Comments (53)

Anonymous wrote on June 12, 2007 3:50 PM:

According to Republican Kit Bond's website, Heideh was "detailed" to the Senate from DOT for the last 4 years (ending May 2007).

Sounds to me like she never quit whatever it was she was doing at the Senate when she moved back to DOT.

Judging from his dripping tribute in the Congressional record, Bond (or one of his staffers) really appreciated her work:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-s20070502-18

eugene wrote on June 12, 2007 4:02 PM:

the more you hear from what goes on the more apparent it is that the whole system needs an overhaul

rusty wrote on June 12, 2007 4:20 PM:

I miss the days when this was a surprise. Soon we will have to start looking for any agency that hasn't been sold to business, corrupted by the WH political team, or make inconsequencial by incompetence. Now we pull the curtain back and see they have been systematically de-constructing the legitimacy of our governement.

When people said of Republicans, "first they compain about government not working then they get elected and prove it" I used to laugh.

Franklin T. Jones Esq. wrote on June 12, 2007 4:27 PM:

If wrongdoing is uncovered and the public doesn't give a shit and no one is ever punished is it really wrongdoing?

Mcboo wrote on June 12, 2007 4:34 PM:

I have two questions:

1) Can I get government insurance?

2) Where is the best place I can set it on fire and burn the whole damn thing down?

P.S. I promise to use the settlement to build a government that actually governs.

Lib4 wrote on June 12, 2007 4:39 PM:

Dems have really done a horrible job of creating a big picture view of what the Republicans and Bush have done to our governement over the last 6.5 years. Instead of for the people by the people the government has been transformed into a corporate enabler to the detriment of the average american citizen. Every facet of the government has been affected and it will leterally take decades to undo all the harm these people have inflicted on our democratic system of government. From food safety to mining safety to voting rights to air and environmental pollution to the justice system everything has been politicized to assist the Republican/authoriatarian/corporate power structure. Dems need to tie all this stuff together b/c I am certainly not holding my breath for the Paris obsessed media to do it

P J Evans wrote on June 12, 2007 4:44 PM:

Sounds like at least one member prefers the rules to be tighter. I'd bet that Waxman hit the ceiling because his district is covered by all kinds of air quality rules. I know, because I live in it. (The only reason large parts of California are livable is those air quality rules. If they think we want to go back to the way it used to be, they're nuts.)

IO wrote on June 12, 2007 5:11 PM:

CNBC's manic Jim Cramer has summed it up better than any elected Dem for the last couple years on Mad Money, calling the last few years "government of, by, and for the corporations."

Sounds about right to me.

Ken wrote on June 12, 2007 5:11 PM:

What strikes me on this is the complete disregard of one of the most cherished principles in conservatism... states rights: "We [we who] just wanted to let you know that if California were to recieve this waiver it could lead to a patchwork of regulations on vehicle emissions which could have significant impacts on the car and light truck industry". In other words if the state of California can make it's own air quality rules then all the other states can do so as well... and we just cant have that! All of the states must be governed by the decree of King George.

ICM wrote on June 12, 2007 5:14 PM:

CNBC's manic Jim Cramer has summed it up better than any elected Dem for the last couple years on Mad Money, calling the last few years "government of, by, and for the corporations."

Sounds about right to me.

Gilly wrote on June 12, 2007 5:24 PM:

Many government agencies are essentially captive to the industries they regulate. It is not uncommon for the regulators to begin to think of the industries, rather than the people, as their clients. I don't find this voicemail particularly surprising. DOT probably just thought it was making interested parties aware of a chance to comment on a matter a sister agency was considering. That will certainly be the defense: "We were not soliciting anything. This was simply information sharing to ensure that interested parties from all perspectives are reflected in the record from which the EPA will make its decision." And frankly, that defense is valid. The alternative is to object that interested parties unaware of the possibility to submit comments should have benn left in the dark and a decision made without their input.

Gilly wrote on June 12, 2007 5:25 PM:

Many government agencies are essentially captive to the industries they regulate. It is not uncommon for the regulators to begin to think of the industries, rather than the people, as their clients. I don't find this voicemail particularly surprising. DOT probably just thought it was making interested parties aware of a chance to comment on a matter a sister agency was considering. That will certainly be the defense: "We were not soliciting anything. This was simply information sharing to ensure that interested parties from all perspectives are reflected in the record from which the EPA will make its decision." And frankly, that defense is valid. The alternative is to object that interested parties unaware of the possibility to submit comments should have benn left in the dark and a decision made without their input.

