anyway.

I think you would be better served to lay out your case and let the facts speak for themselves. These kind of throw-away slurs demean any legitimate point you're trying to make.

Or is this your true nature?

""If you can’t take their money, drink their whiskey, screw their women, and vote against ‘em anyway, you don’t belong in the Legislature” is a quote by Molly Ivins (1944-2007) that’s often attributed to Texas politics. The saying was first used by Jesse Unruh (1922-1987) in California politics, cited in print from May 1961. Unruh was talking about lobbyist gifts.

There are some quotes below of a somewhat similar usage in Pennsylvania politics in the 1950s, but this is probably unrelated to Unruh’s famous use of the saying.

Wikipedia: Jesse M. Unruh
Jesse Marvin Unruh (September 30, 1922 – August 4, 1987), also known as Big Daddy Unruh, was a U.S. Democratic politician and California State Treasurer.

Born in Newton, Kansas, he served in the U.S. Navy during World War II. After leaving the Navy, Unruh enrolled at the University of Southern California, and received a B.A. in Political Science and Journalism in 1948.
(...)
Famous Quotes
“Money is the mother’s milk of politics.”
“If you can’t take their money, drink their liquor, fuck their women, and then come in here the next day and vote against them, you don’t belong here.” "

http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/texas/entry/if_you_cant_take_their_moneyand_vote_against_them_you_dont_belong_in_the_le/

The issue of post-staff jobs and post-congressional term jobs is a huge one, and likely alters the equation significantly. Once re-election pressure is removed, the possibility for corruption rises significantly. And of course staffers who do the real work are never in the re-election position. But there's a lot of dedication, long hours, thankless research, lawyering, putting up with all kinds of crap, too. So, with WigWag, one should be careful about what one wishes for.

Tightening the screws with term limits has been proven to be utterly counter-productive. Tightening the screws here should be done with wisdom and based on actual misdeeds, not suspicions of misdeeds.

Wait times between service and lobbying might need to increase, probably some outright bans on further lobbying for some should be considered as well. But you never want to be in a position where real expertise is discouraged from seeking governmental service. Regular "Joe the Plumber" staffers are not going to be able to research, write, craft, advise, deal with constituent needs, and the like. The profile for a good staffer is specialized, expert, and too important to leave to low-paid, underappreciated people.

And of course, all of this money in politics stuff must be both correlated with actual votes and then matched up with district/constituent issues as well. Until all the matching is done, it remains suspect behavior, a source of careful concern, but not proven wickedness.

The relationship between MC portfolios and market averages might not say as much as it seems. Or it might say a lot.

"I don't dispute that Soros was one of the founders of J Street. That fact is certainly easy to verify. But to add that he stepped away so as not to be too obvious is a bit of editorial free-wheeling that displays a your true bias "

Maw, Soros' anti-Israel positions are easy to verify too. If you are selling yourself as a pro Israel organization, do you want everybody to know how much Soros is backing you? Wouldn't that lead to questions you don't want asked? Which leads to a desire to be non-obvious about the backing. It hardly seems like a big leap of "editorial free-wheeling" to me, but a rather logical conclusion.

It didn't get any better than Molly Ivins. Priceless doesn't even come close. And what's not to love about the Unruh quote, except maybe to update it to be gender neutral, although the real players are still predominantly white males.

Sidenote: Since I am an actual son of the Confederacy, my great-grandfather Simeon Spencer having fought on the Confederate side at the Battle of Lookout Mountain, I am sorely tempted to sign up and cause as much grief as possible for misguided bozos like the current governor of Virginia, who seems to think we descendants of Confederate soldiers are all a bunch of white supremacists.

We have a copy of Simeon's letter after the war ended basically wanting to know where in hell his pension was.

My other maternal great-grandfather fought on the Union side (both were Kentuckians). After the war, if they were in the same room together, they refused to speak to each other. Ah, the Montagues and the Capulets blend with the Hatfields and McCoys, sort of.

Maw.

I've written this before Maw, and I write it again, with Nadine, whomever that is, all roads lead to one destination.

Wig,

You brought tears to my eyes, and warmed the cockles of my heart, with you plea for resisting "overly simplistic populist outrage".

I do suggest however that if so many of our govt employees, on missions of great national import, are crammed like "sardine[s]" in middle seats, they take a moment to report back to their employers about such treatment.

You know.....to said same govt types that deregulated the airlines to allow corporations to cram us in to ever smaller spaces. With less and less decent air to breath.

I mean there are, after all, two ways to go about solving this. We could mount a campaign to raise funds and awareness for those valiant messengers of the Empire everywhere, crammed in middle seats. Our motto could be "bureaucrats upgraded! NOW!".

Or we could pass legislation so all the citizens stand a chance not being crammed into seats like sardines.

Which do I think more likely in this society? Hmmm....I have a hunch.

I'd take these claims with a grain of salt or two. James Snyder, a
political scientist at MIT, has data that show that members of
Congress' investments don't outperform those of "civilians" with
similar age/profession/income levels. Check out his research on
this.