House Approves Democrats' Ethics Package

[Bronco_Beerslug]

But how come Democrats haven't already straightened out over 10 years of Republican rule, what's taking them so long?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
House approves Democrats' ethics package (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070731/ap_on_go_co/congress_ethics_12)
By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer Tue Jul 31

WASHINGTON - The House voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to require lawmakers to disclose more details of their bids to fund pet projects and their fundraising help from lobbyists, a package that some groups call the most significant congressional reforms in years.

The bill, drafted by Democratic leaders, passed by a vote of 411 to 8. It would require House and Senate members to disclose those lobbyists who raise $15,000 or more for them within a six-month period by "bundling" donations from many people. It also would bar lobbyists and their clients from giving gifts, including meals and tickets, to lawmakers.

Senators seeking targeted spending projects or "earmarks" would have to publicize their plans 48 hours before the Senate votes on the proposals, and declare their families would not directly benefit financially.

The House made similar changes to its rules governing earmarks in January. Senate leaders hope to give final passage to the bill later this week.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House began debate Tuesday on an ethics bill designed to shed new light on big-time fundraising by lobbyists, and on stealthy spending tactics by lawmakers.

Democratic leaders hoped for easy passage of the bill, which some members grumble about privately but fear to oppose publicly. Senate leaders want to give it final approval by week's end, allowing Democrats to claim partial fulfillment of their 2006 campaign promise to run a cleaner Congress.

CONT.

[W*GS]

On the other hand, there are plenty of loopholes big enough to carry a few duffel bags full of cash through...

Wadda shocker.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

On the other hand, there are plenty of loopholes big enough to carry a few duffel bags full of cash through...
Wadda shocker.Which are?

[W*GS]

Which are?

See

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/washington/01lobby.html?pagewanted=all

[Bob]

I hope that whatever is passes will curb corruption...

I am cynical on any proposal, but I would rather have those guys aurgue about issues like this one -- in the hope that small incrimental changes can be made.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

See

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/washington/01lobby.html?pagewanted=all

I don't see anything there as a glaring omission or loophole. The overall bill is a much better restriction on entitlements and special interest projects than lawmakers currently enjoy. It's definitely a move in the right direction.

[W*GS]

What about the fact that the revolving door between Congress and corporate interests is still wiiiiiiide open?

[Crushaholic]

I don't see anything there as a glaring omission or loophole. The overall bill is a much better restriction on entitlements and special interest projects than lawmakers currently enjoy. It's definitely a move in the right direction.

From the article W*GS linked:

Even with the new rules, a lobbyist could still bundle $14,000 every six months — $56,000 during a House member’s two-year term, a significant sum for a House re-election campaign — without any disclosure requirement.

I would certainly call that a glaring omission and loophole. A politician's vote should not be for sale...PERIOD.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

From the article W*GS linked:

Even with the new rules, a lobbyist could still bundle $14,000 every six months — $56,000 during a House member’s two-year term, a significant sum for a House re-election campaign — without any disclosure requirement.]

I would certainly call that a glaring omission and loophole. A politician's vote should not be for sale...PERIOD.As opposed to what, not having a limit?

But the most far-reaching element of the bill — and the one that caused the most contentious behind-the-scenes negotiations — was the provisions requiring the disclosure of campaign contributions that lobbyists gather up from clients and associates to give to political candidates and the parties’ Congressional campaign committees.
The bill requires lawmakers and the committees to disclose the names of lobbyists who raise $15,000 or more within a six-month period.

“Trying to preserve those provisions was a sticking point in the negotiations all along,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who led the push for them.

Because campaign finance laws cap individual contributions, politicians have become increasingly dependent on so-called bundlers to fill their campaign coffers. And lobbyists hoping to curry favor have the greatest incentive to do the work of dunning clients, colleagues, family and friends for stacks of campaign donations.

Even with the new rules, a lobbyist could still bundle $14,000 every six months — $56,000 during a House member’s two-year term, a significant sum for a House re-election campaign — without any disclosure requirement.

And people involved in the final negotiations said House Democrats had blocked an effort by their Senate counterparts to weaken the rule by raising the threshold for disclosure to a significantly higher amount.

[Crushaholic]

Once again, politicians should not make one red cent in exchange for votes.

[W*GS]

And another quote from the NYT article:

For instance, in January the Senate voted overwhelmingly for a “revolving door” provision that would have barred former lawmakers from all lobbying “activities” — among them plotting strategy or advising clients — for two years after leaving office. The provision would have seriously cramped the ability of legislators to cash out for big paychecks at K Street law firms as soon as they left office, and many complained that it would unfairly deprive them of their most natural occupation.

The House refused to pass a similar measure, and the final bill dropped the restriction. As a result, departing lawmakers, as well as their senior aides, will still be able to sell influence-seekers their insights and expertise immediately.

“As much as anything, it is a bow to the reality of life after Congress,” said Marc E. Elias, a lawyer who represents many senators. “There has to be a limit to what behavior we are going to criminalize after people leave Congress.”

[Bronco_Beerslug]

And another quote from the NYT article:What's wrong with that? They shouldn't be allowed to work for 2 years after Congress?

[W*GS]

What's wrong with that? They shouldn't be allowed to work for 2 years after Congress?

Re-read it.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Re-read it.I read it fine the first time, what's wrong with letting them go to work after Congress?

[W*GS]

You support the gravy train Congress -> corporate world?