"Now is not the time to play politics simply because an election is looming in a few weeks," Sen. Susan Collins said as she cast a vote to filibuster the defense authorization bill that contained a repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, a measure that she supported.

I saw this line last week as I watched the usually somnolent and despairing Inside Washington hosted by Gordon Peterson on PBS. Peterson immediately echoed my own thoughts upon hearing Collins' predictable pronouncement. And I paraphrase, "Right before an election seems like the best time to play politics to me."

This is sort of the no s--- statement of past thirty years, where all pundits and politicians bemoan politics as they practice it. It's also an acknowledgment that Sen. Collins' statement itself is a political play. All politics is political and all politicians practice politics. Everyone should know this by now and stop complaining about politicians being political.

That being said, I come to the Republicans on the House Ethics Committee playing politics right before an election. Committee Republicans are demanding that Chair Zoe Lofgren hold ethics trials for embattled congressmen Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters. This public call is a serious break in committee decorum and represents an attempt to politicize the ethics trials even more than they already have been.

The Democrats, of course, postponed the trials for political reasons too. Do you think that the Democrats want to go into the toughest election they've faced in sixteen years with two prominent members facing trials and verdicts? Hell no! So they postpone the trials, which makes the Republicans try to make some noise off of it.

Politicians playing politics. Get used to it.

Now I'm not going to condemn the political maneuvering here, but I will point out the obvious. A congressional ethics process that relies on self-regulation will ultimately reach undesirable conclusions that increase cynicism in the public and reduce trust in our elected officials. The process will also, invariably, become mucked up by politics as these are politicians judging other politicians, sometimes of the opposing party.

The Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent body that members of both parties are unhappy with, is already working to increase the accountability of the ethics process. Instead of bemoaning accountability and a stable ethics process, lawmakers should embrace it by maintaining and expanding the Office of Congressional Ethics.

My colleague Lisa Rosenberg wrote about the need to double the office's budget next year, "As Congress struggles to redeem its reputation in the eyes of the public, it should be loathe to return to the days when representatives were solely responsible for policing their own. Both parties should demonstrate their commitment to transparency and accountability by giving the OCE the power and the budget to continue the good work it has begun."

Seeing how the ethics process can be so quickly fouled by politics, it's time for both parties to help increase the independence of ethics oversight.

The 2008 presidential campaign featured blistering attacks, particularly from the eventual victor Sen. Barack Obama, on Washington's chief money-making industry. Lobbyists are now trying to assess where they stand in Washington with a reformer in the White House and an economic downturn that is now actually stretching onto K Street.

Most of the change that will occur on K Street relates to the partisan makeup of firms. With Republicans falling further into the minority, lobby firms will need fewer GOP lobbyists and more Democratic ones. Some changes are already underway with Comcast replacing a Republican as chief lobbyist with a former staffer of prominent Obama supporter Tom Daschle.

Despite the Politico's suggestion that, "The repositioning highlights how little Washington is likely to change, despite all the anti-lobbyist rhetoric tossed around in the campaign," lobby firms certainly fear what kind of access and what new reforms they could face under President Obama's administration. If we had the sense of smell of a lion, we could smell the fear emanating from the monitor when reading this Congressional Quarterly article from today. This article is ridden with quotes from lobbyists not only attempting to sell themselves and their business to a new administration, but also trying to prebut the coming reforms and changes.

I sincerely hope that the promises of reform do not end at the ballot box as so many on K Street seem to be projecting. Further transparency requirements are needed to reel in the influence industry. A good place to start would be to enact the reforms contained in the Transparency in Government Act, available at PublicMarkup.org.

In some ways it is unbelievable to think that a candidate for the United States Senate, fresh off of seven felony convictions, could win reelection. Never underestimate the power of resentment and incumbency. At the moment it appears that felonious Sen. Ted Stevens will be reelected to an eighth term. Sen. Stevens joins a few other scandal plagued lawmakers winning reelection.

