Current Lt. Governor of Illinois, Pat Quinn, says that Governor Blagojevich will be out of office by February 12th, which happens to be Abraham Lincoln's birthday.

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich says he's not a crook. Well, he says a lot more than that:

"I am not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing that," Blaojevich said. "I will stay on the job and I will fight this thing every step of the way."

"I will fight, I will fight, I will fight, until I take my last breath," he said.

"I have done nothing wrong, Blagojevich said, adding that he would not "quit a job the people hired me to do because of false accusations and a political lynch mob."

Quite a defiant tone. Apparently, he's not going to step-down and will fight this with everything he has. He's got quite a fight ahead of him. Rasmussen found that more than 84% of Americans think Blagojevich should resign. 79% thought he should go to jail.

Not exactly a lot of support in the court of public opinion.

Governor Mike Huckabee was on the Daily Show last Tuesday and had a lot to say about government in general, but what caught my ear was his attack on the influence of lobbyists in Washington.

"The corruption that exists, and it may not be overt corruption, but auto industries are down there asking for a bailout. Now, the other side of this story is auto industries have spent $50 million on lobbyists in Washington, D.C. and $15 million in campaign contributions. Do we really think that members of Congress have an objectivity as it relates to what they're hearing? Of course they don't. And that's part of the problem. 35,000 registered lobbyists in Washington, that's 70 lobbyists for every member of Congress."

It's telling to hear talking points that only a year ago were being uttered by Democratic presidential candidates like Obama and Edwards.

And Governor Huckabee isn't alone. You're hearing more and more conservatives question the role of lobbyists in the same way that Democrats have been for the past year. Conservatives opposing the Detroit bailout to General Motors, Ford Motor Company and Daimler/Chrysler, cry foul at the influence of lobbyists on the legislation. This from the National Review Online:

The Big Three’s CEOs, the leaders of their unions, and their taxpayer-funded lobbyists (disguised as lawmakers from Michigan) have done an excellent job of sowing fear and confusion, particularly in the media.

And this from the WSJ:

After the Bush blink of last week, Washington's automotive lobbyists will be revving up their engines. Unless the Bush White House has an unexpected change of heart, the one man who can stop the lobbying momentum now is Barack Obama.

Governor Huckabee and other conservatives are right in drawing attention to the concern around how the Big 3 utilized their lobbyists in the past few weeks. The question is, will politicians on both sides of the aisle continue to closely examine the relationship between lobbyists an public policy? We hope so.

Rasmussen is reporting that 84% of Illinois voters want their Governor, Rod Blagojevich, to resign. And 79% believe he should end up in jail. And almost 40% of Illinois voters believe that his allegations of trading political favors for campaign contributions and personal favors, is the way that most politicians operate.

So, 40% of all voters in America believe that this type of corruption, this level of lowness, is how most of our political leaders operate? Perhaps, not so surprising, but it begs the question: are ALL of our politicians corrupt, or are they a part of a system that is corrupt? I believe that, outside of a few bad-apples, its the system, not the individuals. Blagojevich could be simply playing the game. As outlined in the Boston Globe this morning, many groups, including the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU, have "criticized the state's lack of campaign contribution limits and the weakness of its disclosure system." Indeed, Blago was hustling to get money in the door before a new set of ethics rules became effective on January 1. Those rules would force him to change the way he collected money and financial support. If the game you're being forced to play already thrives on corruption, how do you win the game? You become the most corrupt player. And it seems like Chicago has rewarded the best players for a long time, players like Mayer Daly (both of them). The article goes on to point out that this type of corruption isn't limited to Chicago wards:

Political corruption has many homes. Speaking to The New York Times, one Illinois political scientist likened Blagojevich's style to a "big Chicago ward, where a US Senate seat is like granting a zoning variance or liquor license." But why should even small policy decisions be made for political or personal gain? In Massachusetts, the FBI has accused a former state senator and a Boston City Council member of taking bribes in a liquor licensing case.

The news from Illinois is extraordinary. But other states shouldn't count their blessings just yet.

While Chicago-style politics has a history as being one of the most corrupt in the country, there is a general loyalty to one's own hometown in defending it as being "not as corrupt as Chicago" (or New Jersey, Tallahassee, Virginia...). When, in reality, corruption stories at the state and local level are just as dirty and scandalous as any other. The deeper you dig, the more interesting it gets.

Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois was arrested this morning by federal agents on bribery and fraud charges. Allegedly, Blagojevich and his Chief of Staff threatened to withhold millions in state financial assistance to Wrigley Field (owned by the Tribune Company) in the hopes that Tribune would fire the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune who had been highly critical of the Governor. Blagojevich also attempted to use his power as Governor to appoint a successor to Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate in exchange for personal benefits, among others the job of Sect. of Health and Human Services in the Obama administration.

