Tonight2008 Videos
newest 100 tonight2008 videos / tonight2008 widgets / media rss:

For the second day in a row, CNN s Lisa Sylvester, guest-hosting the August 22 edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight, aired a video clip of Michelle Obama, wife of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), saying, "So, our view is that if you can t run your own house, you certainly can t run the White House," and suggested that the comments were an attack on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). However, as Media Matters for America noted, the full context of Michelle Obama s comments show that she was talking about her own family and did not refer generally or specifically to any other candidates. After airing the cropped clip, Sylvester noted that Sen. Obama "said his wife was not referring to Senator Clinton," but rather talking "about the importance of keeping their family values intact while on the campaign trail." Sylvester then asked New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin for his take on "the Obama/Clinton remarks," adding: "I know there are a lot of people saying that that was at least a sideswipe" at Clinton. Goodwin responded: "I like to take these people at their word, but this one, I think, doesn t pass the smell test. I don t see who else she was talking about and ... the senator s defense doesn t make sense. ... [I]t s not logical when you apply it to the sentence that she said. So, I have to think it was a swipe at Hillary Clinton." Sylvester then asked Democratic strategist Hank Scheinkopf about Mrs. Obama s comments. Scheinkopf responded, in part, that Sen. Obama has "got to lash out somehow; he s got to try to close the gap. He flunked the foreign policy test and now he s got a new problem to deal with." At an August 16 campaign stop in Iowa, Michelle Obama said: MICHELLE OBAMA: [O]ne of the most important things that we need to know about the next President of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family? Is a good and decent person? So our view was that, if you can t run your own house, you certainly can t run the White House. So, so we ve adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first, so while he s traveling around, I do day trips. That means I get up in the morning, I get the girls ready, I get them off, I go and do trips, I m home before bedtime. So the girls know that I was gone somewhere, but they don t care. They just know that I was at home to tuck them in at night, and it keeps them grounded, and, and children, the children in our country have to know that they come first. And our girls do and that s why we re doing this. We re in this race for not just our children, but all of our children. As Media Matters noted, during the August 21 Lou Dobbs Tonight, Sylvester aired a cropped version of Mrs. Obama s remarks and claimed that she "apparently blast[ed] Senator Hillary Clinton." From the August 22 edition of CNN s Lou Dobbs Tonight: SYLVESTER: Democratic presidential contender Senator Barack Obama today said his wife was not aiming at Senator Hillary Clinton in remarks she made last week. MICHELLE OBAMA [video clip]: So, our view is that if you can t run your own house, you certainly can t run the White House. SYLVESTER: Senator Obama said his wife was not referring to Senator Clinton, but simply about the importance of keeping their family values intact while on the campaign trail. Joining me now are three of the best political strategists and analysts in the country: from Washington, Republican strategist and former White House political director, Ed Rollins. ROLLINS: Good evening, Lisa. SYLVESTER: And here in the studio, New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin and Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf. Thank you gentlemen for joining us. GOODWIN: My pleasure. SYLVESTER: First, let s start with you. What do you make of the Obama/Clinton remarks? I know there are a lot of people saying that that was at least a sideswipe. GOODWIN: Yeah, I mean, I like to take these people at their word, but this one, I think, doesn t pass the smell test. I don t see who else she was talking about and it doesn t -- the senator s defense doesn t make sense. It wasn t -- it s not logical when you apply it to the sentence that she said. So, I have to think it was a swipe at Hillary Clinton. SYLVESTER: And, Hank, this seems to be getting to be quite a messy sort of thing, when you ve got spouses essentially jumping into the fray here. SHEINKOPF: Well, it gets worse for Barack Obama. His numbers have not been good. The last polls on CNN have shown him neck and neck with Hillary Clinton in Iowa -- not so good. He s got to lash out somehow; he s got to try to close the gap. He flunked the foreign policy test and now he s got a new problem to deal with.