Stevens' congressional partner, Rep. Don Young, under investigation by the Justice Department for various earmark schemes, appears headed back to Congress. Also, Rep. William Jefferson, facing a 16 count indictment on corruption charges, won handily in his New Orleans district. (Update: Jefferson's election was actually delayed due to new rules in Louisiana related to elections and hurricanes.)

Two Florida lawmakers embroiled in scandals did fail to win reelection. Rep. Tom Feeney, one of the last of the Abramoffian congressmen, lost badly. Feeney had to cut a commercial during the campaign in which he apologized for going on a golfing trip to Scotland that was secretly paid for by Jack Abramoff. Freshman Florida Rep. Tim Mahoney, caught in a TMZ style adultery scandal, was crushed in his attempted reelection.

Despite his likely victory, Sen. Stevens will be expelled, or forced to retire, from the U.S. Senate. As Yoda might say, "Convictions on felony counts do not a Senator make." Speeding up the process may be the desire for Republicans to finally purge their ranks of the members tainted by corruption. Republican Sen. John Ensign has already expressed the likely position of the Republican caucus, stating that expulsion would not wait until after Sen. Stevens' appeal process is complete.

Update: Please see Ellen's comment in the comment thread for a clarification of these numbers.

MAPLight.org's excellent study on in-state vs. out-of-state contributions to congressional candidates provides so many great points of data. The Blog of the Legal Times (BLT) looks at the zip codes with the highest amount of giving to political candidates. No surprise here:

1. Washington, D.C. 20005, with $28.9 million raised (map) 2. Washington, D.C. 20001, with $27.5 million raised (map) 3. Washington, D.C. 20036, with $27.5 million raised (map) 4. Washington, D.C. 20006, with $21.8 million raised (map) 5. Washington, D.C. 20004, with $17.8 million raised (map) 6. Alexandria, Va. 22314, with $12.2 million raised 7. Washington, D.C. 20007 with $5.8 million raised (map) 8. Chicago, Ill. 60611 with $5.3 million raised 9. McLean, Va. 22102 with $5.2 million raised 10. Arlington, Va. 22209 with $5.2 million raised

All but one of these Washington, D.C. zip codes include parts of K Street, the chief lobbying corridor in the capital city. Arlington and McLean are part of a few of the richest counties in the entire country (McLean is in Fairfax County, the absolute richest county in the U.S.) These two Virginia locales are populated with pundits, lobbyists, defense contractors, lobbyists, and lobbyists.

And just in case there were any illusions left about campaign contributions and influence in Congress, take a look at this post from the blog of the law firm Womble Carlyle:

In the October 1 Political GPS we discussed the brave new world of regulation that has been ushered in by the current economic crisis. And from what we can see, “Joe the Hedge Fund Manager” should have as many concerns as “Joe the Plumber.” In short, the financial services industry will need to shift its government relations and PAC efforts into overdrive in order to outrun the regulatory tsunami headed its way.

Which plays nicely into the Washingtonian's list of winners and losers in Washington over the collapse of the financial industry. Guess who the number one winners are: lobbyists and law firms!

An Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) patch, a mental health parity bill, a package of tax break extensions, and tax breaks and relief for victims of natural disasters, specifically Hurricane Ike. These don't sound like they have any relation to the relief of an financial crisis, but, as of today, they will all play a major role. The new massive bailout package — sorry, "rescue" package — introduced in the Senate includes all of these measures. The inclusion of these measures could help push the underlying Emergency Economic Stabilization Act through Congress or torpedo it by injecting inter-chamber politics into an already tense political situation.

At the heart of the tacked-on legislation is a combination of an AMT patch and tax break extensions for corporations and renewable energy investments. Senate Democrats, most prominently Sen. Max Baucus, believe that the inclusion of these measures will help draw the support of House Republicans who previously voted down Monday's bailout bill. However, this measure is already drawing the ire of House Democrats, including Blue Dogs and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

The AMT/tax break extension package was previously passed by the Senate, but House leaders, pushed by Hoyer and the Blue Dogs, intended on shelving the proposal due to its failure to abide by pay-as-you-go rules (providing offsetting cuts to go with revenue reductions). The inclusion of the package in the bailout bill will revive the animus between the two Democratic factions. Hoyer has already stated that the inclusion of the "tax extenders" is "controversial" and was included only because "they thought that’s the only way they could get it passed.” Of course, the Blue Dogs, being prominent supporters of the bailout bill, may find themselves in a situation where this compromise is the best they can get.