It goes on. Blagojevich and his Chief of Staff were hunting for a union to give them lucrative leadership positions in exchange for appointing a union-friendly Senator to Obama's now vacant seat. Lastly, there is evidence showing Blago obtained benefits for himself, his family and his PAC (Friends of Blagojevich) in exchange for appointments to state boards and commissions, state employment, state contracts, and access to state funds.

Reports have been clear that no ties to the Obama administration have been revealed and the President-elect had no known knowledge of Blago's actions around these charges.

Blago had accelerated his corrupt fundraising activities in the recent months with the impending ethics legislation (that he threatened to veto saying it didn't go "far enough") set to take hold on January 1st.

Since late October the FBI has tapped the offices of Blago's PAC and his home. The conversations intercepted gave the government what they needed to make the arrests this morning. Both the Governor and his Chief of Staff John Harris were taken into custody.

The affadavit mentions the connection between Tony Rezko and Blago. You can read it for yourself here.

This is a shocker not only because of how serious the allegations facing Blagojevich and Harris are but because of how fast the case came together. The Watergate tapes were over 4,000 hours recorded during a two year period. I doubt the Blago Tapes were more than 500 hours recorded over a one month period. Regardless, the 2016 presidential bid that Blago was planning on (he spoke of a run in one of the tapes) is probably not going to be an option.

As a former citizen (briefly) of Evanston, Illinois I can say its sad day. It's sad that a leader like this was lying and scheming behind the backs of the very people he was elected to fight for. It's sad that someone like Blagojevich could get to where he is and still have no second thoughts about the type of corruption he was inducing and spreading. It's also sad for Illinois. A state that produced such national heroes as Abraham Lincoln, authors like Ernest Hemingway and orators like William Jennings Bryan, has also produced crooked politicians like Mayor Daly and in so doing, has become the face of government corruption.

The people of Illinois must now begin anew a campaign to show the world that corruption will not continue in Springfield, that the label of a corrupt "Chicago politician" can no longer stick.

We can do better than this.

Louisiana Democratic Congressman William Jefferson, known for hiding $90,000 in cash in his freezer back in 2005, lost his re-election bid to Catholic lawyer and Republican Joseph Cao on Saturday.

Last June Jefferson pleaded not guilty to money laundering, racketeering and soliciting over $500,000 in bribes while trying to broker business deals in Africa. Jefferson had been a member of the House Small Business Committee and powerful Ways and Means Committee but was stripped of both soon after he was indicted.

DownWithTyranny is calling this one of their "Louisiana Shockers" after a district overwhelmingly Democratic chose to elect a staunchly pro-life Jesuit Republican. It seems the people of Louisiana's 2nd Congressional district wanted to send a message to Congress: break our trust and we'll kick you out. It was a similar message echoed in Alaska when Senator Ted Stevens was defeated (by Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich) after thirty years in the U.S. Senate.

This is good news in the fight to end corruption in our government. It empowers voters and reminds our elected officials that backroom-deals, hidden handshakes and abusing their positions for personal gain will not be supported. Once again we're shown that corruption knows no party or group. Whether you're a democrat, republican or independent matters little when it comes to abusing a system for the good of a few.

A date for Jefferson's trial has yet to be set, however, and as CREW notes:

The delays were brought about by the slow pace of the legal system and the thorny legal issues generated by a case with so many judicial firsts and legal precedents that it likely will be studied by legal scholars for decades.

Nate Silver over at FiveThirtyEight believes that the remaining votes to be counted in the Begich-Stevens Alaska Senate race will favor Begich. The former Democratic mayor of Anchorage remains 3,500 votes behind newly convicted felon Ted Stevens and may end up passing him with the remaining early voting ballots yet to be counted. And there's no reason not to trust Nate's analysis -- his prediction for an Obama victory was dead on.

If you want to help get him out, checkout our petition, "Thanks for the memories, Ted Stevens."

My interest has been peaked of late. What is the fate of publicly funded campaigns given the "Obama phenomenon?" A recent NPR article Did Obama Kill Public Campaign Finance? asks the question, "Is something rotten in the state of public financing for presidential campaigns?"

The article continues:

Sen. John McCain, one of the most vocal proponents of campaign finance reform, is being hoisted by his own petard by choosing to accept federal funding for his general election campaign. Meanwhile, Sen. Barack Obama, the choice of the Democratic Party — the very party that cried out for finance reform in the wake of the Watergate scandal — has chosen to bypass public funds and, as a result, is pummeling McCain in the fundraising arena.

Irony alert: The Republican standard-bearer is using federal grants, while the Democrat extols the free-market virtues of individual campaign donations.