RLS wrote on June 12, 2007 5:30 PM:

It would be very interesting to find out if Heideh owns any auto or oil/gas stock... or if any mutual funds owned by Heideh owns such stock. Then, you could argue a direct financial benefit.

whidddbeygrl wrote on June 12, 2007 5:31 PM:

Splutter.... splutter... splutter....

So, DOT. a Gov't Agency, "loaned"one of its staff to Congress to help write laws????
For 4 years?
Is that a common occurance?
Wonder how many other agencies are seeding Congressional committees?

Apparently there is no trepadation in DOT about the spate of recent Oversight hearings.
You would think, with GSA and DOJ staff in the spotlight, such an openly brazen lobby effort would be considered unwise.

Are they dumb?
Or do they know something we don't which emboldens them?

Ken wrote on June 12, 2007 5:34 PM:

Gilly: that would all be well and good except for the fact that the DOT was not simply offering information. They were lobbying for a specific outcome. If Shahmoradi simply left a message asking if there was any information the congressperson needed in the matter without pleading for them to take it up with this and that party in opposition to California, as you seem to imply when you say that the alternative to this call was the Congressmember to be left in the dark, there would be no controversy.

Anonymous wrote on June 12, 2007 5:47 PM:

I think it might be interesting to know what Hideh's husband Torrance does for a living. She did not take his last name when they were married.

Anonymous wrote on June 12, 2007 5:59 PM:

Sounds like at least one member prefers the rules to be tighter.

Maybe, but sounds to me like some folks just expect the laws on lobbying and govt influence to be followed.

Gilly wrote on June 12, 2007 6:09 PM:

Ken,

Read the voicemail again. She does not suggest a specific outcome. She no doubt knows that the congressperson's and governor's constituents might well oppose the "patchwork" because it has negative implications for the auto industry. If her next call were to an environmental group that had come into DOT to express its views on related issues before, and she said the same thing, would you have a problem with it? The bottom line is that the comments inform the decision maker - here the EPA. To argue that it is improper to let interested parties know about the opportunity to comment is to suggest that the decisionmaker should not be fully informed. And it's not that I agree with these particular commenters (I don't), but I do support the consideration of all relevant information on any issue. Soliciting it, therefore, cannot be considered an improper use of government resources. Ask yourself, what are you afraid these commenters might have told the EPA?

foggylady wrote on June 12, 2007 6:28 PM:

Dunno what this means, but...

I found a house sale report in the WaPo
OTIS ST., 6227-Heideh R. Shahmoradi to Paula D. Gordon, $312,000. dated Thursday, July 28, 2005;
address is for in Prince George's County , Maryland, I think.

and said Hediah was granted floor privelges
July 29 2005 .............
Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that Heideh Shahmoradi, Greg Murrill, and John Stoody be granted the privilege of the floor for the consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 3.
( a bill in 109th Congress to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, )
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

What are floor priveleges?????

Anonymous wrote on June 12, 2007 6:30 PM:

This constant griping by industry about "patchwork" regulations is bogus. 99% of the time, it's California that has the tightest regulations, and anything that will satisfy California's regulations will work everywhere else. There may be exceptions, but that's the rule. Thus industry only has to produce to the California regulations. But that's not OK with them, because their markets include Mountain states with very lax regulations, where folks don't want to pay the extra couple of hundred it costs to make trucks that don't pollute as much.

So they whine.

Thomas wrote on June 12, 2007 6:31 PM:

1. The voicemail doesn't lobby the member to take any particular position. Indeed, it doesn't even suggest that the impact on the auto facilities would be negative. It may be that the impact would be negative--I'm guessing that's the case--but it isn't said in the voicemail.

2. How interesting that Waxman cites two examples of this sort of thing from the Clinton administration. More interesting is that the hyper-partisan and hypocritical Waxman can't cite his own prior interest in this sort of behavior when the Clinton administration. Waxman tells us what Billy Tauzin thought when the Clinton FCC lobbied; but, tell me, what did Waxman think? Nothing. Just like all the hypocritical little shits posting here about King George and all the rest. You're perfectly fine with this sort of thing, except when you're not. High and mighty principles for such ugly little people.