Seeing as how every vote counts at this point — the bailout only needs 12 votes to pass in the House — the inclusion of the mental health parity legislation previously passed by the House could help sway one or two votes. The chief Republican cosponsor of the bill, Rep. Jim Ramstad, voted against the bailout bill on Monday. Also, one the bill's seven cosponsors, Rep. Pete Stark, also voted against the bailout. The inclusion of the defining bill of Ramstad's career, as he retires this year, could be enough to sway this one vote into the "yes" column.

In classic congressional fashion, the Senate has decided to use a crisis piece of legislation as a way to push through a massive package of other priorities forcing an inter-chamber factional battle to come to a head. The inclusion of this controversial legislation could also serve as a remedy to the current failure in the House.

Poison pill or appeasing antidote? We'll wait and see.

Two years ago, I was named Time's person of the year and now I own an insurance company, two mortgage brokers, and I'll soon own nearly $1 trillion worth of stock. I am so proud of me.

Luckily for me, financial services lobbyists are summoning the economic advisers of both presidential campaigns to help them draft policy positions on how to deal with my newly acquired assets and any future purchases.

It is the "dirty little secret in town," said one financial-services lobbyist -- that after lambasting lobbyists on the stump, the candidates need their counsel on how to respond to a crisis with origins too complicated for most industry outsiders to understand.

...

This week, two of the biggest financial groups in Washington, the Financial Services Roundtable and the Mortgage Bankers Association, have drawn in members from across the country to grill economic advisers from both campaigns, develop policy positions and urge prudence as both parties struggle to craft a regulatory stance on the deepening crisis.

Does this mean that Phil Gramm will be sitting across from himself?

The Legal Times blog reports that the Justice Department will release a number of documents and audio recordings related to the trial of Sen. Ted Stevens. One of those audio recordings of Stevens reveals him to be incredibly cheap. "Ted gets hysterical when he has to spend his own money," says Alaska restaurateur Robert Persons to VECO chief Bill Allen. Stevens won one battle, to obtain Allen's medical records. Allen is the government's primary witness and has a history of mental health problems related to a motorcycle accident.

The Ethics Committee is pushing ahead with an inquiry into Rep. Charles Rangel's financial disclosure snafus. Consensus has yet to take place as Ethics interim Chairman Gene Green and Ranking Member Doc Hastings released dueling letters on the form of the investigative subcommittee.

I think that someone already did this. He's totally never on TV, so I can't remember his name.

As I've already written about here, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac PACs are now shuttered, ending an era of boundless campaign contributions used to keep lawmakers out of their business. Thanks to those campaign contributions and the subsequent lack of oversight, I now own these two mortgage giants.

Which leads directly to a Quote of the Day, from Eric Brown's Political Activity Law Blog:

We’ll have “public funding” before we know it, given all of these government bailouts of companies with PACs… AIG, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae…

TPM Muckraker captured some great audio of Sen. Ted Stevens lashing out at constituents asking questions about his current legal predicament. To me, the last question was by far the most interesting. There's a transcript of the last Q&A after the video.

Q: I've been following the news lately and they were mentioning that you supported an ethics bill in 1989 that Congress had passed, it was an amended ethics and government bill that said that members of Congress needed to disclose their financial reports, anything exceeding $200, and now your defense team is saying that's unconstitutional, and I'm just wondering if you can talk to us Alaskans about how that's unconstitutional in 2008 but in 1989 that was satisfactory. A: As I've said before, I haven't seen that pleading, it was filed by my lawyers in Washington, they've been hired to do it- Q: OK well why don't you give us your opinion, aside from what your lawyers are saying- A: I'm sorry I'm not going to give my opinion about what my lawyers have done that I haven't read. So thank you very much, I don't know who gave you that amendment, that question, but whoever gave you that question ask them.