One could argue that Obama's campaign is 'publicly funded,' after all, he and the DNC have forgone Lobby and PAC money and the majority of his campaign contributions come from small donations made by lots of people. However, the "Obama phenomenon" does not take into account an average person seeking office. This is where public funding would level the playing field so that ordinary citizens could run for office. Obama's 'star quality' and fund raising ability, plus the current political climate, cloud the argument for killing public funding.

McCain opted in to public funds, thus agreeing to cap out at $84 million for his campaign. The RNC supplements his allocated funds by raising money and they do take Lobby and PAC money. Neither candidate, in my opinion, represents 'clean money.'

No matter which candidate wins the White House, both will be faced with determining the fate of public campaign financing, in fact, both have an obligation. At Change Congress, we would also argue that the issue needs to go beyond Presidential and on to Congressional elections -- a more difficult battle.

A smart conversation took place on KQED's Forum with Scott Shafer. I encourage you all to have listen and weigh in on the conversation through our comments section. Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics is on the panel and directs people to the OpenSecrets site so you can follow the money yourself. You can listen in below:

As you probably know, the Federal Elections Commission requires political committees to disclose information about all donors who contribute over $200, including their name, address, occupation, and employer. (There are some great sites, like OpenSecrets.org and FundRace.org, that help make sense of this data.) But this is just a minimum -- campaigns can do more. John McCain has been disclosing his sub-$200 donors and he recently criticized Barack Obama for not dong the same.

By looking at the disclosed records, the RNC and other Obama critics have found donations that Obama isn't legally permitted to accept -- contributions from overseas, contributions over the legal limit, contributions under apparently-fictitious names. Presumably, McCain thinks that if Obama opens up the rest of the data, they'll find even more. Obama has received contributions from literally millions of people, so it's a lot of data to look thru.

To put the pressure on, the RNC has released RNCDonors.com, which provides a near-real time search interface to all sub-$200 contributions to the RNC. (Why only sub-$200?) Very little data is disclosed about each contribution, but it's still fun to type in the names of Republican friends and see if they donated. So far Obama and the DNC haven't responded to these tactics.

Lessig's slideshow asking DSCC's Chuck Schumer and DCCC's Chris Van Hollen to follow Barack Obama and the DNC's refusal of lobbyist money is up on Youtube. Embed and send around as you wish.

Our Political Director, Japhet Els, is on the ground in Denver at DNC08 running a campaign to ensure once and for all that there is no corporate influence in the Democratic Party and they can truly stand unified as a part of the people.

Barack Obama, pledged not to take corporate lobby and PAC money. Not only has the Obama campaign refused money from lobbyists, they've checked records to be sure and in April of '07 returned over $50,000 in contributions tied to lobbyists. Chairman Howard Dean and the DNC followed suit by taking the same pledge.

In contrast, Senator Chuck Schumer of the DSCC and Representative Charles Van Hollen of the DCCC have stood silent and taken millions of dollars for their own Congressional and Senatorial Committees from corporate lobbyists and PAC’s. This is creating a schism in the Democratic Party that must be bridged immediately.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has raised upwards of $109 million in 2008. This is almost $30 million more than what its Republican counterpart, the RNCC has raised. You can see for yourself where this money comes from.

Just arrived last night to an already bustling Democratic Convention in Denver. The night included setting up my air mattress, wolfing down a veggie sub from Jimmy John's, being delayed by Code Pink protests, and watching Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, Robert F.Kennedy Jr. and Colorado Governor Bill Ritter introduce Dave Matthews for a benefit concert organized by global warming specialist Laurie David.

The Big Tent next to the Pepsi Center serves as the hub of anything online related. Flat screen TVs, couches, tables full of bloggers, press, and journalists scatter the bottom level. The second level is designated for panel discussions with a small stage and a few hundred chairs.

The Sunlight Foundation's Gabriela Schneider and Nancy Watzman tried to get into several parties last night but were denied, and they weren't the only ones. Also, Markos over on DailyKos has a great post about his recent invite to a "reactionary corporate PAC money" party. Stay tuned....

Wal-Mart is showing off its political savvy of late. Recent reports show that Wal-Mart's PAC, (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. PAC for Responsible Government) is on pace to fork over more money to House democrats than House Republicans for the first time ever. At the same time, they're pressuring employees to support John McCain in November warning that an Obama administration would be "bad for labor." (Note the irony: Wal-Mart organizing its labor not to vote for someone who will allow their labor to organize).

