by David Lightman
Congressional negotiators today agreed on sweeping ethics reform legislation, a measure that will require lobbyists to disclose more information about how they try to wield political influence.
The House could vote as early as Tuesday on the measure, whose provisions embody one of the Democrats' key campaign promises during the 2006 campaign.
Under the bills, lawmakers would have to disclose the names of lobbyists who raised at least $15,000 for them within a six-month period. Currently, lobbyists often "bundle" contributions from different people, but campaign finance laws do not require disclosure of the lobbyists' identity.
Democrats hailed the legislation as groundbreaking.
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joseph I. Lieberman said the bills "respond to voters demands that members of Congress put the public interest over personal gain." He was backed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy D. Pelosi, (D-Calif.)
Resistance to the legislation has come from some members who want tougher disclosure of "earmarks," or special projects members of Congress often slip into spending bills. Sen. Jim DeMint, (R-S.C.), said he still had concerns about earmark disclosure.
"Earmarks are directly responsible for the boom in the lobbying industry that exists to pressure politicians to direct millions in taxpayers dollars to favored clients," he said.
But Lieberman and others insisted the bill would take care of that concern, among others. The provisions include:
--All earmarks must be identified on the Internet at least 48 hours before a Senate vote.
--Senators must certify they and their immediate family members have no financial interest in the earmark.
--Members of Congress would be barred from attending national political convention parties held in their honor and funded by lobbyists or their clients.
--Lobbyists and their clients could not give gifts, including free meals and tickets, to senators or their staffs.
--Lobbyists and private-sector clients could not pay for multi-day trips of senators or their staffs.
--Senators and their staffs could not lobby Congress for two years after leaving their jobs. House members would have a one-year cooling off period.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
"TOM DELAY SIGNS OFF"
ABOUT TIME. He hasn't gone to jail yet, but with these reforms I'm sure he will file his next rebutal as the law has changed and he didn't break the law afterall. In an "Executive Order" by the President, this law is now retro January 1, 2001.
You're free to go Tom.
Posted by: Roger Morris | July 30, 2007 3:10 PM
The Republic Party locksteppers won't like this much, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if they try to block this the same way they do when voting "no" to end W.'s civil war in Iraq.
Posted by: John E | July 30, 2007 3:14 PM
Whatever they ultimately decide, I'm hoping that the legislation will make it clear that ethics of our elected officials is a major concern to all of us. I'm hoping to see precedent made of the transgressions that have gone on before, so that ANYBODY who fails to abide by the highest standard of ethics, whether they're Republican, Democrat, Independent, Progressive or whatever, faces THE SAME punishment for behaving unethically. There should be an assurance that anyone and everyone suspected of wrongdoing will be tried uniformly in front of their peers and either they'll be fully exonerated or they'll be punished.
Posted by: Op109 | July 30, 2007 3:18 PM
Well its about time they put public interest over personal gain! I would love to access a site where the disclosed names of the lobbyists and the amounts of their contributions were always listed.
Well, looks like Congress is going to have to start paying for their own lunches and vacations now!
Posted by: Mugsy | July 30, 2007 3:52 PM
Well, we'll see how this goes. I'm not really sure what putting earmarks on the Internet for 48 hours before a Senate vote will do. To me, that means nothing.
So, does this also mean that Harry Reid's sons no longer can be lobbyists?
It would be great if ethics became the norm rather than the rarity.
Anyway, I love how the posters here rail about ethical problems in Washington, especially those allegedly by Republicans, when they live in a state, county and city in which corruption is a way of life.
Posted by: John D | July 30, 2007 4:13 PM
C'mon John D., DuPage County isn't so bad.
Posted by: Doug Zook | July 30, 2007 5:08 PM
The so-called reform is a phony--as could be expected from the Democrat Congress. Captainsquartersblog has one analysis:
The Senate has agreed on the language of its ethics bill, and the 107-page behemoth will move to the floor shortly. According to sources on Capitol Hill, the bill signals a retreat on earmark reform in several ways. Section 521 has had the following changes made since its initial adoption in January:
1. The new bill allows the Majority Leader, not the Senate parliamentarian, to unilaterally decide whether or not a bill or conference report complies with the earmark disclosure requirements. In other words, Harry Reid makes the decision whether legislation he brings to the floor complies with the new standard. How ... convenient.
2. The new bill eliminates the requirement that earmark lists be searchable. It's easier to hide in a crowd, isn't it?
3. The original version prohibited the inclusion of earmarks that benefited its sponsor, Now that prohibition has been restricted to earmarks that ONLY benefit its sponsor -- which means that an earmark that raises the value of a member's property is OK if it raises someone else's property value, too. It makes the prohibition almost meaningless.
So much for the reform Democrats promised in 2006. They can't even deliver what they promised in January."
Posted by: Bruce | July 30, 2007 6:39 PM
Yeah RNC Bruce, I'm sure (R) Ted Stevens agree's with you right about now; just keep it the same way that it's always been, no problems there, right?
Posted by: John E | July 30, 2007 10:38 PM
John E., just so you know, there is no apostrophe in agrees.
Posted by: John D | July 31, 2007 9:15 AM
"John D", you can spend all day attempting to correct the spelling and grammar errors of the Libs. It's a waste of time trying to correct them. They have as much regard for spelling and grammar as they have for truth.
Posted by: Bruce | July 31, 2007 12:12 PM