On the August 21 edition of CNN s Lou Dobbs Tonight, guest host Lisa Sylvester teased a segment on recent comments by Michelle Obama, wife of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), by claiming that she "apparently blast[ed] Senator Hillary Clinton [D-NY]." During the segment, Sylvester aired a clip of Mrs. Obama saying: "Our view is that if you can t run your own house, you certainly can t run the White House," and asked Air America Radio host Laura Flanders if the comment "was a swipe at Hillary Clinton." Flanders answered: "Yes, I think it was. I mean, I think we know that from the deadly silence that surrounded the comment from most of the pundits the last couple of days." Sylvester, however, did not provide Mrs. Obama s full comments on the topic, in which she talked about her own family and did not refer generally or specifically to any other candidates. Nor did Sylvester note that Barack Obama has denied that his wife was attacking Clinton. As Media Matters for America documented, immediately after her comment about the ability to "run your own house," Mrs. Obama went on to discuss measures her family was taking to keep their children "grounded" while campaigning and the efforts the Obamas are making to ensure that their children will continue to "come first." From her August 16 remarks: MICHELLE OBAMA: That one of the most important things that we need to know about the next President of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family? Is a good and decent person? So our view was that, if you can t run your own house, you certainly can t run the White House. So, so we ve adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first, so while he s traveling around, I do day trips. That means I get up in the morning, I get the girls ready, I get them off, I go and do trips, I m home before bedtime. So the girls know that I was gone somewhere, but they don t care. They just know that I was at home to tuck them in at night, and it keeps them grounded, and, and children, the children in our country have to know that they come first. And our girls do and that s why we re doing this. We re in this race for not just our children, but all of our children. The Obama campaign denied that Michelle Obama was attacking Clinton or anyone else. According to an August 21 entry on CNN s Political Ticker blog: The Illinois senator emphatically denied the comments were aimed at his rival and added, "There was no reference beyond her point that we have had an administration that talks a lot about family values but doesn t follow through." He also noted that his wife often speaks about children and families in her campaign remarks. Katie McCormick Lelyveld, Michelle Obama s communications director, also told CNN, "the only family Mrs. Obama was talking about was the Obama family." Earlier on August 21, CNN host Wolf Blitzer similarly omitted Mrs. Obama s full comments while discussing them with Democratic strategist Donna Brazile and Republican strategist John Feehery on CNN s The Situation Room. Blitzer aired the following excerpt from Mrs. Obama s comments: "One of the most important things that we need to know about the next president of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family, is a good and decent person? So our view was that, if you can t run your own house, you certainly can t run the White House." He then asked: "[W]hat do you think? Who was she referring to, because we re trying to read between the lines here." Brazile denied that Obama attacked anybody, saying, "I don t think he was taking -- she was taking a swipe at the Clintons or the Giulianis or anyone else. She was trying to establish his [Barack Obama s] credentials as a family person." Blitzer said that one could not assume that Mrs. Obama was attacking Clinton, saying that "you could read this and say maybe she is referring to [Republican presidential candidate] Rudy Giuliani, who s had a history of some problems." Nonetheless, on the subsequent show, Flanders asserted that "we know" that Mrs. Obama was referring to Clinton. From the August 21 edition of CNN s Lou Dobbs Tonight: SYLVESTER: And the wife of Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama apparently blasts Senator Hillary Clinton. We ll have the details next. [...] SYLVESTER: And later, is Senator Barack Obama s wife taking a swipe at Senator Hillary Clinton? We ll have the latest on this new war of words. [...] SYLVESTER: Did Michelle Obama take a swipe at her husband s primary competition for the Democratic presidential nomination, former first lady Senator Hillary Clinton? Mrs. Obama in Iowa last week said she wanted to travel with her husband to model what it means to have family values. And she added -- MICHELLE OBAMA [video clip]: Our view is that if you can t run your own house, you certainly can t run the White House. SYLVESTER: Joining me now for more on this and the rest of the current political landscape are three of the country s best radio talk-show hosts. In Washington, Joe Madison of WOL and XM Radio. MADISON: Hello. SYLVESTER: In Denver, Peter Boyles of KHOW. And here in New York, Laura Flanders of Air America. Laura, let me first start with you. What do you make of those comments that Michelle Obama made? Do you think that that was a swipe at Hillary Clinton? FLANDERS: Yes, I think it was. I mean, I think we know that from the deadly silence that surrounded the comment from most of the pundits the last couple of days. Don t you wish we had Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama running for president? Wouldn t that be a great day? I mean, these are women with some actual gumption. I m fine with the swiping, really. People want to talk about houses in order, the only house we really need to keep in order is this country s house. And, you know, we don t want to go back to that kind of swiping, as it were, about the personal whatever in the Clinton family. But the feistiness on the campaign trail, I m for it.

