The Committee found that you should have known that you were providing incorrect, inconsistent, misleading or incomplete information to the public, the Senate and those  conducting legitimate inquiries into your appointment to the Sentate. [...]

The Committee has found that your actions and statements reflected unfavorably on the Senate and issues this Public Letter of Qualified Admonition.

Translation: We know you lied under oath; here’s your slap on the wrist.

Is it any wonder that watchdog groups don’t trust the system of Congress policing itself?

Under the proposed 50/50 formula, utilities that are more coal dependent will need to purchase even more allowances than they would have if all allowances were allocated based on emissions.

Well, yeah. And under the current proposed 50/50 formula, the coal burners would also have to purchase more allowances than if Congress did nothing at all. But the whole point of the bill is to discourage the use of high-emission energies like coal by making them less affordable than cleaner alternatives. Sheppard explains further why the lawmakers’ argument makes little sense in the context of the global warming debate:

Of course, this would work against the entire logic of the proposed scheme, which is to offer utilities financial incentives to switch to lower-carbon fuel sources. [...]

Right now, the climate bill needs all the votes it can get from Democrats. So enviros worry that concessions to this bloc could ultimately result in a deal in which coal plants suffer no real penalties for the carbon they pump into the atmosphere. “Dirty coal polluters know their days are numbered and are lobbying for the largest piece of the pie they can get,” said Jason Kowalski, policy coordinator at 1Sky. “It goes against the spirit of this legislation to reward the polluters that caused this problem in the first place.”

Signing on to the letter were Democratic Sens. Carl Levin (Mich.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Russ Feingold (Wis.), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Al Franken (Minn.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Roland Burris (Ill.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Mark Udall (Colo.) and Robert Byrd (W.Va.).

By appointing Burris to inject racial politics into the battle to save his job, former Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-Ill.) saddled Senate Democrats with one of the most dizzingly incoherent politicians in America, and threw the incredibly safe Illinois Senate seat open for a possible Republican takeover. Burris’s service in the Senate may one day be summed up by this accidental poem:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, this is — this is — I mean this is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m done.

Read the full horror:

BURRIS: This has — being a constitutional and political science student, I mean, this is Political Science 101 or Political Science, maybe, 1000. The panel’s just been terrific.

And I have so many thoughts just rolling through my head, I don’t even know where to start. I mean, this is — this is the meat that caused us political scientists to even exist, because you’re dealing with these major issues of the separation of powers and the creation of this country and whether or not you want your president to really have the powers that you granted it, and whether or not the Congress, which is on similar or equal footing, can then control or muscle in on those powers of the president.

Based on the fact that — especially the House of Representatives, since they stand for re-election every two years and senators much longer, you — you have this constant power struggle as who is really representing the people and what that representation is going to mean when it gets to the — the policy decision that’s going to impact the public.

And I don’t know whether or not — I don’t think you can come up with a definition dealing with this. Having served in a governor’s cabinet and having dealt with those staffers, it almost depends on how strong the cabinet member is as to just what and how he’s going to deal with those situations and those circumstances.

Because having experienced that on the state level, and knowledgeable to some extent on the federal level — I was very close to the — to the Carter administration and had good insights into the workings of the White House and all of those decisions that were being made and how the gatekeepers really sought to filter the information that got to the president.

Every president’s going to go through it. I don’t even know how we in the Congress can legally — I mean, I heard the distinguished ranking member say that we passed a law. We can pass a law and say there’s going to be a position in there, but I don’t think the Congress can tell the president who to put in that position.

I mean, if we do that, then I think that we’re violating the separation of powers. I mean, this is what we get into. And you can create a position. What happens if — what happens if the president says, “I don’t want to appoint anybody as secretary of state. I’m going to use the undersecretary as an acting secretary”?

Is there a law that would require us or require the president to appoint a secretary of state? Is there? Is there?

CASEY: A law that requires the president to appoint a secretary of state?

BURRIS: Yes.

CASEY: Specifically, there would not be a law requiring him to do that. Now, of course, if he wants the functions that you vested in a secretary of state performed, he — he probably has to do…

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: But there is no law that says he has to even appoint a secretary of state, is that — am I correct?

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: There’s a statute that says there’s a position — a secretary of state position…

CASEY: Right, right — shall be appointed in the following — yes — I’m unaware of any…

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: But is there a law that says the president has to make that appointment?

CASEY: Not that I’m aware of.

BURRIS: That’s the difficulty that we’re dealing with here. Is there a law that says that the president can appoint an acting person and how long can that person act?

CASEY: Yes. There is actually a law that governs…

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: OK. How long can that person act?

CASEY: It is — I would actually have to look at the statute but it’s a matter of months, it’s not…

BURRIS: A matter of months, so that person…

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: Otherwise, then, does the authority then leave that…

(UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE)

BURRIS: … that position?

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: And who then assumes that authority in that position if the president refuses to send the name up for confirmation to us?