That's a pretty good question. From what I can tell, the Government Ethics Reform Act of 1989 passed the Senate by voice vote with an amendment attached. Also interesting, Sen. Stevens was an original cosponsor of the Ethics in Government Act of 1977, the law under which he is being prosecuted.

C-SPAN announced today that it will host a large amount of convention coverage on its web site and on other platforms, including credentialed blogger posts, special Twitter hash tags, and embeddable video from both the Democratic and Republican convention. C-SPAN's efforts will include:

-- Real-time tracking of credentialed state and national political bloggers, aggregated on the websites, to enable users to follow the latest online convention news and analysis;

-- Video clips from the network's convention coverage, embeddable, to facilitate use by political bloggers and other convention watchers;

-- Linkable access to the complete C-SPAN Video Library, allowing interested users to fully search all C-SPAN video content;

-- Live coverage of C-SPAN television and radio networks;

-- Blogger Tips and Online Convention Video Finder tools;

-- Real-time feeds from Twitter users using the hash-tags #RNC08 and #DNC08

This is a huge turnaround from two years ago, when C-SPAN ordered the removal of all of their clips from YouTube, claiming copyright infringement. The copyright purge began after viewers posted the Washington Correspondents Dinner notorious routine by comedian Stephen Colbert. The clips were viewed nearly a million times before C-SPAN claimed copyright. Soon after they ordered all videos removed from other content providers, including Metavid.

It wasn't until Nancy Pelosi became Speaker and started posting YouTube videos of congressional hearings (which use C-SPAN cameras) to her blog that the controversy truly erupted. Pelosi and group of technology, right wing, and left blog activists all pressured C-SPAN to liberalize their policy. On March 7, 2007, they acquiesced, allowing for all non-commercial sharing, posting, and copying of C-SPAN videos past, present and future.

The convention announcement marks a new moment for C-SPAN as a modern Internet information provider. Once a small cable channel with a dream; now with embeddable web video, Twitter hashtags, and aggregated blog posts.

Michael Stern at Point of Order, one of the better blogs for legal issues in Congress, covers the legal background of the charges brought against Sen. Ted Stevens. Stevens is facing seven felony charges for deliberately filing false financial disclosure forms to the Senate Ethics Committee. Give Stern's explanation a read; it'll be worth it when following the Stevens trial. Steven's trial starts on September 24.

It's not an investigation, it's a series of charges. Huge story. Longest serving Republican senator Ted Stevens indicted on seven counts. More soon.

Seven counts of making false statements.

PDF of Stevens Indictment.

Lying on his personal financial disclosure forms.

Accepted gifts and labor from VECO in the renovation of his Girdwood, Alaska home and lied about it on his personal financial disclosure forms from 1999-2006.

A key paragraph in the indictment is paragraph 17. It appears to allege a quid pro quo in the exchange of gifts, for which he is being charged for lying about. The DOJ is saying that there is no allegation of quid pro quo in the indictment.

17. It was a part of the scheme that STEVENS, while during that same time period that he was concealing his continuing receipt of things of value from ALLEN and VECO from 1999 to 2006, received and accepted solicitations for multiple official actions from ALLEN and other VECO employees, and knowing that STEVENS could and did use his official position and his office on behalf of VECO during that same time period. These solicitations for official action, some of which were made directly to STEVENS, included the following topics: (a) funding requests and other assistance with certain international VECO projects and partnerships, including those in Pakistan and Russia; (b) requests for multiple federal grants and contracts to benefit VECO, its subsidiaries, and its business partners, including grants from the National Science Foundation to a VECO subsidiary; and (c) assistance on both federal and state issues in connection with the effort to construct a natural gas pipeline from Alaska's North Slope Region.

For some background watch this video from Josh Marshall and TPMtv (only the first half matters, the rest has to do with Larry Craig):