On the August 3 edition of CNN s Lou Dobbs Tonight, the on-screen text preceding CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider s report on recent comments by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) read: "Obtuse Obama." During the report itself, the on-screen text read: "Obtuse Obama: What Does He Mean?" By contrast, when the same segment aired on the next day s edition of CNN Saturday Morning News, the on-screen text read: "Jumping on Obama." As Media Matters for America has documented, this is not the first time news reports broadcast on other CNN programs have aired on Lou Dobbs carrying different captions. On June 7, for example, a news report on Senate deliberations of an immigration bill aired on Lou Dobbs with captions reading "Make or Break: Critical Vote on Amnesty," and "Senate Likely to Vote Tonight on Whether to Kill Amnesty Bill." When the same report was broadcast that day on The Situation Room, the caption read: "Immigration Bill on Life Support: Setbacks in Senate." Similarly, during June 14 reports on the Senate immigration bill broadcast on Lou Dobbs, on-screen texts referred to "Bush s amnesty push," "pro-amnesty senators," and the "amnesty bill." When the same reports were aired on The Situation Room, captions read: "Immigration deal making: Close to a new agreement" and "Immigration deal sweetener: Pres. Bush offer to GOP." Previous CNN reporting has noted that "amnesty" is a characterization of the bill favored by "critics." From the August 3 edition of CNN s Lou Dobbs Tonight: LOU DOBBS (host): Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama under fire from his Democratic rivals today. They charge he s naive and inexperienced when it comes to foreign policy, and, as Bill Schneider reports, they re using the senator s own words to support their charges. [begin video clip] SCHNEIDER: First came the CNN/ YouTube debate when Barack Obama said he would meet with unfriendly dictators during his first year in office. OBAMA: The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. SCHNEIDER: Hillary Clinton pounced. CLINTON: I thought that was irresponsible and, frankly, naive. SCHNEIDER: It s called a "not-supposed-to." You re not supposed to say you d meet with such people without laying a lot of groundwork first. From the 7 a.m. ET hour of the August 4 edition of CNN Saturday Morning News: TJ HOLMES (co-anchor): Well, the CNN/ YouTube debate we saw not too long ago with the Democrats certainly sparked a lot of discussion. VERONICA DE LA CRUZ (co-anchor): Yeah, yeah, in fact, comments made by Democratic hopeful Barack Obama have really got people talking, and when we say people, we mean -- HOLMES: His political rivals, those people. DE LA CRUZ: Right, right, those people. CNN s Bill Schneider has more. [begin video] SCHNEIDER: First came the CNN/ YouTube debate when Barack Obama said he would meet with unfriendly dictators during his first year in office. OBAMA: The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous. SCHNEIDER: Hillary Clinton pounced. CLINTON: I thought that was irresponsible and, frankly, naive. SCHNEIDER: It s called a "not-supposed-to." You re not supposed to say you d meet with such people without laying a lot of groundwork first.

On the July 18 edition of CNN s Lou Dobbs Tonight, Air America Radio host Laura Flanders said of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), "he s kind of become the female on this race. It s very interesting. He s seen as the weaker -- cute, attractive." Flanders then said of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), "Hillary is the one with the balls." Host Lou Dobbs responded, "Well, Laura, my goodness." The comments came after Flanders noted that daytime television host Oprah Winfrey was supporting Obama while, according to Flanders, Oprah s mother "is 100 percent for Hillary." Dobbs then turned to CNN contributor Roland Martin "to work out the physiological symbolic gender-bending sort of analysis that Laura has put on the table." Martin said that Clinton "has no choice but to appear to be stronger because that was a perceived weakness being a woman running for president." Martin then said that Obama "has to play a bit safer, being an African-American running, not having a long amount of experience," and added that "he has a very difficult task of, well, do I -- the whole question: Is he black enough? Is he too black?" Dobbs responded by noting that Flanders had "introduced the idea that he s too female and Hillary s too male." Flanders added, "He s female enough for Oprah, and she s male enough for a lot of voters out there. It s fascinating. I mean, I think this is going to be an amazing election." Flanders comments followed similar remarks in the media recently. As Media Matters for America documented, after Internet gossip Matt Drudge posted a headline that read "GENDER BENDER: WIFE EDWARDS SAYS HILLARY BEHAVING LIKE A