Everyone is talking about a "culture of corruption." It's nice to know that someone is adding to the dialogue, rather than simply providing more rhetoric on the topic. Kristin Anderson, a 2nd year UI Law Student, has put together a tremendous program tonight. Although the event overlaps the 2nd half of the Illini game, TVs will broadcast the game in the reception area prior to the panel, and updates will be given throughout the 2nd half and in between speakers.
The Culture of Corruption in American Politics
ÂÂ
- In Chicago, Mayor Daley is under constant attack for his hiring practices and for questionable campaign contributions from city contractors.
- In Illinois, a former governor is on trial while the current governor attempts to quiet allegations that his administration practices favoritism and “pay to play” politics.
- In Washington, D.C., former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay recently stepped down after being indicted for criminal conspiracy to inject illegal contributions into Texas campaign funds.
What does this mean for the future of politics in America? Are we witnessing an undoing of the “Culture of Corruption”ÂÂ? Or have we only begun to understand the sordid depths of American politics?
Come find out on February 21, 2006 when the Federalist Society hosts a Panel Discussion on the Culture of Corruption in American Politics.
TIME: 7:00 PM
LOCATION: Law School Auditorium
 PANELISTS INCLUDE:
- Mike Lawrence, Director of the Paul Simon Institute of Public Policy and former Press Secretary for Governor Jim Edgar
- Steve Beckett, Professor of Law at the University of Illinois and Vice Chair of the Champaign County Board
- Jim Nowlan, Professor of Political Science at the University of Illinois and Senior Fellow at the Institute of Government and Public Affairs
- Bernie Robinson, former top lobbyist for Governor George Ryan and the State of Illinois, Lobbyist for the Livingston Group
Thank God there's no corruption in the Bush administration worth mentioning!
I have been a huge Bush supporter and I could probably debate you on what you would call Bush administration corruption.
However, there are two events recently that have really disturbed me. The first was the State Department's stand that the Danish cartoons should not be published because they are offensive to muslims, the second came today when he said that the deal allowing an Arab company to take over six major U.S. seaports should go forward and that he would veto any congressional effort to stop it. I know I've heard accusations about his connections with the Saudi's and I haven't given them any credence, but these events makes me think twice.
I guess you think appointees like Harriet Meiers and Michael Brown are the best qualified people around, and perhaps you aren't concerned about huge gobs of money stolen by Enron, Bechtel, KBR, and the other Bush/Cheney companies. Ok.
But the Bush Admin. is always on the side of the wealthiest capitalists, whether American or Arab. Perhaps it's becoming more clear than it's been in the past that the side he's on isn't exactly yours.
Subject: How Enron Worked the President
This is an interesting bit of information that you don't hear much about.
A... Enron's chairman did meet with the president and the vice president in the Oval Office.
B.. Enron gave $420,000 to the president's party over three
years.
C.. It donated $100,000 to the president's inauguration
festivities.
D.. The Enron chairman stayed at the White House 11 times.
E.. The corporation had access to the administration at its
highest level and even enlisted the Commerce and State Departments to
grease deals for it.
F.. The taxpayer-supported Export-Import Bank subsidized Enron
for more than $600 million in just one transaction. Scandalous!!
G.. BUT...the president under whom all this happened WASN'T
GeorgeW. Bush.
SURPRISE ... It was Bill Clinton!
Don't be so naive to think that the Bush administration is the first or only president to 1. make poor appointee choices (Reno) and 2. have ties to big business. And as far as the "weathiest capitalists" goes, who do you think creates jobs and economic growth?
You're citing misinformation designed to muddy the waters. Can you cite your source for this info? (or is it just a made up untruthful email?) Take a look at this website that debunks these claims (http://uspolitics.about.com/od/politicalcommentary/a/enron.htm).
I'm no fan of Clinton, who I see as basically a Republican, but he was never even nearly as closely associated with Enron as GW Bush.
It's working people who create the wealthy capitalists. I feel that those working people should set up a system that allows for job growth and reasonable prosperity for all or almost all, rather than establish rules that encourage an excessive concentration of wealth and power at the very top edge of the economic spectrum.
Okay. I didn't realize that the email I got today was over a year old. I read through the article you sited. Except for the 11 overnights at the White House, they don't seem to be able to disprove the info, except to point out that the Bush White House did it too, and to a higher degree. I'm sorry I chose such a poor example, however, my point still stands that all administrations do this kind of stuff. WorldCom, etc.
Wealthy capitalists are the people who are visionaries and risk takers. The leaps of faith that someone has to take to create a new business is huge. Once that business gets up and running, jobs are created for what you call the working people. When you stifle the incentive for risk taking, you also kill opportunity for working people.