The Nod-Nod, Wink-Wink Gimme Rumba: Snausage politics
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Wednesday, Nov. 14, 2012, 8:53 p.m.
The dispute between Range Resources and state Rep. Jesse White shines some sunlight on behavior that has been standard operating practice in politics for ages — pols perpetually pimping for campaign cash becoming pains in the posterior.
Range, one of the big Marcellus shale natural gas drillers in the region, alleges that Mr. White, a Washington County Democrat, has become something of a fundraising shakedown artist. Range even goes as far as using the phrase “strong-arm.”
Mr. White denies any improprieties.
But pols and political action committees everywhere are familiar with the scenario: PACs give pols money to gain their ears on legislation promoting the interests of the corporation behind the PAC. The pols then continually pester the PACs to organize fundraising breakfasts, lunches, dinners or cocktail parties with very bad hors d'oeuvres probably made of Snausages.
If the PACs don't — or if they do and the cash take disappoints the pol — the pol, reinventing the art of euphemism — intimates that, hey, you know (cue the raised eyebrow here) that legislation you'd like might just have to go back to that hardly select subcommittee for the study of slow-growing grasses.
Just don't say quid pro quo.
So, crack down on campaign cash? Of course not. It's constitutionally protected speech. Crack down on pols who do the Nod-Nod, Wink-Wink Gimme Rumba? Absolutely. After all, sunlight remains the best disinfectant.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.