TEL wrote on June 12, 2007 6:35 PM:

Gilly,

Shahmoradi WAS lobbying - "patchwork" of regulations - she is not allowed to put her personal interpretation on what is occuring and give it a negative/positive slant. Additionally, she misrepresented what is going on... California is allowed to impose higher emission standards than the feds. It is the only state that is allowed to do so (though other states can go along with it if they choose, as has happened here). Historically, California has adopted higher standards, with the federal government then adopting those standards once it's been shown to be feasible.

Anonymous wrote on June 12, 2007 6:37 PM:

Waxman is right. If the Bush Administration hasn't taken an official position on the proposed rules or policies, then little Ms. Shahmoradi is lobbying using government resources. That type of activity is specifically prohibited by the Anti-Lobbying Act.

There is no Bush policy position. So there should be NO ADVOCACY.

"...The lobbying activities of federal agencies are governed by the Anti-Lobbying Act (18 USC Section 1913, originally enacted in 1919). The purpose of the Act is to prevent agencies, acting through their employees or SGEs, from using appropriated funds, or resources secured with appropriated funds, to lobby any federal, state, or local government official with respect to any pending or proposed legislation, resolution, appropriation, or measure. The Office of Legal Counsel within the Department of Justice has interpreted the statute based on its underlying purpose, which is to restrict the use of appropriated funds for large-scale, high-expenditure campaigns to solicit pressure on government officials in relation to pending or proposed legislative matters on behalf of an Administration position. It is important to understand that there is a distinction between the Anti-Lobbying Act and the Hatch Act which governs the partisan political activities of employees, such as participation in the political process as candidate or a campaign staff member.

The publicity and propaganda rider to the Department’s appropriations bill also prohibits the use of appropriated funds to attempt to influence Congress or any State legislature in relation to any pending legislation. A second provision of the rider prohibits the use of grant or contract funds to support such activities. The publicity and propaganda rider carries with it the potential for a GAO audit of expenditures.

It is important to note that these provisions are not intended to inhibit the necessary flow of information and communication between the Executive and Legislative Branches of government; they are intended to prevent any inappropriate or undue influence on the legislative process..."

Austin Cooper wrote on June 12, 2007 6:46 PM:

(Snark / Satire Alert)

PETERS: I'm Mary Peters, U.S. Secretary of Transportation, and I'm pleased to help in presenting the new line of Ford Rangers.

[Long Shot: PETERS driving truck at the DOT testing grounds, weaving in and out of a line of fluorescent safety cones; CUT TO Medium Close-Up of PETERS speaking as she turns the steering wheel.)

PETERS: The Ford Ranger Fourwheel Drive comes in an off-road package for your most demanding trek through America's wild places.

[Medium Long Shot of truck speeding across the Alaskan tundra. A dead Elk can bee seen in the background.)

PETERS [Voiceover]:It has a Personal Safety System, powered by a 4-liter, super-overhead cam V6 engine that can take you from the country...

(Medium Shot of the Ranger pulling up to the Four Season restaurant [Farallon's in the West Coast version]; CUT TO Medium Tracking shot of PETERS laughing and clinking wine glasses with Auto industry lobbyists at a well-apportioned table set with a large meal.)

PETERS:... to elegant social evenings on the town.

(CUT TO Medium Close-Up, Exterior shot of PETERS, standing in front of the Ford Ranger.)

PETERS: The Ford Ranger Four-By-Four has it all -- and as Secretary of Transportation, I give it my 'Ford Seal Of Approval'!

(Camera pulls back to show Prestident George W. BUSH, standing to PETER's right.)

BUSH: I'm Preslident George W. Bush, and I approved this message.

ANNOUNCER: (Voiceover) Trucks -- built Ford Tough, with the help of *your* government.

[CUT TO BLACK]

Tomazulob wrote on June 12, 2007 6:47 PM:

Why are we surprised by these revelations? Every single cabinet member is a member of the corporatocracy that now runs this country? You want a change? Prove it.

Tomazulob wrote on June 12, 2007 6:47 PM:

Why are we surprised by these revelations? Every single cabinet member is a member of the corporatocracy that now runs this country. You want a change? Prove it.

TWB wrote on June 12, 2007 6:47 PM:

While the DOT actually lobbying for the auto industry would be a story -- being accused of lobbying for the auto industry is not.

