The Ethics Bill is a piece of trash.

It's full of loopholes.

TRAVEL ORGANIZED BY LOBBYISTS

Banned UNLESS it's a one day trip.

TRAVEL PAID FOR BY OUTSIDE GROUPS

Banned UNLESS the Ethics Committee pre-approves the trip.

(The problem is that a trip to Italy paid for by corporations is just as corrupting if the Ethics Committee decided the trip is educational.)

K-STREET PROJECT

Banned on "the basis of partisan political affiliation" but allowed based on ideology.

(The problem is that it's just as wrong for a Congressman to tell a company he won't vote their way unless they hire "Joe Smith, Conservative" as if he tells them he won't vote their way unless they hire "Joe Smith, Republican.")

GIFTS

Banned UNLESS given by someone who isn't a registed lobbyist.

It's always going to be the people vs. politicians, isn't it?

...this past November (the Democrats) were on our side.

But most of them campaigned on ethics, and I find the loopholes in this bill to be an insult.

I'm disappointed.

...on C-Span.

He said that Congress was divided between those who wanted to ban privately-funded trips and those who just wanted more regulations.

I wonder why the Good Guys who wanted the ban lost.

some things have to be seen to be believed.

What if the Green Party paid for 150 of the most conservative asshole congresscritters to see global warming up close and personal? THAT would be great. Educational, except for a few, like Brownback and Goode'n'plenty.

There has to be some give, for the right reasons. Otherwise, the whole system will collapse.

But how does one get democracy back in the hands of the people if elected officials are sucking at the corporate tit?

But the taxpayers should reimburse the expenses.

If a group organizes an environmental tour for Congress members, great. But have the taxpayers pay the group what it cost so that Congress members aren't indebted to the group.

exactly.

Because there is still a serious access disparity.

Just because moneyed democrats have an equal chance to moneyed republicans of making their point doesn't mean the system is "more fair."

Because moneyed democrats have a better chance than poor republicans and democrats.

It's not good.

* Rep Louise Slaughter's diary :: ::

It prohibits Members from traveling on private corporate jets. And it requires all travel to be pre-approved by the Ethics Committee.

Along with lobbyist influence, earmarking has spiraled out of control in recent years, and has fueled many of the major corruption scandals plaguing this body.

Well, those days are over. We won't have any more members writing earmarks that benefit them personally. And we won’t tolerate any more bridges to nowhere. Our Rules Package requires full disclosure of earmarks in all bills and conference reports before Members are asked to vote on them.

Finally, when Republicans took over in 1994, they made it a stated goal to turn K-Street into a Republican corridor of money and influence. But starting tomorrow, the K-Street project will be out of business.

Our package will prohibit Members from influencing the hiring decisions of K-Street firms. Members of Congress have more important things to do than spend their time running around downtown interviewing potential lobbyists.

Here is a backgrounder on our ethics/rules package which highlights its main points and also a reminder for everyone in the traditional media, exactly how under the House Republican leadership the ethics process unraveled in the People’s House.

The reforms we announced today will restore integrity, openness, and honesty to Congress, and will hand the keys of government back to the American people. Serving in House is a privilege. It's time Members of Congress starting acting that way.

I've got to run back to my meetings today. I will do my best to keep all of you updated as we usher in a new day in Washington tomorrow when the Democrats take up the gavel of 110th Congress.- LMS

...the Ethics Bill response is so narrow, that "The K Street Project" could continue with a slight modification.

The bill bans Congress members from pressuring lobbying firms to hire on a "partisan" basis.

But Grover Norquist could add a couple of conservative Democrats to the list, refer to it as a list of conservatives (not a list of Republicans) and have Republican Congressmen refuse to meet with anyone from a lobbying firm which hires outside that list.

A good Ethics Bill would say that Congress members can't use official business to pressure private companies to hire specific individuals, for any reason.

I have not examined it in-depth as you have.

:hi:

Letting Congressmen go on trips funded by outside groups, as long as they clear it with the Ethics Committee, is a type of ethical waiver.

We didn't like it when a Bush administration official got an ethical waiver to design the disastrous Medicare Bill while fielding job offers from lobbying firms.


http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1635

"Public Citizen in December filed an ethics complaint
against Thomas Scully, former administrator of the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, who
received a waiver from ethics laws, thereby allowing
him to represent the Bush administration in
discussions about the new drug bill while negotiating
employment with three lobbying firms and two
investment firms that had major stakes in the legislation."

They should make part of the legislation a requirment to post a database of "ethics waver" trips on the web with full info on the name and address of the firm and cost of the trip.

the House and Senate websites.

That is the key question.

...I wanted our new Democratic Congress to clean things up.

Instead, they can still go on golfing trips to Scotland paid for by an outside groups, as long as the Ethics Committee approves the trip.

I can see why they wouldn't close it off entirely. Sometimes it might make sense for travel to be paid for by outside groups, such as in a case where a Congressman would go abroad to help negotiate a contract between a foreign entity and an American company in his district. It would make sense to allow that because it's good for the economy. OTOH, if the ethics committee found out that all the Congressman was going to do abroad is golf, or if he said he was going for a good reason that was just a front for golfing, then he would be held to account.

I think flexibility isn't necessarily bad, but if it becomes a problem they can tighten up the rules again.

If the Congressman thinks it's important but can't persuade Congress to budget it, he can pay for the trip himself.

Trips by Congressman should not be paid for by outside parties, which is bribery.

As for the reason for the loophole: Congressmen enjoy going on working vacations to Europe, and don't want to pass a bill to reduce those vacations.

I think the fact the Ethics Committee has to approve the trip, given the fact both parties are going to try to play "gotcha", will cut these sorts of things dramatically.

...to pass an Ethics Bill without the loopholes.

If the Senate passes a better bill than the House, then the final bill will probably be better:

Contact Info

:shrug:

...the issue of creating an agency.

If the Ethics Committee has a truce (no Republicans want to bring a case fearing Democratic retribution and vice versa) then the rules won't be enforced.

Maybe there are some valid reasons for the loopholes, though I have to admit to not seeing them.

I'll give them a year and see how it goes. If they stick to business-as-usual, 2008 will be a very grim year for incumbents.

It is a solid trip forward. No more junkets. What are they going to do on a one day trip? Get is passed and then we can go back later and tidy up.

The Republicans hate this bill for a reason.

There is more serious reform down the road. It all takes time.

...and eat fancy food and play golf, under this bill.

Previously, they could take one three-day trip organized by a lobbyist, and eat fancy food and play golf.

I don't see that aspect as an improvement.

(The number three is for example.)

...in the House bill. Maybe the Senate version will be better.

Ask for:
No trips organized by lobbyists. No trips funded by outside groups.

Contact Info:
http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

reason to change the status quo. Why do you think there has been no serious attempt to support at public financing for campaigns?

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

...theoretically would bring us real Ethics Reform.

Also, making supporters happy so that we'll support them in 2008.

kick

Who's gonna send Michelle Malkin to Iraq to personally report that good news that she sez they are suppressing???????? Huh???
:evilgrin:

kick

probably bring it to a screeching halt compared to recent years. The Ethics Committee is bi-partisan which means that in the current atmosphere both parties will be looking over the trips by the other parties and putting all kinds of scrutiny and red tape in the way.