MAN," several media figures trotted out gender stereotypes about the leading Democratic presidential candidates while discussing comments former Sen. John Edwards wife, Elizabeth, made about Clinton during an interview with Salon.com editor-in-chief Joan Walsh. MSNBC host Tucker Carlson asked on his July 17 show, "I mean, let s take this critique seriously -- is Hillary Clinton too manly to be president?" On the July 18 edition of ABC s Good Morning America, ABC senior national correspondent Claire Shipman claimed that "[t]here is striking gender role reversal on the campaign trail" because "Hillary Clinton [is] by far the toughest politically and stylistically," while Edwards and Obama "are emoting like crazy." In the July 17 edition of his "Best of the Web Today" column, OpinionJournal.com editor James Taranto asserted: "Yet another ultraliberal woman has been won over" by Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards "womanly charms: his spouse, Elizabeth Edwards," and then falsely claimed that Elizabeth Edwards had suggested in an interview that "Mrs. Clinton is more mannish than Mr. Edwards." In the interview, Edwards said: Look, I m sympathetic, because when I worked as a lawyer, I was the only woman in these rooms, too, and you want to reassure them you re as good as a man. And sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women s issues. I m sympathetic -- she wants to be commander in chief. But she s just not as vocal a women s advocate as I want to see. John is. And then she says, or maybe her supporters say, "Support me because I m a woman," and I want to say to her, "Well, then support me because I m a woman." The question is not so much how she campaigns -- that s theater. The question is, what does her campaign tell you about how she ll govern? And I m not convinced she d be as good an advocate for women. Previously, on his July 2 show, Carlson said that Obama "seems like kind of a wuss." On the July 16 edition of MSNBC s Tucker, producer Willie Geist described a Clinton doll being advertised at the website HillaryNutcracker.com that features "serrated stainless steel thighs that, well, crack nuts," according to Geist. He introduced the story by saying, "I think the metaphor in this next story, Tucker, is pretty clear. So I will just report the straight facts." He later asked, "What do you think they re saying about Hillary?" Carlson replied, "I have often said, when she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs." From the July 18 edition of CNN s Lou Dobbs Tonight: DOBBS: Well, let me start with Oprah Winfrey supporting -- who did she decide she wanted, Laura? FLANDERS: Oh, I think it s Barack Obama all the way. DOBBS: All right. Now, that s exciting. Who cares? FLANDERS: Well, it s fascinating stuff. I was interviewing somebody yesterday who lives in Barack Obama s -- not only his hometown of Chicago, but in Hyde Park, where he s from. DOBBS: Right. FLANDERS: His mother -- her mother is 100 percent for Hillary. I am finding person after person, African-American women, AFSCME employees -- I went to that presidential forum. They like Barack, but he s kind of become the female on this race. It s very interesting. He s seen as the weaker -- DOBBS: Whoa, gender-bender. FLANDERS: -- cute, attractive. And Hillary is the one with the balls. DOBBS: Roland -- FLANDERS: That s what people say. DOBBS: Well, Laura, my goodness -- FLANDERS: And so I m fascinated that Oprah is really pushing it -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes -- FLANDERS: -- but I think he s made for Oprah. DOBBS: Well, you re going to have to -- Roland, I m turning to you, from Chicago -- to work out the physiological symbolic gender-bending sort of analysis that Laura has put on the table. MARTIN: First, keep in mind, she s been on the national stage 15 years. He s really been on the national stage just one year. Secondly, she has no choice but to appear to be stronger because that was a perceived weakness being a woman running for president. DOBBS: Yeah. MARTIN: He also has to play a bit safer, being an African-American running, not having a long amount of experience. And so he has to -- DOBBS: He s got to be -- MARTIN: He has to tread -- some water here. DOBBS: He s got -- MARTIN: Because -- DOBBS: He can t make waves. MARTIN: Well, no -- he can t make waves because, again, he s a new -- he s a new guy on the block, and he has a very difficult task of, well, do I -- the whole question: Is he black enough? Is he too black? You know, what s his stances? And so he s -- DOBBS: Well, now he s got a -- now Laura has introduced the idea -- FLANDERS: I think he s female enough -- DOBBS: -- that he s too female and Hillary s too male. MARTIN: Well, I think what she s saying is that -- FLANDERS: He s female enough for Oprah, and she s male enough for a lot of voters out there. It s fascinating. I mean, I think this is going to be an amazing election.