It's the blogosphere at its best: "stories" about a potential stories, pretending to be real news.

Tomazulob wrote on June 12, 2007 6:50 PM:

Why are we surprised by these revelations? Every single cabinet member is a member of the corporatocracy that now runs this country. You want a change? Prove it.

Anonymous wrote on June 12, 2007 6:53 PM:

@6:37

I ran a few of the ethics paragraphs in your post and came up with this link (guidance to NIH employees on lobbying). The date is 3/2006.

http://ethics.od.nih.gov/Topics/lobbying.htm

Note that the guidance on this page references an interpretation of acceptable Agency lobbying made by DOJ's office of Legal Policy. Interesting how it all runs back together, huh?

Do you suppose Shahmouradi may have felt empowered to do what she did because DOJ's OLP has issued guidance saying only "large scale" advocacy by Agencies is forbidden?

Surely no one out there will argue with DOJ's legitimacy. /snark

Crap sham rulings and "opinions" reinforce crap sham activities. It's all illegal -- despite what the toady lawyers say. That's the house of cards the Admonistration is presently living in.

Ken wrote on June 12, 2007 7:17 PM:

Anyone hearing that voicemail who honestly can argue that it doesn't lobby for a certain result is delusional. "If California were to receive this waiver it could lead to a patchwork" etc... This clearly is an attempt to guide the recipient of the message and if you can't see it you may be a lawyered up Republican. I mean it makes one look silly to argue otherwise.

Stephen wrote on June 12, 2007 7:27 PM:

The administration hasn't taken a position on this yet. It's not supposed to. EPA is still considering the California waiver request. And at a House Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee hearing last week, both the EPA and NHTSA (part of DOT), said the administration had no position on a proposed House energy bill that would bar California from enforcing its rules.

It's also misleading to say it would lead to a "patchwork" of regulations. Other states have only two choices when it comes to vehicle emissions rules -- EPA or California.

Rick Bobrick wrote on June 12, 2007 7:41 PM:

No amount of available oversight can bring this behavior under control. The crime, corruption, and contempt for our Constitution under bush, reached a critical mass long ago. This is government run amok with a long dark tunnel ahead.

The Dems should put together an anti-republican ad that features a video clip of mister bush's response to the AG no-confidence vote:

"They can have their votes of no-confidence, but it's not going to make a determination about who serves in (switch to video loop)MY GOVERNMENT, MY GOVERNMENT, MY GOVERNMENT, MY GOVERNMENT, MY GOVERNMENT, MY GOV..." (a voice over the fade: four more years of this attitude is not what OUR GOVERNMENT needs.)

DoingNuance wrote on June 12, 2007 7:54 PM:

Waxman is my hero. I gotta write to him and tell him that. (I tried to email him, but you have to be in his constituent zipcode to send him emails.) YOU KEEP DIGGING, HENRY!

Anonymous wrote on June 12, 2007 7:55 PM:

Rick Bobrick
I agree with your assessment. This madness is out of control. With Iran in the future, I wonder what will happen to our country and to our world. Bush has decided to take over everything in the event of a catastrophe. That would be Iran I would imagine. Since China and Russia would not be happy at all. I am not sure we will make it to the next election. I read today that one of the VP daughters will be advising Fred Thompson. I think the Republican half of this country actually believes that Iraq had something to do with 911.

TEL wrote on June 12, 2007 8:24 PM:

I should have been clearer in my earlier post - "allowed to impose higher standards" - meaning California can apply to the EPA to be allowed to set higher standards than current federal regulations allow. No other state is allowed to do this, though they can go along with California if they choose to do so. This system exists specifically to prevent a "patchwork" of standards that would vary from state to state, while allowing new standards to be tested as technology advances. So to complain about the current system as a "patchwork" of laws misrepresents the current situation, to say the least.

1Watt wrote on June 12, 2007 10:32 PM:

Dems have really done a horrible job of creating a big picture view of what the Republicans and Bush have done to our governement over the last 6.5 years. Instead of for the people by the people the government has been transformed into a corporate enabler to the detriment of the average american citizen. Every facet of the government has been affected and it will leterally take decades to undo all the harm these people have inflicted on our democratic system of government. From food safety to mining safety to voting rights to air and environmental pollution to the justice system everything has been politicized to assist the Republican/authoriatarian/corporate power structure. Dems need to tie all this stuff together b/c I am certainly not holding my breath for the Paris obsessed media to do it
Posted by: Lib4
Date: June 12, 2007 04:39 PM

Can you spell RICO?