CASEY: Well, yes, there — there are various — many circumstances in which an acting official can continue to serve, especially if they are the — the normal principal deputy of the office that — that you’re talking about.

BURRIS: And what about these midnight appointments, as we hear? You know, the judges in the interim time, or Congress in — in recess…

CASEY: Recess appointments.

BURRIS: The recess appointments. And they serve for only a certain period of time, and — and otherwise…

CASEY: Right.

BURRIS: … that person would have to leave the position and — I mean, you can see all the questions that are just flowing through my process here, as we try to talk about czars and policy-makers. This is even bigger than — than czars.

I mean — you’re — you’re wrestling with this — this just wonderful document that’s created 200 and plus years ago that created our entity and this thing called separation of powers.

We haven’t even gotten into the judiciary side of this, which could also raise a whole lot of other questions.

So, Mr. President (sic), I really don’t have many questions, I just — I got more questions than I have answers, Mr. Chairman, in reference to this, because I — I just sit here and listen to the experts talk, and every time there was a statement made, there’s a — there’s a new question come to my mind, well, what about this? What ifs — What if? What if? And — and so, I find this so fascinating, and I’m — I’m certainly going read each and every one of you all’s testimony.

I don’t know how I’m going to get back to — to, you know, the hearing again to try to follow up on this but, Mr. Chairman, I would imagine that our grandchildren are going to be still wrestling with this same problem.

I don’t know whether or not — given us wanting to have a weak president who’s going to kowtow to Congress or us having this — a weak Congress who’s going to let a president run all over us, which you see in some of these cases.

I mean if, you know, if — if you say that we’re going to appropriate some money, then they don’t want to spend it, you know, they don’t spend it.

And you just heard what my distinguished senator from Utah says, that who the gatekeeper is to stop the information from getting to the president. So, you know, I’m more frustrated than I am — with questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, this is — this is — I mean this is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m done.

“I would not support a bill that does not have a public option,” Burris, 72, said in a recent interview with The Associated Press. “That position will not change.”

Those words caught the attention of the very Democratic leaders who tried to keep Burris out of the Senate, suggested he resign and have shunned him in unprecedented fashion. Burris is not the only Democrat to insist on creation of a government-run health plan. But he is the one who has the least to lose by defying President Barack Obama and the Democrats who once turned him out in the cold rain.

What’s notable here is that, unlike some other public option supporters in the Democratic caucus, Burris says he won’t support any of the compromise proposals floating around the Senate. He wouldn’t, for example, vote for a public plan triggered by certain conditions a few years down the road, the AP reports. Instead he wants the robust government-backed plan contained in the bill passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee earlier in the year. Not even HELP Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) is insisting on that.

Illinois Rep. Mark Kirk (R) will not run for the open seat of Sen. Roland Burris (D) in 2010, a stunning reversal from just 48 hours ago when Kirk signaled to National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) that he would make the race.

As we noted yesterday, when Burris decided to retire he created a much easier primary race for the Democrats. Cillizza reports that GOP state party chairman Andy McKenna is the new favorite for the nomination, but he lacks Kirk’s base in Democratic-trending suburban Cook County, and he lacks the war chest that Kirk had assembled. A Republican pick-up in President Obama’s home state just got much less likely.

It’s possible for Republicans to make Senate gains in 2010—they have solid candidates in every open seat race, they could pose real challenges in Colorado and Delaware, and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) is taking a while to recover from his financial troubles. But the possibility of the party seriously whittling down the Democratic majority in a way that could lead to a 2012 takeover is dimming.

The decision by Burris was based on his inability to raise campaign funds; campaign disclosures with the Federal Election Commission are expected to be filed next week … and he has reportedly only raised approximately $20,000

This prevents a scenario that some Illinois Democrats had worried about—an ugly, race-baiting March 2010 primary, where the badly under-funded Burris might have gone down swinging against Treasurer Alexi Giannoulis or businessman Chris Kennedy, alienating black voters that the eventual nominee will need to defeat the likely Republican nominee, Rep. Mark Kirk. And it frees the White House from the awkward decision to throw one of its reliable allies/rubber stamps in the Senate under the proverbial bus. (This was already happening behind the seats as the White House courted other candidates to run.)

“This race is wide open,” said Sarah Janacek, a Republican activist in the state and editor of a newsletter on state politics. “Coleman’s experience, contacts and donor base should not be discounted in the governor’s race. I have talked to people who are Norm’s supporters who think that he should run for governor.”

Indeed, some of Coleman’s supporters still support him. But the uncomfortable truth (which the Politico sort of teases out) is that Minnesotans simply don’t like the guy. In April, the Star-Tribune poll put Coleman’s favorable rating at only 38 percent, to 55 percent unfavorable, a serious fall-off since the election, when Coleman won 42 percent of the vote in a three-way race. And Coleman is still mired in a donor scandal that broke before the election. If you rephrase this—”Should a candidate with a 17-point net negative popularity rating and a pending lawsuit run for governor?”—it sounds like lunacy, but Coleman has benefited from curiously anodyne or “what a circus!” coverage throughout this process.

