Are Border State Senators Helping or Hurting Their States?

Voters on immigration: Action, please; In Arizona, it's the most important issue among likely voters. But consensus on how to act is elusive. By Gail Russell Chaddock; The Christian Science Monitor 10/26

The Christian Science Monitor reports:

that while "much of America hit the pause button this fall on the flaming debate over illegal immigration, once it became clear Congress would not act before the election. But not Arizona." In a "state where the wave of border crossers is so great that it washes over every aspect of life, illegal immigration is a flash point in virtually every political race this fall. Moreover, there's a candidate for every view - from those saying 'send 'em back and bar the door' to those who'd provide a path for citizenship for some undocumented workers." Republican Randy Graf, who takes a "tough stance" on immigration, is "in an uphill battle to hold the Eighth Congressional District for the Republicans."

Outgoing Rep. Jim Kolbe "holds a more moderate view of immigration reform, as does Graf's Democratic challenger, Gabrielle Giffords. But Graf is banking that a majority of voters in this district feel as he does - and there are signs that Arizonans are, indeed, worked up over illegal immigration." But the state's "all-Republican
congressional delegation - some of whom are in unexpectedly close contests for reelection - is deeply divided on the immigration issue. Sharing Representative Kolbe's view are Rep. Jeff Flake, in the upscale Phoenix suburb of Mesa, and the very popular Sen. John McCain." On the other side "are Graf and Rep. J.D. Hayworth, who represents the also-upscale Fifth Congressional District in Scottsdale. They say their colleagues' plan amounts to amnesty for illegal immigrants and would reward people for breaking the law." Farrell Quinlan, a spokesman for the Arizona Chamber of Commerce in Phoenix, said, "Arizona is a microcosm of the nation when it comes to views on this issue. We're ground zero for the debate. Our economy is growing, and a lot of industries have grown to rely on that source of labor."

Read the complete article at the link above.

One of the areas I wanted to touch on has been the border and illegal alien issue affecting our country. Without presenting elements of the issues themselves, I have noted empirically how certain Senators have taken decidedly opposite views toward the issue from the general population of their state and the general assemblies. However, this is only observation, not supported research.

With that said I have a number of questions I am going to try and answer in the weeks to come. Here are a few.

• Do senators from states that border Mexico have similar views as do the majority of state legislators?


• If so, are senators from those states most affected by the illegal alien problem are actually hurting their own states infrastructure, security, and general well being by taking a contrary position?


• How have those Senators from states most affected responded to border security and immigration legislation?

If I go with my gut feelings, I tend to think they are working against the interests of their states, but we will see.

Elections could be most costly in US history

Elections could be most costly in US history; By Holly Yeager; Financial Times; October 24 2006 21:00 Last updated: October 24 2006 21:00

Hat tip: Pajamas Media

Next month’s midterm elections will be the most costly congressional races in US history, with business interests contributing three-quarters of the estimated $2.6bn that will be spent, says a non-partisan research group.

In a report to be released on Wednesday, the Center for Responsive Politics predicted that Republican candidates, parties and advocacy groups would spend $1.4bn (€1.1bn, £746m) while Democratic interests' would spend $1.2bn.

House incumbents had so far out-raised their challengers by 7–2. Senate incumbents had a 4–1 edge over their challengers, the group said.

In most years, that fundraising prowess and the shape of congressional districts give incumbents an edge at the polls. But this year, voter dissatisfaction with Washington could prove a more powerful force in some races. Public opinion polls show Democrats poised to take control of the House of Representatives and perhaps the Senate in the November 7 vote.

Spending by political action committees (PAC), which include business, organised labour and ideologically based groups, was also on track to break a record, exceeding $1bn for the first time, the group said. “PACs give as an investment,” said Sheila Krumholz, acting director of the centre. “They’re giving to make sure that doors are opened and they can pitch their legislative agenda.”

But despite the Democrats’ edge in the polls, the centre said campaign records did not yet indicate that PACs were moving away from incumbents. Instead, the 87 per cent of PAC money going to those already in office was at its highest level since 1990.

