I was dubious about ethics reform back last fall. I was dubious about it making a difference even if any of the various reform bills passed, I was dubious especially that more than a handful actually wanted reform. Once the Democrats won, my only hope was that they would be too embarrassed given their campaign themes not to pass some kind of real reform. I certainly didn’t believe they wanted it since every time a vote came up under the Republicans it was the Democrats who voted overwhelmingly against any change. Then they would promptly go on TV and trumpet the failures of the Republicans to do anything about the situation. Of course the Republicans only seemed to get off their duff when they thought they were going to lose the election.
If losing power has had one beneficial effect, it has been to galvanize many Republicans to the importance of reform. Unfortunately, the Democrats show even less enthusiasm in their legislative behavior (as opposed to on TV) for reform than they did when they were out of power. It seems shame has changed little:
House Democrats are suddenly balking at the tough lobbying reforms they touted to voters last fall as a reason for putting them in charge of Congress.
Now that they are running things, many Democrats want to keep the big campaign donations and lavish parties that lobbyists put together for them. They’re also having second thoughts about having to wait an extra year before they can become high-paid lobbyists themselves should they retire or be defeated at the polls.
The growing resistance to several proposed reforms now threatens passage of a bill that once seemed on track to fulfill Democrats’ campaign promise of cleaner fundraising and lobbying practices.
Why isn’t the sunlight foundation as outraged as they were when the Republicans were in power by the way? More:
The chief stumbling block in the House centers on whether to require disclosures of a fundraising practice called bundling. It involves lobbyists soliciting and collecting campaign donations from other people and then presenting them in one package to the targeted candidate.
Under current law, each individual check-writer must report his or her donation. But the lobbyist-bundlers, who use the practice to ingratiate themselves to politicians, often go undetected.
Meaningful disclosure of bundling “is the defining issue of this bill” and must remain in the House version, said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a private group that supports greater transparency in government.
However, resistance from some House members is so strong that Democratic leaders are thinking of dropping the bundling language from the bill, and perhaps allowing proponents to offer it later as an amendment or separate legislation.
Some House members also oppose the Senate bill’s tougher restrictions on retired lawmakers who plan to become lobbyists. Under current law, such retirees can immediately begin drawing pay for lobby-related activities so long as they do not contact former colleagues for one year.
The Senate bill would extend the “cooling off” period to two years, and apply the ban to all lobbying activities, not just direct contacts with lawmakers.
Some House members also dislike a Senate provision that would bar lobbying groups from throwing parties in honor of lawmakers at national nominating conventions. Critics call the practice a way for interest groups to ingratiate themselves with powerful officials.
Update: I have checked out the Sunlight Foundations blog to see if they have covered the fate of the major effort at reform and transparency in our Congress. I stopped when I got to April 10th. The entire thrust seems to be to find the anonymous Senator blocking S.223, a relatively minor bill. Nothing on S.1. Could we get an explanation for that?
You actually believed a politician’s promise? Want to buy a bridge? Reform for a politician is slipping the bribe from your pocket into his freezer. Remember we have the best politicians money can buy. Capitalism drives down prices, so they are cheaper than those of other countries.
Listening to the party of Huey Long and Bill Clinton declaim corruption is like listening to the party of slavery and segregation denounce racism…er, I mean it’s like listening to the party of industrial labor unions promote environmentalism….I mean, it’s like listening to the party that believes Al Qaeda is a Republican, domestic political group, discuss anti-terrorism strategy. Hmm. This isn’t working. All obvious political contradictions seem to result in “Democrats.”
No, I was acknowledging flailing around trying to find some reason to believe the Democrats might go along. “Hence “My only hope.” I thought that conveyed a long standing pessimism.
Heck, they still might. Hope they do. The Republicans seem far more concerned with it than the Democrats were when they were out of power or when the Republicans had power. That means far fewer Democratic votes are needed. Maybe public pressure will get them. Maybe not.
Sadly, many Democrats and leftists still like Huey Long.
Don’t bet the farm, or a penny, on it. I’d bet my life they don’t. That’s not much of a bet since I’m older than dirt. lol
Huey Long may have been corrupt, but he did a lot of good for Louisiana. Look at Chicago, Daley the elder probably was the most corrupt politician of his era, but he was the only Mayor of a major city to succeed when all the others were falling apart.
When I was covering news in Miami, the mayor of Hialeah, who had held the office from the 1940′s until 1970 was constantly being charged with corruption. The city garbage was picked up by his company, city vehicles bought from his company, and he got a piece of all the cities action. The thing was, Hialeah had the best city services and lowest taxes in the county. He may have been corrupt, but he was efficient. Once he was reelected while in prison.
Pingback: A Second Hand Conjecture » Kevin Drum gets it right on lobbying reform