It’s quite strange. Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) didn’t win any elections in 2008, either, and he’s submerged in money scandals, too. But no one floats the idea of Burris running for another office ever again. That would be crazy.

The governor was arrested six days before the Dec. 15 deadline, so we’ll never know for sure if Burris — who at the time was seeking President Obama’s vacated senate seat — intended to follow through on that statement to Robert Blagojevich, who was allegedly seeking to help his brother trade the seat for cash. But there are several other layers in that conversation that haven’t gotten as much attention as they might deserve.

First, Burris contemplates ways to disguise a contribution to the governor’s campaign so that it wouldn’t appear related to the Senate appointment process, at one point saying he “might be able to do this in the name of Tim Wright,” his law partner.

As The Chicago Tribune points out today, Illinois law prohibits campaign donations made in the name of someone else — something Burris, once the attorney general of Illinois, might have known.

And second, Burris indicates that he won’t be able to check in with Wright for several more days because Wright was “in New York trying to drum up business.” What sort of business? “He’s trying to get a part of that, ah, federal bailout stuff,” Burris says. “Cause you know we’re, you know he’s, we’ve got a financial law firm here so they’re trying to get involved in that.”

So in summary, we’ve got a former state attorney general whose law partner is busy chasing federal bailout dollars around the country while he’s scratching his head over how to make clandestine contributions through that partner to an allegedly corrupt governor while at the same time not jeopardizing the chance that the governor might appoint him to the U.S. Senate.

This whole episode might not be illegal — it might not even breach the Senate’s lax ethics rules — but it sure does make a case for stemming the influence of money in politics.

The Democratic senator from Illinois — appointed to the upper chamber in January amid a wave of controversy over then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-Ill.), who tapped Burris for the post — has distanced himself from his disgraced appointer skillfully enough to have kept his seat this long despite early opposition from Democratic leaders. Blagojevich, of course, was arrested in December on charges of attempting to sell the Senate seat being vacated by President Obama — a situation that left Democrats fearing the thought of a tainted Blagojevich appointment roaming the halls of the upper chamber.

No matter. During the announcement of his appointment in December, Burris told reporters that he had “no relationship with that situation.” A few days later, he said in an affidavit that he had no conversations with Blagojevich’s camp about the Senate seat prior to his appointment. Yesterday, as Kathleen mentioned, Burris told the Chicago Sun-Times that he’s adjusting well and feels “right on course.”

Case closed? Not quite.

The Senate Ethics Committee is still investigating the circumstances surrounding his appointment, and yesterday (long after the Sun-Times piece ran) a federal judge in Chicago released secretly recorded FBI tapes revealing that Burris, well, lied about his contacts with Blagoevich’s folks. Indeed, the tapes indicate that Burris had offered the Illinois governor a check.

The Washington Post explains:

During the Nov. 13 conversation, Burris told the governor’s brother, Rob Blagojevich, that he was willing to join a fundraising event and would send a personal check.

“I will personally do something. And it’ll be done before the 15th of December,” Burris said. He added, “And tell Rod to keep me in mind for that seat, would ya?”

Just how many lives does Burris have? We might soon find out.

“I am right on course,” Burris told Sweet, who reports that Burris is calling on Democratic Party leaders to support him in a 2010 run, while he has just $845 in campaign funds as of his last filing and no substantive fundraising network to support a future campaign.

I think Burris’ logistical problems could be a little more immediate.

Last week, while prepping  for my guest-blogging stint at TWI, I called all the  offices of all the senators who owe their job in one way or another to Obama’s victory — including Burris; Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s replacement, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.); Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), who is finishing Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s term; and Vice President Joe Biden’s replacement, Sen. Edward Kaufman (D-Del.) — to add me to their press release lists, because I’d be blogging on 2010 Senate campaigns and all of them must battle to retain their seats.

So far only Gillibrand’s staff has been able to handle that request. Or at least they’re the only ones to have sent me any information.

A Burris staffer, who wouldn’t give me her name, went so far as to say they “don’t have a press release list” and they just post all information on the senator’s Website.

If you’re a serious member of Congress, sworn in four months ago, you should probably have a way to immediately get your message to the media. Press release lists allow your staff to brag about your accomplishments, put your stamp on issues and in general keep reporters aware of your existence.

Sweet’s column includes praise for Burris’ work ethic and comments from Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security committee, who told her that Burris ”comes to virtually every hearing we have in Homeland Security and he asks good questions.”

On the government side, Burris has an operation up and running in Washington and in regional offices in Illinois. In mid-April Burris moved from temporary quarters to more space in the Russell Senate Office Building. After a bumpy start — a chief of staff left a few weeks after Burris was sworn in last January — Burris has put together a seasoned staff who know their way around the Capitol.

Too bad his staff doesn’t know its way around a media list.