In an April 25 ABC News report titled "Politics As Usual; Democrats Just Like the Republicans," chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross reported that, although Democrats "criticiz[ed] the Republicans for turning Congress in to what [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] called an auction house for sale to the highest bidder" while in the minority, they are now "taking full advantage of the system that they called pay for play" in their fundraising from lobbyists and others. However, Pelosi s statement did not declare that Democrats would not do any fundraising if they became the majority party, and Ross, while discussing several fundraising events, provided no evidence that any of those events involved legal or ethical wrongdoing. By contrast, three Republican congressmen -- former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), Bob Ney (R-OH), and Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) -- have been indicted, and two -- Ney and Cunningham -- pleaded guilty to offenses during the 109th Congress. The report aired on the webcast of ABC s World News. Another version of the report aired the same day on ABC s World News with Charles Gibson, during which Ross also quoted Pelosi s January 2006 statement that "[t]he Republicans have turned Congress into an auction house, for sale to the highest bidder. You have to pay to play." During the World News report, Ross asserted that "Congressman Charlie Rangel [D-NY] and Senator Max Baucus [D-MT], collected as much as $9,200 a person at a swanky gathering with New York s financial elite this February," but again offered no evidence of "pay for play." Following that report, Ross asserted, "The Democrats say they are working on a new comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform package that will be introduced in the next several weeks. But until that is passed, everything they re doing is legal under the current law. The Democrats are enjoying the privilege of power." In response, Gibson said, "The more things change, the more things stay the same." However, in neither report did Ross offer any evidence that these fundraisers constituted legal or ethical wrongdoing by any Democratic congressmen. He asserted that "Speaker Pelosi, who called about Republicans auctioning off Congress, recently attended a swanky dinner, 28,000, as much as $28,000 a person to attend to have dinner with her and the top committee chairman from the Democratic Party who controlled the House," and added, "many say that is nothing short of pay for play." Responding to Ross assertion that Pelosi attended a fundraiser that cost "as much as $28,000 a person," Gibson asserted, "Up to 28,000 bucks to go to a party where she appears. Is that within the rules?" and added, "I thought there were limits in how much you re gonna give." In response, Ross suggested the Democrats had found a loophole to otherwise applicable limits by claiming, "They found a new way. Democrats have been very creative," and adding, "By having more than one member of Congress there, you can give to kind of a, a group of them." Ross continued: For instance, Senator Max Baucus and Congressman Charlie Rangel, they control the two committees in the House and the Senate that set all tax policy. They formed their own little group and you can give as much as $9,200 a couple, and that s what happened recently in a New York and a Fifth Avenue apartment, 9,200 bucks for a couple, to have a couple of cocktails with Rangel and Baucus. In fact, the fundraiser Pelosi attended was for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, as The Washington Post noted in a February 24 article. According to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the limit for donations to a national party committee is $28,500. With respect to the Baucus-Rangel fundraiser, as the Post noted, and as Ross noted later on World News, the request was for up to $9,200 per person, not per couple. However, this was also within applicable limits and did not involve a loophole as Ross had suggested. According to the FEC, the contribution limit for a congressional candidate is $2,300, but, as the FEC notes, "the limit applies separately to each election," and "[p]rimaries, runoffs and general elections are considered separate elections." Therefore, an individual could give $4,600 to each candidate per cycle, and $9,200 to two candidates. Moreover, as part of his case for claiming that "the game is the same," Ross offered the example of Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who raised funds by taking lobbyists to a Who concert in Washington, D.C. Ross noted that "nothing stopped him from buying the tickets himself and then selling them back to lobbyists at 10 times the going price." But, as Ross noted, Issa is a Republican, so he hardly represents an example of Democrats, now in the majority, engaging in the same conduct they condemned. The World News report was promoted on Ross s ABC home page under the headline "Congressional Democrats Spell Reform: C-A-$-H." From the April 25 edition of the ABC World News webcast: CHARLES GIBSON (anchor): We stick with politics, but of a very different variety. When the Democrats took control on Capitol Hill in January, they were criticizing the Republicans for turning Congress in to what Nancy Pelosi called an auction house for sale to the highest bidder. And she introduced legislation, you may recall, that she promised would fundamentally change how the Democrats interacted with lobbyists. Three months later, how are Democrats interacting with lobbyists? Our chief investigative correspondent, Brian Ross, has been looking into that