Mixed signals? Perhaps, but it's also a sign that America's biggest corporation has the ability to stay tight with whoever is in power. In the House of Representatives, the Democrats are poised to capture another significant majority, something Wal-Mart is betting on by funneling big checks to key Democrats. Let's call it a smart investment. Or, we could call it bribery. This from the Rothenberg Political Report:

Through June, Wal-Mart’s PAC had contributed to 86 House Democrats this cycle, amounting to just more than one-third of the Caucus. That’s more than the 77 House Democrats Wal-Mart supported in 2006 and the 62 that received PAC money in 2004.

Since 2004, Wal-Mart has given $27,500 to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.), $22,500 to House Majority Whip James Clyburn (S.C.), $12,000 to Chief Deputy Whip Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), and $20,500 to House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (N.Y.).

Earlier, the Wall Street Journal reported that Wal-Mart managers and executives were warning their employees that an Obama victory in 2008 would be a threat to the corporation because it would invite pressure to unionize.

The Wal-Mart human-resources managers who run the meetings don't specifically tell attendees how to vote in November's election, but make it clear that voting for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama would be tantamount to inviting unions in, according to Wal-Mart employees who attended gatherings in Maryland, Missouri and other states.

"The meeting leader said, 'I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won't have a vote on whether you want a union,'" said a Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri. "I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote," she said.

Wal-Mart is playing it smart. They understand the value of having a Republican president but also of having a Congress who will defend their interests (but not those of their workers').

At the heart of this strategy is the power of incumbency.

In a few cases, it is clear that Wal-Mart values incumbency rather than a political party. For example, in Texas’ 23rd district, Wal-Mart gave then-Rep. Henry Bonilla (R) contributions in 2004 ($7,500) and 2006 ($15,000), but this cycle gave $10,000 to the man who defeated him, Democratic Rep. Ciro Rodriguez.

In Florida’s 22nd district, then-Rep. Clay Shaw (R) received Wal-Mart PAC money in 2004 ($5,000) and 2006 ($10,000), but the company gave $10,000 this cycle to Rep. Ron Klein (D), who defeated Wal-Mart’s candidate in 2006. Similar giving patterns can be seen in Pennsylvania’s 4th district, Indiana’s 2nd, Georgia’s 12th, North Carolina’s 11th and Indiana’s 9th.

In New York’s 24th district, Wal-Mart’s PAC contributed $5,000 for then-Rep. Sherwood Boehlert’s 2004 re-election and $10,000 to Ray Meier, the Republican who ran unsuccessfully to replace him in 2006. But this cycle, Wal-Mart has maxed out ($10,000) to Rep. Michael Arcuri (D), whom it once opposed.

The message Wal-Mart is sending with its political contributions is not a regard for "responsible government" (or whatever harmless sounding PAC title they choose) but rather, a desire to buy power from it.

Many have called for the Democratic beneficiaries to give back the Wal-Mart loot, but no action has since been seen from recipients like Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (M.d), Majority Whip James Clyburn (S.C.), and House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (N.Y.).

August is in full swing and some much-needed cash is flowing into Denver's Democratic National Convention (and, incidentally, so is sponsored by a host of corporations) looking to schmooze our lawmakers. Ellen Miller at the Sunlight Foundation posted in May and followed up about the Democrats' plans to ameliorate the rising costs of the DNC at Denver's Pepsi Center with corporate contributions . Like any Pop-concert or Nuggets game at the Center, corporations are snatching up the Center's wall-space, but this time there's an added bonus: Congressional hand-shakes or "access."

In May, The Rocky Mountain News' Kevin Vaughan convincingly suggested the donations to the DNC are a quid pro quo for favors later on:

"Qwest, for example, is interested in a rewrite of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Molson Coors has an interest in tax policy, alcohol advertising and self- regulation, excise taxes on beer and other issues. Coca-Cola is looking at the Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act of 2007 and other issues."

Companies can buy tickets for exclusive convention receptions at upwards of $200,000. One such event honors Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and costs corporate lobbyists a whopping $155,000. This type of funding circumvents existing campaign contribution legislation, in which individuals can donate $2,300 to candidates. Who's in your wallet?

Big news coming from the DNC this evening as Barack Obama, the Democrat's presumed nominee for 2008, made it crystal clear how seriously his party will take addressing corruption inside the beltway.

"We will not take a dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs," he said. "They will not fund our campaign, they will not run our party, they will not drown out the voices of the American people."

Not only has Obama's campaign taken this pledge but now so has the Democratic Party.

This is good news and a big step forward for Change Congress' goals. Having one of this country's two leading parties refuse donations from PACs and registered lobbyists is a defining moment. This is where we should be heading to keep this government free from special interest control and corruption. Whether or not Democratic candidates will follow the lead of the DNC is yet to be seen and is the real test behind this proclamation, where the rubber meets the road.

However, there is still work to be done. We hope that John McCain and the Republican National Committee will respond in similar fashion, but as of yet there is no official word.