Slippery Slope wrote on June 12, 2007 10:53 PM:

(I tried to email him, but you have to be in his constituent zipcode to send him emails.) YOU KEEP DIGGING, HENRY!

Posted by: DoingNuance
Date: June 12, 2007 07:54 PM
************************************8
DoingNuance,
I'm sure Rep Waxman would welcome your comments. There is a "Contact the Committee" section on the Committee's web page. Try here:

http://oversight.house.gov/contact.asp

feckless wrote on June 13, 2007 12:56 AM:

fire every federal employee hired since 2001, from head of the cia to janitor.

dircha wrote on June 13, 2007 5:45 AM:

I can see the press conference now: "The President has a right to appoint and oversee a Department of Transportation that will advocate and implement the President's policies and initiatives."

It just so happens that this President's policy is that whatever is best for industry (campaign contributors) is best for all of us.

You see, the idea is that if industry is allowed to pollute as much as possible, that pollution will "trickle down" to the rest of us into our lakes, rivers, and food supplies to benefit everyone... er, yes that's the idea! God bless the USA!

Nathanael Nerode wrote on June 13, 2007 6:39 AM:

Thomas, you're a Republican whackjob.

Waxman was totally on the case during the Clinton administration and was pushing just as hard as he is now -- but he had substantially less power in Congress then than he has now; he cites Tauzin because Tauzin was the 'man in charge' at the time. You haven't looked at Waxman's record at all, clearly. The man's a fanatic for clean government, way better than most Democrats or Republicans.

JNagarya wrote on June 13, 2007 8:02 AM:

Doncha just love it when a Bushitter not only gets caught with both hands in the cookie jar, but that the cookie jar springs a pair of handcuffs onto the wrists of the Bushitter?

Bagged!

JNagarya wrote on June 13, 2007 8:26 AM:

"Many government agencies are essentially captive to the industries they regulate."

Under Republican'ts such as Bushit, yes. And the excuse for putting the industries in charge of regulating themselves is that they are the "experts" on their respective industries. Thus after the mine disaster/s, Bushit put in charge of regulating mines a mine owner. And one of his first acts was to lower the amount of monetary compensation paid to the family of a miner killed in a mine disaster.

"It is not uncommon for the regulators to begin to think of the industries, rather than the people, as their clients."

It is common under Republican'ts such as Bushit, yes. But in most instances, those appointed know that is not the mandate of or proper way to run such _regulatory_ agencies.

"I don't find this voicemail particularly surprising. DOT probably just thought it was making interested parties aware of a chance to comment on a matter a sister agency was considering. That will certainly be the defense: "We were not soliciting anything. This was simply information sharing to ensure that interested parties from all perspectives are reflected in the record from which the EPA will make its decision." And frankly, that defense is valid. The alternative is to object that interested parties unaware of the possibility to submit comments should have benn left in the dark and a decision made without their input.

"Posted by: Gilly
Date: June 12, 2007 05:24 PM"

No, it isn't valid. Those wanting to comment on pending regulations bear the responsibility to follow that process -- proposed changes are published in the public Federal Register -- and meet the terms for comment within the period that such commenting is open.

As well, those in regulated industries also have the advantage of being able to pay the costs of testifying -- lobbying -- before such agencies in behalf of their position. "We the people" rarely have equal footing in such matters.

It is _not_ proper for a gov't entity to _solicit_ comments from parties having an interest, even were such solicitations to appear to be to _all_ interested parties.

Moreover, this is blantantly clear as to where the agency stands on the issue -- as blatantly revealed is the substance of the feedback they seek. And what they seek is "evidence" on which to base their holding in favor of industry and against the citizenry.

JNagarya wrote on June 13, 2007 8:33 AM:

Ken,

Read the voicemail again. She does not suggest a specific outcome. She no doubt knows that the congressperson's and governor's constituents might well oppose the "patchwork" because it has negative implications for the auto industry. If her next call were to an environmental group that had come into DOT to express its views on related issues before, and she said the same thing, would you have a problem with it? The bottom line is that the comments inform the decision maker - here the EPA. To argue that it is improper to let interested parties know about the opportunity to comment is to suggest that the decisionmaker should not be fully informed. And it's not that I agree with these particular commenters (I don't), but I do support the consideration of all relevant information on any issue. Soliciting it, therefore, cannot be considered an improper use of government resources. Ask yourself, what are you afraid these commenters might have told the EPA?