Lawyers and law firms had been the most generous industry during the 2005-06 election cycle, followed by pensioners, the real estate industry, and securities and investment firms. More broadly, the finance, insurance and real estate sector continued to dominate in political giving, with more than $183m in the 18 months since the start of 2005.

The centre’s $2.6bn estimate for this year is 18 per cent up on the total spent in 2002, before campaign finance reforms were enacted that were designed to limit the influence of large corporate and labour donors.

The top donors this cycle, based on contributions from PACs and employees, included the National Association of Realtors, Goldman Sachs, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union, AT&T, the National Beer Wholesalers Association and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, the group said.

Comment: Can we agree that this is getting to be too much? I hope so, because we, the citizenry, are losing out considerably. Since the enactment of the 17th Amendment the influences of special interest groups, big business, and the wealthy has grown in Washington D.C. steadily while fading away from our communities, the intended repository as created by the Founders in the original Constitution. Consider the above, campaign spending is up by 18 percent since 2002, and this is with the silly campaign finance reforms.

The only way to curb this problem is to repeal the 17th Amendment. By doing so the American people would be removing a wide open super highway for special interest accessing our government; that being the U.S. Senate. This is not to say that repealing the 17th would end this influence completely, it would still be there and would most certainly transfer to the state legislators. However a major chunk of influence would be reduced in Washington and would be dispersed amongst the States.

While it’s highly likely that special interest groups would target State Legislators and would continue to mark Senators, there would be far greater scrutiny of the Senate and Senators’ action than is today. Senators basically operate out-of-sight, out-of-mind. You see them during the election, but once its over, off they go to Washington out of the state and local scrutiny for another six years. But if they were beholden to their respective State Legislators, and moreover to the people that elect the State Legislators, they would have greater answerability and we would have greater scrutiny of their actions.

Its real simple, repeal the 17th Amendment and take back the power we the people have lost.

Sen. Graham; Look at Me!

GOP Senator Say Iraq Is Near Chaos; Oct 23 5:36 PM US/Eastern; By DEB RIECHMANN; Associated Press

Just two weeks before the Nov. 7 elections that will determine whether Republicans retain control of Congress, the White House tried to calm political anxieties about deteriorating security in Iraq. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers are calling on President Bush to change his war plan.

"We're on the verge of chaos, and the current plan is not working," Sen. Lindsey
Graham, R-S.C., said in an Associated Press interview. U.S. and Iraqi officials should be held accountable for the lack of progress, said Graham, a Republican
who is a frequent critic of the administration's policies.

Asked who in particular should be held accountable _ Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, perhaps, or the generals leading the war _ Graham said: "All of them. It's their job to come up with a game plan" to end the violence

Comment: One has to ask why this man would say something like the statement above two weeks before an off year election that has become very bitter and contentious. No matter what side of the war issue you are on, this statement by Graham is one of the many examples of a Senator that is centered on himself rather than his state and for that matter his party.

People of South Carolina; would your State legislators elect this guy to the Senate if the 17th Amendment was repealed?

Outside money fuels Missouri Senate race

Outside money fuels Missouri Senate race; Control of Congress bring millions into the 'Show me' state; The Associated Press; Updated: 1:26 p.m. ET Oct 4, 2006

WASHINGTON - Outside money is streaming into Missouri's U.S. Senate race as national political parties try to sway the outcome of a contest that polls are calling a dead heat.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee so far has spent about $1.4 million on television ads to boost State Auditor Claire McCaskill and slam her opponent, Republican Sen. Jim Talent, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Its counterpart, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has poured about $2.3 million into the state for ads, surveys and other expenses in the past two weeks.

And that's just the beginning of a torrent of funds expected to be spent by outside groups, swelling the millions that Talent and McCaskill will spend on their own. The nationally watched race is one of a handful that could determine whether Democrats regain control of the Senate.

"This is the time when negative advertising starts to emerge in a prominent way," said Terry Jones, a political science professor at the University of Missouri at St. Louis. "That's best paid for and done by the respective political parties and that's why you're going to see them carrying the bulk of the financial water, maybe for the duration of the campaign."