question. So how are they? ROSS: Just as well as the Republicans did. They are now in power, and they are taking full advantage of the system that they called pay for play, which to get access to Congress, you have to pay a lot of money, make contributions, provide all kinds of things of value. Some small rules have changed, but essentially, the game is the same. GIBSON: Examples? ROSS: For example, Speaker Pelosi, who called about Republicans auctioning off Congress, recently attended a swanky dinner, $28,000 -- as much as $28,000 a person to attend to have dinner with her and the top committee chairman from the Democratic Party who control the House -- $28,000. Many say that is nothing short of pay for play. GIBSON: Up to 28,000 bucks to go to a party where she appears. Is that within the rules? Can you get -- I thought there were limits in how much you can give. ROSS: Well, there are limits. They found a new way. Democrats have been very creative. By having more than one member of Congress there, you can give to kind of a -- a group of them. For instance, Senator Max Baucus and Congressman Charlie Rangel, they control the two committees in the House and the Senate that set all tax policy. They formed their own little group, and you can give as much as $9,200 a couple, and that s what happened recently in a New York in a Fifth Avenue apartment -- 9,200 bucks for a couple, to have a couple of cocktails with Rangel and Baucus. GIBSON: Now, you said there ve been some small rules changes made. For instance, I thought you couldn t take the same kind of gifts from lobbyists that you used to be able to take. ROSS: Exactly. Under the disgrace of convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, they said you can no longer accept from a lobbyist free tickets, for instance, or for free trips. But they found a way around this. We were at a big concert for The Who in Washington, and in the skybox was a congressman, Republican Congressman Issa. He was there with lobbyists -- it was the same group. But what he did -- instead of receiving free tickets, he bought the tickets himself for about 125 bucks and then sold each one to the lobbyists for $1,500, made a nice profit, and still had a fun evening out. GIBSON: Oh, wait a minute. He, he bought the tickets -- ROSS: He s like a scalper. GIBSON: He bought it, he marked them up to 10 times the price -- ROSS: Right. GIBSON: -- and then sold them to the lobbyists. ROSS: Exactly. And they bought them, so it s the same thing. They re paying for the tickets. GIBSON: So it s business as usual. ROSS: Under a different set of rules, business as usual. GIBSON: All right. Democrats, just like Republicans. Who knew? Brian Ross, our chief investigative correspondent. From the April 25 edition of ABC s World News: GIBSON: Next, we turn to politics and money. When Democrats seized control of Congress last year, they vowed to limit the influence of lobbyists and major donors and crack down on what they called the culture of corruption. Well, now the Democrats have settled in. Has anything changed? Our chief investigative correspondent, Brian Ross, went back on "The Money Trail" to find out. ROSS: This was the scene last month at a private estate outside Washington -- luxury cars delivering guests who paid as much as $28,000 to have dinner with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. REPORTER: How much did you pay for this party? INTERVIEWEE: $10,000. ROSS: Speaker Pelosi was whisked in under heavy guard in the kind of scene only a few months ago she labeled corrupt. PELOSI: The Republicans have turned Congress into an auction house, for sale to the highest bidder. You have to pay to play. ROSS: Only now, it s the Democrats who get wined and dined, taking full advantage of the system. TONY PODESTA (lobbyist, Democratic fundraiser): There s a, a cuisine and a place to greet your favorite politician in almost -- any hour of the day or night. ROSS: The chairs of the powerful congressional committees that set taxes, Congressman Charlie Rangel and Senator Max Baucus, collected as much as $9,200 a person at a swanky gathering with New York s financial elite this February. Senator Baucus claimed not to know how much his guests had to pay. BAUCUS: Gosh, I don t know. REPORTER: You, you don t know? BAUCUS: I don t know. I couldn t tell you. ROSS: Campaign finance records made public this week tell the story. Democratic congressional campaign committees are raking in the cash, one and a half times as much as the Republicans in the first reporting period of the year. ELLEN MILLER (executive director, Sunlight Foundation): Access is still for sale. There s no question about it. ROSS: And the few changes that have been made haven t really made much of a difference. We found Republican Congressman Darrell Issa of California in a private skybox with lobbyists and other big donors at a recent Who concert in Washington. Under new House rules, the congressman could not accept a free ticket. But nothing stopped him from buying the tickets himself and then selling them back to lobbyists at 10 times the going price. MILLER: It s just like the old days of Jack Abramoff, even though those days are what this Congress promised to clean up. ROSS: The Democrats say they are working on a new comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform package that will be introduced in the next several weeks. But until that is passed, everything they re doing is legal under the current law. The Democrats are enjoying the privilege of power, Charlie. GIBSON: For now. The more things change, the more things stay the same. ROSS: That is exactly right. GIBSON: Brian Ross on "The Money Trail."