Posted by: Gilly
Date: June 12, 2007 06:09 PM

Yes, I would oppose it. It is improper for a gov't agency to work to drum up support for a preferred outcome -- as is clearly being done with this voicemail.

It is the responsibility of whoever the lobbyist to follow the Federal Register, and comment on any pending regulations in which they have interest. It is improper for a gov't agency to otherwise _solicit_ feedback. Not only improper, but also unnecessary -- for any legitimate purpose. Because all pending regulations are published in the Federal Register _specifically_ for the purpose of "soliciting" comments on the pending regulations.

JNagarya wrote on June 13, 2007 9:01 AM:

"1. The voicemail doesn't lobby the member to take any particular position."

Actually and obviously it does.

"Indeed, it doesn't even suggest that the impact on the auto facilities would be negative."

Actually and obviously it does.

"It may be that the impact would be negative--I'm guessing that's the case--but it isn't said in the voicemail."

Actually and obviously that is said.

You make no mention of the Federal Register -- which is the proper place to "solicit" comment on pending regulations.

And, yes: it clearly and obviously seeks comment specifically against California.

"2. How interesting that Waxman cites two examples of this sort of thing from the Clinton administration."

Actually, he cites two _ALLEGATIONS_ against the Clinton Admistration made by REPUBLICANS. There is no indication that either allegation was true. He does so in anticipation that he will be accused of "partisan witchhunt" -- the give-away that the "witchhunt" is not only not that but is legitimate.

"More interesting is that the hyper-partisan and hypocritical Waxman can't cite his own prior interest in this sort of behavior when the Clinton administration."

Have you cites to instances in which Waxman had equivalent concerns with the Clinton administration _while a minority member of that committee_?

Waxman isn't jumping on this out of the blue for political reasons. He knows -- which you apparently do not -- that the proper organ via which to seek comments on pending regulation changes is the Federal Register. The difference being, of course, is that the FR doesn't seek comment from only one party with an interest. That must be done on the "QT" -- by such special -- prohibited -- under the radar methods as revealed and substantiated by the voicemail.

"Waxman tells us what Billy Tauzin thought when the Clinton FCC lobbied; but, tell me, what did Waxman think?"

Waxaman tells us waht Tauzin _ALLEGED_. As for what Waxman thinks? Irrelevant, beyond the contents of the letter, which clearly charges that there is a violation of agency neutrality going on, which -- as REPUBLICAN Tauzin also noted -- is prohibited.

"Nothing."

Doesn't matter what Waxman thinks. What matters is what the _LAW_ says. "A system of laws, and not of men." -- John Adams.

Until you get that through your anti-American ideological blinders, you'll continue to put party before Constitution, rule of law, and country.

While wrapping yourself in the flag and claiming to be more-patriotic-than-thou.

"Just like all the hypocritical little shits posting here about King George and all the rest."

"Hypocritical" "little shits"? Did "we" neglect to call someone "king" who acted like a "king". No: we also saw Nixon for what he was.

"You're perfectly fine with this sort of thing, except when you're not. High and mighty principles for such ugly little people."

Substantiate. Provide, say, one instance in which "we" "hypocritical" "little shits" were "perfectly fine with this sort of thing".

"We" knew you couldn't. The best you can do is imply that Tauzin was complaining about an actual instance, rather than merely making an allegation. The reason Waxman included those cites is to demonstrate that it isn't only Democrats who make such charges. I'll bet, though, that Tauzin had nothing of substance to offer as evidence or "proof".

We know that Waxman does have such evidence, as he doesn't declare it a "state secret": he provides it to us for our evaluation.

And, yes: it is open-and-shut a violation: the proper place to "solicit" comment on pending regulations -- as every lobbyist knows -- is the Federal Register. That being the fact, there is no excuse for seeking comment by any other means.