"The NRSC will spend what it takes to highlight the differences between Senator Talent's common sense values and Claire McCaskill's affinity for hiding her liberal views by saying different things in different parts of the state," said NRSC spokesman Brian Walton.

The DSCC launched an ad last week that calls the Medicare drug plan "a billion dollar giveaway to the big drug companies" and highlights Talent's support for the program, along with his contributions from the pharmaceutical industry.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who heads the Democratic committee, said the millions spent by the party has helped Democratic candidates put their Republican opponents on the defensive.

"Countless polls and news stories from this past weekend confirmed the same amazing piece of news," Schumer said Tuesday in a message to supporters. "If the midterm elections were held today, Democrats would win the six seats necessary to retake the United States Senate."

Most of the outside funds are "independent expenditures" that are not coordinated with the campaigns. These unlimited funds are often aimed at supporting the candidate with TV ads.

The committees can also spend up to $700,600 in "coordinated expenditures" to help pay for campaign expenses and operations to get out the vote.

Records show the Republican committee has given $593,000 in coordinated money to Talent's campaign. The DSCC has contributed about $275,000 in coordinated expenses to McCaskill's campaign.

The Democratic committee also has funneled more than $1.4 million to the Missouri Democratic Party to help organizers get supporters to the polls.

McCaskill's campaign, which has raised less than half the funds Talent has, stands to benefit most from the influx of outside money. Earlier this year, the DSCC pledged to spend about $6 million on TV ads in Missouri from late August through the election.

Comment: How have direct elections for the U.S. Senate helped democracy or the citizenry; it hasn’t. Big party money along with the lobbyist furthers their agendas at the expense of the people, communities, and the states. Its time the American people woke up to the destruction caused by Democrats and Republicans alike.

Northern Virginia Writer Hit the Nail on the Head

Repeal the 17th Amendment; 10/03/2006; Charles Stinnett; Fauquier Times-Democrat / The Fauquier Citizen.

A Northern Virginia reader to the Fauquier Times-Democrat / The Fauquier Citizen, Charles Stinnett of Flint Hill, has a spot on article briefly explaining how the 17^th Amendment aids special interest groups.

While reading the article in your Sept. 14, 2006 edition regarding the Independent Green candidate for the U.S. Senate, it occurred to me that most Americans may not realize how the U.S. Senate lends itself to "special interest," or why it is virtually impossible for an independent candidate to achieve office there.

When the U.S. Constitution was ratified, Article I, Sec. 3 provided that all U.S. senators shall be chosen from among the various state legislatures, by the legislators, to serve at the pleasure of same for a term of six years. The reasoning behind this provision was to ensure, as far as possible, that U.S. senators would be chosen carefully by peers, according to the most diligent scrutiny of character and associations among a multi-partisan body politic.

There were no expensive campaigns; and "special interest" influence was very limited, and under close observation. Then, along came the 17th Amendment.

The 17th Amendment (notably ratified the same year as the 16th, i.e., "Income Tax Amendment;" and along with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913), provided for the popular election of U.S. senators; which invited the influence of special interest groups by way of the now-enormous expense of funding a senate campaign.

In essence, the U.S. Senate was up for bids. Sold.

People talk about "campaign finance reform" in endless and pointless debate without considering how it came to be an issue in the first place.

The Founders set up our system so you could send your neighbor to the state legislatures. Then, you could go to your neighbors' houses and ask why some disappointing jerk was sent by them to the U.S. Senate. Hopefully, your legislators/neighbors would be very careful about who was appointed to serve.

They, too, had a chance to serve if they conducted themselves with dignity and integrity. That is the "grass-roots politics" for which so many now long.

True senate integrity and a hamstringing of special interest could begin with a repeal of the 17th Amendment.

Comment: Mr. Stinnett is very correct. Any initiative to correct the problem in the Senate is fruitless because all it will do is to serve the incumbents. Look at the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Bill. It was written by the two Senators to protect Senators. Only by repealing of 17^th amendment will the larger part of special interest be taken out of government. One should not be too green to think this would totally rid the country of the special interest problem; but this would remove a significant chunk nonetheless.