Who has time to govern when there's so much fundraising to do for the next election? An op-ed in the Virginia News Leader answers the question correctly: not Congress!

From the op-ed:

"This endless electioneering limits the work of governing, especially at the national level where large amounts of money are needed to campaign effectively, compelling candidates to spend more time fundraising."

What did the U.S. Chamber of Commerce president mean when he remarked that they would "get rid of" any freshman members of Congress who didn't vote to raise the debt ceiling? In a post-Citizens United world, the answer is pretty clear.

Politico reported today on the alleged "joke" from the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Tom Donohue, which was viewed by many as a direct threat to some freshman members of Congress.

Public Campaign and Public Campaign Action Fund were hard at work this week putting out a variety of memos, statements, and reports. Here's a round up of our recent work:

Earlier this month, the U.S. House passed legislation to greatly expand offshore oil drilling in the United States. In April, many of the members that voted for this legislation also pocketed cash from big oil PACs, according to Public Campaign Action Fund analysis of FEC filings.

According to the Huffington Post:

They say actions speak louder than words. But in the world of money in politics, this mantra seems to have fallen on deaf ears. While President Obama and many members of Congress have called for changes to our campaign finance system, thus far rhetoric seems to have prevailed over concrete results.

As The Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel notes in her recent column, it's time that members of leadership demonstrate their commitment to Fair Elections:

"If only taxpayers had that kind of sway in Washington." The Mercury News hits the nail on the head in their editorial on the debate on tax subsidies for Big Oil. 

On top of paying nearly $4 a gallon for gas, we're also padding Big Oil companies' huge profits through tax subsidies. And just yesterday, despite huge public outcry to stop them, the House of Representatives voted to end debate on putting a stop to the corporate welfare. It's pretty easy to see why. As The Hill reports today, Big Oil poured huge amounts of campaign cash into lawmakers' campaign coffers and, SHOCK, they got exactly what they wanted.

Who better to lead the committee responsible for doling out federal dollars than the man known as the "Prince of Pork?" Talking Points Memo (TPM) has a story today on a new report from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) that details how new House Appropriations Committee chairman, Rep.

It seems that when the class of 2010 lawmakers aren't busy following the advise of longtime members of Congress on the need to raise huge amounts of campaign cash, they're "hard at work" paying back campaign contributors from the last election. Politico reports today that many freshman are fine-tuning the ancient D.C. craft of passing legislation tailored specifically toward their big money campaign donors.

This morning the Fair Elections Now Act (S. 750, H.R. 1404) was heard before the Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights. With lead Senate bill sponsor and subcommittee chairman, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) presiding, the hearing, entitled: “The Fair Elections Now Act: A Comprehensive Response to Citizens United," included a lively discussion with panelists, former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and Monica Youn of the Brennan Center for Justice arguing in favor of the bill, and Cleta Mitchell, Partner, Foley and Larner, arguing against.