They’re apparently loving it, in fact.

K Street rebounds as many firms sign clients at fast pace

K Street’s economy appears to be on the rebound as a number of firms are reporting a sharp increase in new clients, a trend lobbyists attributed to the new president’s far-reaching agenda.

The combination of a deepening recession and the distraction of the 2008 campaign, which kept Congress out of session for much of the latter half of last year, were blamed for pushing lobbying revenues down in 2008.

Since Nov. 4, however, several top firms have signed new clients at a pace exceeding the growth periods that followed previous election cycles. Lobbyists credited the recently passed stimulus package and anticipated policy fights touching on the energy, healthcare and financial-services sectors for the uptick.

Read More →

Link.

We’re really not going to entertain serious arguments that Burris was being honest in answering the questions asked of him concerning his dealings with Rod Blagojevich, right? I mean, everyone has the right to a defense but that doesn’t mean that all defenses are equally credible, does it?

Despite my disgust with the shenanigans of the erstwhile governor of my state, and despite a similar disgust with the unwillingness of my state’s legislature to authorize a special election for the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama–can’t run the risk that the seat go to a Republican after all; democratic republicanism only works for some people if they win elections–I was always in favor of the Senate seating Roland Burris, our new Senator, when he was appointed to the position by former Governor Rod Blagojevich. I had assumed–and was given no reason to believe anything to the contrary–that the appointment was free of the taint that surrounded so many of Blagojevich’s actions while Governor and while I wanted the law to be changed so that a special election would occur, the law is nevertheless the law.

Of course, these were my beliefs before I had the chance to read this:

Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s brother solicited U.S. Sen. Roland Burris for up to $10,000 in campaign cash before Blagojevich named Burris to the coveted post — something Burris initially failed to disclose under oath before an Illinois House impeachment panel, records and interviews show.

Burris acknowledges being hit up for the money in a new affidavit he has sent to the head of the House committee that recommended Blagojevich be removed from office.

The affidavit is dated Feb. 5 — three weeks after Burris was sworn in to replace President Obama in the Senate.

[. . .]

Burris’ statement offers the third version of events he has given about his discussions concerning the Senate seat, to which Blagojevich appointed him in late December, after Blagojevich was hit with federal corruption charges that included an allegation he tried to sell the Senate appointment.

More here.

Read More →

Fishy, fishy, fishy stuff. Of course, it is more than a little terrifying to think that a group of people may have had their identities appropriated for the purpose of hiding campaign donations. And the following is important to emphasize:

Federal election laws limit the amount of money individuals may contribute to candidates, but lobbying firms often show their clout by collecting and bundling contributions. It is illegal for employers to reimburse donors for their contributions.The Washington Post examined contributions that were reported as being made by PMA employees and consultants and found several people who were not registered lobbyists and did not work at the lobbying firm. It is unclear whether the donors misidentified as PMA associates are part of the federal probe. A PMA spokesman said the firm’s management does not know Hoffman or Hendricksen and doesn’t know how the errors were made in reports to the Federal Elections Commission.

“It’s up to the [candidates'] campaigns to report contributions in their FEC filings,” said PMA spokesman Patrick Dorton. FEC spokeswoman Mary Brandenberger said she has not often seen such misidentified donations, but if a complaint were received, the commission would first question the campaign about its record-keeping.

So there are clearly some due diligence issues for John Murtha’s office to clear up. Any chance that we could make sure that pressure will be exerted on him until he does so, and that he pays a political price if he refuses?

Bill Alliston asks the question: Ethics Panel to Clear Rangel?

House Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel predicted, on C-SPAN’s Newsmakers program that aired Sunday, Feb. 1, 2009, that his multitude of ethics woes would soon disappear. “I think that next Tuesday you will see a break in this and as soon as the Ethics Committee organizes they ought to be able to dismiss this,” National Journal’s CongressDaily quoted the Rangel as saying.

If so, it’s hard to imagine that the Select Committee on Ethics will have devoted anything more than a cursory glance at the various issues raised. Consider just one aspect, for which documents are in the public record: Rangel’s financial disclosure forms. We took a look at his filings going all the way back to 1978, the first year members were required to disclose information on their personal finances, and found 28 instances in which he failed to report acquiring, owning or disposing of assets. Assets worth between $239,026 and $831,000 appear or disappear with no disclosure of when they were acquired, how long they were held, or when they were sold, as the operative House rules at the time required.

Read the whole thing, of course. More backup here - and there’s been more since then, of course; of which this is merely one example. And yet, he’s plainly quietly confident… and Speaker Pelosi is just plain quiet. So why is that, anyway?

Mind you, I already know, and I’ll be saying “I told you so” when House Democrats “clear” Rangel.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Barney Frank, Luis Gutierrez, and Danny Davis are all using the TARP program to intervene on behalf of constituent banks and get them aid, even when the individual financial situation of those banks does not justify any grant of aid whatsoever. What’s more: These champions of “progressive” government regulation are also trying to ensure that regulators don’t come calling on their constituent banks.

Money quote:

Politicians’ efforts to intervene on behalf of specific banks during the current crisis recall the savings and loan turmoil of the late 1980s, when members of Congress pressured the government to go easy on struggling thrift institutions. . . .

“This is a disturbing parallel to precisely some of those things that made the savings-and-loan debacle into a political scandal as well as a financial scandal,” said William Black, an associate professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, who was a bank regulator in the S&L crisis.

“Most ethical Congress in history,” according to Nancy Pelosi. And these people have gotten more TARP funds released with which to play. If that doesn’t keep one up at night, I don’t know what will.