"Posted by: Thomas
Date: June 12, 2007 06:31 PM"

"We" may be "little shits". But we aren't intellectually dishonest shitheads like Republican'ts such as you. But we'll gladly accept the obvious: that you are pissed at yet another blatant instance of the Bushit criminal enterprise subverting the gov't intended to be of, by and for _all_ "We the people" instead of only Republican'ts and their allies for partisan political ends.

Rememember all the anti-regulation rhetoric from your Republican't party? "Regulation" is a synonym for _LAW_. So you're pissed that it's yet again shown that the Republican't party is opposed to the rule of law at every inch of the way. That's why it transforms agencies mandated by law to _regulate_ -- constrain -- particular industries into entities which endeavor to advance the anti-regulatory "interests" of those industries.

You work for the auto industry do you?

JNagarya wrote on June 13, 2007 9:14 AM:

". . . . It is important to note that these provisions are not intended to inhibit the necessary flow of information and communication between the Executive and Legislative Branches of government; they are intended to prevent any inappropriate or undue influence on the legislative process..."

"Posted by:
Date: June 12, 2007 06:37 PM"

Correct. The Federal Register exists as vehicle for Federal agencies to publish proposed rule changes, by means of which it "solicits" comment on the proposed changes. Lawyers and staff who "work" particular administrative agencies -- for clients -- are fairly said to be addicted to the FR, as that is the source for all such notices.

It is, therefore, improper and illegal for agencies to solicit comments by any other means, excepting public hearings with those who have an interest in the matter.

There is every opportunity, thereby, for those with an interest in the matter, including regulated industries, to get their comments submitted and heard.

That means it would also be improper for regulatory personnel to meet with those having an interest outside those established procedures.

It would be difficult to find an example of a more blatantly and obviously illegal effort to give one interested party an illegal advantage than this one, in view of the fact that such solicitations are outright prohibited: there is simply no "need" for them, except as effort to give unfair advantage.

JEP wrote on June 13, 2007 10:53 AM:

Revolution - (R) = Evolution

Political Evolution, that is: true democracy turns the cycle of political revolution into stable political evolution.

JEP wrote on June 13, 2007 11:05 AM:

"Just like all the hypocritical little shits posting here about King George and all the rest."

Tough-guy talk, my aren't we superior.

So easy to call people "little" and "excrement" when you are hiding behnd your keyboard in your closet.

Maybe if you knew just how big some of us really are, you would hold your poison tongue.

Criticism of this administration, especially comparing George II to George III, is an indicator of high IQ.

Proven fact, the liberal bloggers who oppose Bush are notably more intelligent than the rightwing hacks who emulate us.

And Thomas, you are a very good posterboy for that fact.

Republican hacks, just enable and perpetuate any lie that suits your crimes, and never once consider that you might be wrong...

So did you thing the Dems would take the gavels away? You sound like one of those trolls who believed Rove's version of the pre-election public sentiment.

Even your most evil "genius" was wrong, to the tune of 33 House seats and 6 Senate seats...

So now that you have been humiliated so openly by your own misguided loyalty, do really you expect ANY intelligent person to give you hacks the credibility you have never deserved.

Doesn't it grow tedious, carrying water for and being constantly wrong about, the Bush administration?

HYPOCRITES
and a big bunch of losers...

virgil wrote on June 13, 2007 12:31 PM:

Time to start carrying a lead pipe!

psyopswatcher wrote on June 14, 2007 3:55 PM:

DOT's response, they ran it past their counsel. This is an EXECUTIVE action, not legislative (link below):

Knapp’s letter refuted any implications of impropriety. “In this case, DoT officials themselves contacted members of Congress, and the matter at issue involved a proceeding pending before the Executive Branch, not legislative action. This activity simply does not implicate the anti-lobbying provisions.”

JBryan wrote on June 15, 2007 10:38 PM:

Shahmoradi is a career bureaucrat, not a political appointee....Hey foggylady, please post your home address or full name on the site so we can look up personal info on you, too. Seems only fair.

Gus Hall wrote on June 15, 2007 11:03 PM:

Her husband is a shift worker in a warehouse. So much for the conspiracy theory azwipes.

Capsules wrote on August 15, 2007 8:56 AM:

fnpr37 yup just wanted to say hey!!! viagra canada

iulspzqm ozshluqxi wrote on August 30, 2007 4:22 AM:

zexdynv lqfcvkw twjyemz cqmrt ubxcwkop izhwce xbfjz