Kerry voting NO on the lobbying bill

I would imagine it is because it is an empty bill and that Feingold and Obama did too.

I am happy that they had the guts to vote against an empty bill, but now, they need to make clear why they voted like that.

Today it seems they voted on motions to table. It seems the no votes were against tabling the bills:

I was listening to the vote when I posted that. I will post the rollcall when it is available.

Is the roll call up yet?

There were 8 NAY votes. I had to leave the room before the end of the vote, so I am not sure who voted NAY, but, except if Kerry changed his vote after I left the room, he is one of them.

(Obama, based on what he said) and McCain indicates that it may well be a weak bill.


edited to add: McCain, of course, has to appear to want strong reform.

Why the bill is not good.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20060329/pl_usnw/statement_of_reform_groups_on_lobbying_legislation_passed_by_senate150_xml;_ylt=Akk56VQE1GJPGetb1MF2QWkEKekE;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 29, 2006

Statement by John Kerry on Vote Against Lobbying Bill

Below is a statement from Senator John Kerry on the lobbying ethics legislation that passed the Senate today, 90-8. Kerry voted against the measure.

John Kerry has authored two ethics reform measures in the Senate, one that would strip members of Congress who are convicted of certain crimes of their Congressional pensions and one to establish an independent Congressional Inspector General.

“No wonder people look at Washington and know it’s broken. Today the Senate failed to live up to its responsibility to keep faith with the American people and change the way business is done in Washington.

“It’s not enough to reform the earmarking process. It’s not enough to ban gifts and meals from lobbyists but exempt the organizations that employ them. It’s not enough to reign in pay-to-play schemes like the Republican K Street project. Changing a few of the rules does no good if there’s no enforcement. A major overhaul is still needed. The Senate left the fox to guard the chicken coop.

“We need an independent entity to ensure that no one changes the rules as they play the game—as the House tried to do just last year. The fact of the matter is that Congress has been unwilling or unable to punish its own for ethical violations. Just look at the latest cast of characters. There was no investigation into members of Congress’ dealings with Jack Abramoff, and Duke Cunningham was convicted without so much as a sanction from the House.

“A few weeks ago, former Representative “Duke” Cunningham received the longest prison sentence ever imposed on a former member of Congress, but he’ll still be getting a perk most Americans only dream of – $40,000 a year, courtesy of taxpayers. Most Americans don’t get a $40,000 a year pension, in fact most Americans are working harder for less and less. I don’t see why the American people should send Duke Cunningham his pension checks in jail.

“It’s a sorry statement about how broken Washington is that we could not take advantage of this unique and sad moment in history and enact serious lobbying reform. We owed it to the people who sent us to Washington to root out corruption, and the Senate turned its back on a golden opportunity today.”

Banning Taxpayer-funded Pensions for Criminals

John Kerry’s Congressional Pension Accountability Act – or “The Duke Cunningham Act” – would deny taxpayer-funded pension benefits to Members of Congress who are convicted of crimes such as bribery, conspiracy, or other serious ethics offenses. Under current law, only a conviction for a crime against the United States, such as treason or espionage, causes U.S. Representatives and Senators to lose their Congressional pensions. Unless the law is changed, Cunningham will be allowed to receive his Congressional pension of approximately $40,000 per year.

Inspector General for Congress

John Kerry has introduced legislation to establish an independent Congressional Inspector General to investigate violations of the law and ethics rules by Members of Congress and Congressional staff. Kerry’s legislation creates an independent Congressional Inspector General, similar to those at federal agencies. The Inspector General would conduct investigations into ethics abuses and provide a public report to the Justice Department or ethics committees describing any credible evidence of improper conduct or illegal activities. Any person—including the public—would be able to request an investigation by providing a sworn statement made under penalty of perjury. The Inspector General would release an annual report of violations by Members of Congress and Congressional staff.

I look forward to the day “The Duke Cunningham Act” is passed.

I am happy he voted as he did. It was the right thing to do.

I think the Senate 'washed it's hands' of this bill as quickly as it could. I don't think they ever really wanted to do anything about the problems that create Abramoff's and Duke Cunningham's. This very strong statement from Sen. Kerry just sums it all up. Congress once again took half a loaf and called it a bakery.

manage this with all the folly he's been up to? The man is a walking contradiction.




More indictments? Interesting!

I think McCain is just saying that, given the weakness of the bill, many other scandals are to come.

His recent hire is up to his neck in the Abramoff scandal. Honestly, to think that I once admired that man. Now he is plaingly just whoring around to get media approval.

McCain was concerned.
A little off topic, but about McCain, my husband caught him on CNN last night and commented on McCain's puffed cheek, saying he thought he chewed tobacco. Eweeeeee, what do you think?

I don't think he does, but I don't know. I know he had melanoma and I thought that his distended cheek had something to do with that. (I don't know. I always just thought it was McCain's chipmunk cheeck. Tells ya what I know.)

the one cheek is very much more pronounced than the other. It actually looks very odd. You are probably correct that it had something to do with the cancer he had,but I would think he could have done something to make it look less pronounced.

I put CSPAN-2 on and they were covering the House's lobbying reform. Emmanuel made the point that he didn't want the House to do what the Senate did. He mentioned that only 8 Senators voted against it, but they include some who have fought for reform throughout their careers, McCain, Feingold and Obama.

So, I doubt he learned anything from the write-ins on his survey. (Or maybe he resented getting only about a fourth as many votes as a listed leader.) Also, Democrats need to stop talking about McCain as a reformer. (Luckily, the number of people who saw this was probably limited.)

all? Does he praise us? Is this another situation where we don't want to look like we are bashing Repubs? And McCain is a popular Repub according to the media. If this is the case then this benefits McCain. I can hear people saying now, that Senator McCain is such a good guy, even the Democrats have only nice things to say about him. He gets along with everyone. (well maybe not quite like that, but similar)

unmasked for the hypocrite he actually is. In the meantime though, it is good to see the DNC is watching him and calling him out when they can. Now can someone get word to Biden to stop supporting the McCain myth by praising him on the Sunday talk shows.

Ker-ry is only 2 short syllables and he was our last nominee - so he was pretty significant.