Common Cause Blog

Bush Hesitant About Ethics Bill

This just in from the department of I Am Not Making This Up: After all the work to pass an ethics and lobbying reform bill, and passing both houses of Congress by overwhelming margins, President Bush is hesitant about signing the bill.

The White House, according to the Los Angeles Times, is worried that the bill doesn't go far enough to shed light on earmarks. White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore told the Times the administration "was concerned that the earmark provisions were not 'as strong as we'd like.' As to whether Bush would sign it, she said, 'We're continuing to review the legislation.'

What?

When I first heard this, I thought: Since when did Bush care about a bill to change Senate ethics rules? About the same time he decided Dick Cheney was in the legislative branch and not the executive branch?

Next Stop For Ethics Bill: White House

BREAKING NEWS: The U.S. Senate voted this afternoon, 83-14, to send the lobbying and ethics reform bill to the White House for President Bush's signature.

The vote, which technically gives Senate approval to changes the House made in the bill on Tuesday, July 31, came a couple of hours after the Senate voted, 80-17, to end debate on the bill.

Some interesting notes from today's vote: Sen. Ted Stevens, R-AK, who faces a federal corruption investigation and had vowed to kill the bill after an IRS-FBI raid on his house Monday, voted for its passage. Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, a longtime reform champion and supporter of the ethics and lobbying reform bill, voted against passage.

Hey, Senate: Git-R-Dun on Ethics Reform!

The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, also known as S. 1, or the ethics and lobbying reform bill, is not everything we had hoped it to be. And it's nowhere near what we'd like it to be despite its lofty title and low number.

That's all right.

If the Senate gives its approval to S. 1 this week, as it's expected to do, Congress will finally have produced tighter ethics and lobbying rules after being dragged through the mud of the Abramoff, Foley, Ney and Cunningham scandals of years past. And we'll soon be reminded of why we went to this trouble, when Rep. William Jefferson, D-LA, goes to trial.

The "Thankless Job" of Ethics Reform

On Friday, May 24th the House of Representatives passed an ethics reform bill with a 382 to 37 vote. The bill was brought to the floor through the advocacy of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) and Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Martin T. Meehan (D-MA). The proposal calls for the provision of bundling reform, which requires lobbyists to disclose all campaign contributions made to members of congress. It also establishes a firmer system of monitoring lobbyists' charity contributions on behalf lawmakers.

Of course, in order to ensure these provisions, Congress had to drop the provision of the "revolving door" reform, which require that former Representatives wait an additional year until they are eligible to work as lobbyists after serving in Congress. Clearly, it has proven to be rather difficult for these lawmakers to enforce these ethics reforms.

Tenn: Employers Disclose Payments to Lobbyists

Ever wonder how much employers pay their lobbyists? Well, now you can (assuming you live in Tennessee). Under a new state ethics law, employers must disclose how much they pay lobbyists, which includes direct payments as well as PR and advertising. Over a six-month period, employers in the state of all sizes and shapes spent somewhere in between $11.4 million and $18.7 million.

This is certainly good news that this information is being disclosed to the public. However, it would be nice if the number was a little more accurate. There is a big difference between $11.4 million and $18.7 million, which is like the difference between a middle-of-the-rotation starter and a Cy Young candidate. In addition, the chairman of the Tennessee Lobbyist Association told lobbyists to "over-report" payments and told the paper "Does it give an indication? Yes. Does it give an accurate indication? No." Is this opinion on the number's accuracy correct? Yes. Should he continue to use this question-and-answer technique? Probably not.

This is definitely a step in the right direction, especially considering 2005's Tennessee Waltz scandal, in which seven state lawmakers were arrested for bribery. Still, the ethics commission still has a lot of work to do. Now if Tennessee's notorious football player Pacman Jones would disclose all his "payments," the state would be in great shape.

Bundling reform measure passes House

This is good:

Under strong urging by Democratic leaders, the House on Thursday approved mandatory disclosure by lobbyists who round up campaign donations from others and "bundle" them together for lawmakers.

The most contentious issue involved requiring lobbyists to disclose so-called bundling practices, in which they solicit and collect campaign donations from several sources and deliver them to a favored lawmaker in one package. The long-employed practice is popular with many lawmakers, who find it easier than raising money check-by-check. It also is favored by lobbyists who find it helps them ingratiate themselves to lawmakers without having to divulge the role they play.

Bundling has become a regular practice and a way for individuals to wield substantial power with lawmakers for whom they "bundle" checks totalling $10K, $50K, $200K or more. Disclosure of who they are and how much they've raised is important to openness in our democracy.

And frankly, it will highlight big money's role in politics and make it harder for those profiting under that system to avoid the limelight. Hopefully that makes it more enticing for lawmakers to pass much-needed public financing reform and eliminate the need for constant big-money-driven campaign fundraising altogether.

"The Hollow Promise Reform Act"

Man, the editorial boards are hitting Democrats hard on the lobby reform issue - as they should be. Common Cause has been on the case, as well as the rest of our partners in the reform community. This is too important an issue to sit idly by while lawmakers act to protect their own interests over those of their constituents.

Today it's the New York Times on the offensive. Why can't the House Democrat rank-and-file understand what's apparent to everyone else?

The House�s new Democratic majority is flirting with disaster as it guts key provisions of the strict lobbying reform it promised voters last November. Rebellious lawmakers, worried about their own career path, fought their leaders to defeat tighter restrictions on the sleazy, revolving-door culture by which members of Congress move on from an apprenticeship of merely serving the people to real Washington money as insider lobbyists.

�What you are telling me is I cut off my profession,� one Democrat, Representative Michael Capuano of Massachusetts, complained in baldly defending the vox pop-to-riches scheme.

Excuse me, Congressman, but your profession at the moment is Representative of the people of the 8th District of Massachusetts, not lobbyist-in-training.