NYT: Democrats Split on How Far to Go With Ethics Law

[DeepModem Mom]

Democrats Split on How Far to Go With Ethics Law
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: November 19, 2006

WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 — After railing for months against Congressional corruption under Republican rule, Democrats on Capitol Hill are divided on how far their proposed ethics overhaul should go.

Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate, mindful that voters in the midterm election cited corruption as a major concern, say they are moving quickly to finalize a package of changes for consideration as soon as the new Congress convenes in January.

Their initial proposals, laid out earlier this year, would prohibit members from accepting meals, gifts or travel from lobbyists, require lobbyists to disclose all contacts with lawmakers and bar former lawmakers-turned-lobbyists from entering the floor of the chambers or Congressional gymnasiums.

None of the measures would overhaul campaign financing or create an independent ethics watchdog to enforce the rules. Nor would they significantly restrict earmarks, the pet projects lawmakers can anonymously insert into spending bills, which have figured in several recent corruption scandals and attracted criticism from members in both parties. The proposals would require disclosure of the sponsors of some earmarks, but not all.

Some Democrats say their election is a mandate for more sweeping changes, and many newly elected candidates — citing scandals involving several Republican lawmakers last year — made Congressional ethics a major issue during the campaign....Senator Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat tapped by party leaders last year to spearhead ethics proposals, said he was pushing for changes with more teeth....Sweeping change, however, may be a tough sell within the party....Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who will oversee any proposal as the incoming chairwoman of the Rules Committee, for example, said she was opposed to an independent Congressional ethics watchdog. “If the law is clear and precise, members will follow it,” she said in an interview. “As to whether we need to create a new federal bureaucracy to enforce the rules, I would hope not.”...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/washington/19ethics.html?hp&ex=1163912400&en=b73d2efcbde39648&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[Ignacio Upton]

1. It's times like these that we have to hold their feet to the fire

Also, Pelosi needs to be smart and not appoint Alcee Hastings to chair the House Intelligence Committee.

[ananda]

2. So..

.. Congress can be partly corrupt as far as campaign financing goes,
but harder on itself regarding lobbying.

When corruption stinks as bad as it does now, I guess those used to
it find a little stink tolerable.. some might even taste it as perfume.

Sue

[MessiahRp]

3. Fuck Feinstein, she's in Congress for personal profit

Californians need to wake up and bounce her and he efforts to bankroll herself via taxpayer dollars.

Rp

[Eric J in MN]

4. Travel should be paid for by the public or by the Congress members themselves...

....It's not enough to ban travel paid for by lobbyists.

The infamous trip to Scotland was paid for by a phony charity. It officially wasn't paid for by Abramoff.

Congress needs to outlaw trips by Congress members paid for by charities.

[w4rma]

5. Both sides are correct, as far as I can tell.

I can see the point of not wanting "more bureaucracy". I can also see the point of wanting an "independent" watchdog.

I don't know the answer to this. Who appoints this "independent" watchdog to watch over Congress? What can this "watchdog" do if it they find something wrong? Can it be abused? Can it be easily gotten rid and therefore susceptible to threats?

[Demeter]

6. It's Not Possible To Be a "Little Bit Ethical"

you either are, or you aren't. Anything else is window=dressing, acting for show.

[DeepModem Mom]

7. This story is page one, lead in the print edition today. nt