On Tuesday, Senator Ted Stevens was indicted by federal prosecutors for failing to report gifts he had received from an oil company to help him renovate his Alaskan home. The charges were not a surprise, though official Washington mustered its collective, and requisite outrage. Senators Dole and Sununu were quick to return campaign contributions from the now-tainted Stevens. Editorials across the nation were quick to condemn the obvious graft targeted by the government.

But I confess, I don't get it. Not that I don't see the wrong in what Stevens has done. That's obvious. What's not obvious to me is why this wrong is so different from everything else that DC thinks is right.

The concern with the gifts that Stevens allegedly took from oil companies is clear enough. If a Senator takes a gift from a special interest, he's less likely to weigh the interests of that special interest properly. If he's getting gifts from an oil company, for example, he's less likely to weigh concerns about global warming properly. He's more likely to ignore those concerns. He's more likely, in other words, to put his private interest (in continuing the gifts) above the public interest (dealing with the threats from global warming). These types of events are exactly why myself and Joe Trippi started Change Congress: as a way to address corruption in Washington D.C.

So far, so good. But what about the other ways that oil companies act to make it less likely that a legislator weighs in the interests of special interests properly? How do the laws and ethics of DC police this?

Consider the most obvious example first. Ted Stevens was elected to the United States Senate in 1968. As the Republican with the longest tenure in the United State Senate — ever — he had perfected the business of getting reelected to serve his state. Individuals and special interests helped him secure that tenure. Since 1989, those contributions have exceeded $11 million. Close to $1 million in that eleven has come from the Energy and Natural Resource sector. Oil and gas has given him almost 1/2 of that.

These "gifts," of course, were not to Stevens personally. They were gifts to his campaign, for the purpose of securing Stevens' tenure. But as someone for whom tenure is quite important, it is bizarre to me that anyone would see this distinction as a distinction that matters. If Microsoft gave Stanford $1 million to persuade Stanford to give me tenure, or if the RIAA gave Stanford $1 million to persuade Stanford not to give me tenure, there'd be no doubt that I would be disqualified from judging whether either was entitled to special benefit. Yet in DC, the doubtless is not. There's nothing wrong, in the world of DC, with Stevens' voting on matters that affect the industries that have worked so hard to secure his tenure.

And the gifts don't stop there. As Ken Silverstein described in Harper's last March, despite their relatively modest salary, many Congressmen and Senators live a life of extraordinary luxury. Not because these representatives come to Washington with their own private wealth (though more and more often, of course, they do). Rather, they live a life of luxury because more and more of their day to day existence is paid for by their campaigns. As Silverstein put it, "[t]he most lavish benefit of winning a congressional campaign is, ironically enough, the right to keep on campaigning—and therefore to keep raising and spending donor money." And that spending increasingly substitutes for the sort of stuff most of us have to pay for out of our own salary. Again, Silverstein: "[T]he FEC has permitted virtually any expenditure, from a night on the town to a resort stay with big contributors, to be drawn from [campaign] funds." Thus while it is a crime for VECO Corporation to pay to have Stevens' house renovated, there's no problem with VECO's PAC and senior executives giving Stevens' campaign many times more than that which Stevens' is then free to use to fly to a resort in Montana, or entertain senior executives at DC's most expensive restaurants.

If there is a difference here that makes a difference, I confess I'm not keen enough to see it. Rather, as I see it, we've got a system that periodically sacrifices the likes of Ted Stevens so that the appearance of policing improper influence can be maintained. But judgment distorting influences are shot through the economy of influence we call Washington.

The problem with this economy won't be solved by jailing one Senator. It will be solved only when we cease using private funds to fund public campaigns. And when we start paying representatives in Congress a salary that fits with the work we expect them to be doing. For the number of career senators like Stevens — people who go to government for a public service career — is, unfortunately, falling. In its place is a rise of representatives who treat Congress as a farm league for K Street. That dynamic, of course, only increases the power of K Street over policy. Or put differently, that dynamic only increases the corruption that has driven public trust of Congress to historic lows. (Rasmussen now counts only 9% of the general public with a favorable view of Congress' work.) Breaking that dynamic will take more than an ethics trial against this icon of the United States Senate.

Saturday was a busy one at Netroots Nation in Austin. After a high-energy morning starting with the anticipated Ask The Speaker event, followed by a surprise visit from Al Gore, Lawrence Lessig took the stage to dynamically discuss the ways in which money erodes trust. He gave examples from pharmaceutical issues to copyright law to environmental policy, showing how money is distorting the decisions our leaders are making. Check out the video:

Live Broadcasting by Ustream

Sign the petition.

For the last week we've received some interesting emails and comments from our members about Change Congress's stance on Obama's decision to opt out of public financing. Our basic response is one echoed by some' pundits and those working in the reform movement over the last two decades. It's a tough situation for any candidate to be in. The current public finance system is a mess and desperately needs to be overhauled. Public financing is only one piece of the overall campaign reform puzzle, yet, a vital one. The recent dancing around public funding by McCain and Obama is a situation that no candidate should have to be in -- choosing between a broken system that could cost them the election while gaining positive press or being called a "flip flopper" for opting out of that same broken system.

The current public financing system fails to address major loopholes abused by both parties over the past twenty years. Until this needed reform happens, we're foolish to think that any candidates able to raise more on their own would ever opt-in to a broken system that could end up costing them a victory down the line.

The Big Loophole - the explosion of 527 groups over the past ten years has given rise to the nastiest negative campaigning we have seen in our time. On both sides of the aisle 527 groups have made it their raison d'etre to challenge and accuse candidates not in line with their political ideals, launching powerful, well-funded attacks that can single-handedly change the outcome of an election. While many of these groups do not (and indeed by law cannot) work with or coordinate with a campaign, they are often ideologically aligned with one candidate and are often staffed with members of the same political party

The Big Flaw - the $84 million that public financing offers is not enough to run a presidential campaign in this economy. The problem is not that there is too much money in politics, rather that there is too much of the wrong kind of money in politics -- money from lobbyists and PAC organizations, people who expect favors later on. If we want a public financing system to be legitimate we have to honestly address the shortfalls that this sum of money leaves in its wake; the cost of national advertising on television, radio and internet being a major one. Or the cost of employing a national grassroots staff working in every state in the country. The public financing offer from the government should be realistic compared with the costs of a presidential campaign. If we want candidates to buy into the system, make them a decent offer. They aren't going to accept a used Chevy Malibu when they can buy a new Ferrari with their own money.

Pundits on the right say Obama is a hypocrite, given his pledge to accept public funding earlier in the campaign and then recently deciding not to. Both candidates could be called as such. McCain gladly accepted public financing during the Republican primaries when he was losing and broke, and then petitioned the Federal Election Commission to opt back out when he was winning and wealthy (and now he's opting back IN). Neither are wrong, they are simply doing the expected political shifting based on our broken system.

I can't wait for the day when a well-crafted, mutually agreed-upon, public financing system is finally ready to be implemented. But that day will come only after enough of us stand up to change that system by making it possible for politicians who fight for issues like public financing to win office and take this change to Washington. Change Congress is about working with you and other organizations dedicated to reforming this system from the inside out. The current system isn't working for the people, so it must be changed by the people from the bottom up. You can help, be a part of our movement, help us re-build this broken system. Join us! Its only our government if we work to reclaim it.