Sham ethics measure set to pass House

May 3, 2006

The good news is the House is poised to vote on a measure today that allegedly will change the way the chamber operates. The bad news is it’s a plan crafted by [tag]House[/tag] [tag]Republicans[/tag], which is hollow and insulting.

House lawmakers today are expected to approve the first overhaul of [tag]Congress[/tag]ional [tag]ethics[/tag] rules in a decade, despite vigorous opposition from Democrats and outside watchdog groups who assail the measure as too weak.

After a victory at the buzzer last week on the rule governing debate on the measure, the bill is not expected to encounter much resistance from within GOP ranks today, senior [tag]Republican[/tag] lawmakers and aides predicted.

“I’m confident we’ll complete action on this tomorrow,” House Majority Leader [tag]John Boehner[/tag] (R-Ohio) said Tuesday.

To call this legislation a “reform” measure is a bit of a joke. The WaPo called it “diluted [tag]snake oil[/tag]” today, which is more than fair.

House Republicans took a plan from January that was already pretty pathetic and made it considerably weaker. The new-and-not-improved “lobbying reform” measure now leaves untouched existing restrictions on lobbyists’ gifts and meals in place, does nothing to restrict former lawmakers who want to lobby Congress, allows junkets paid for by private interests, and leaves enforcement up to a House Ethics Committee that’s completely dysfunctional.

The tricky part of this, however, is that some House Dems are inclined to vote for it.

House Republicans seem to realize that the Dems’ “culture of [tag]corruption[/tag]” talk has been effective, so they’ve drawn up this sham legislation as a way to inoculate themselves. The GOP believes Republican lawmakers will get credit for passing a “[tag]reform[/tag]” bill and voters won’t be informed enough to realize that the efforts is just a con job.

Dems, meanwhile, know it’s a con job, but aren’t allowed to bring a real reform measure to the floor for a vote. A handful of them are worried — if they oppose the bill, will they be accused of opposing “reform”? The WaPo said the concerns are misplaced.

Democrats tempted to vote for this sham because they’re scared of 30-second ads that accuse them of opposing lobbying reform ought to ask themselves whether they really think so little of their constituents.

I hope that’s right. Dems have counted on voters seeing through GOP nonsense before — and it doesn’t always work.

As for Republicans, the fact that nearly all of the GOP caucus has embraced this bill shows just how low they’ve sunk. Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), who is helping lead the opposition to the legislation, told his colleagues last week, “I happen to believe we are losing our moral authority to lead this place.” I’d say it’s already happened.

Unfortunately, if I were advising Democrats (as opposed to commenting on blogs, while procrastinating at work), I would generally tell them to think as little as possible of their voters. To quote or paraphrase someone else, “a person may be smart, but people are stupid.” This is especially true for Americans, who don’t know where Louisiana is, or what the Downing Street Memo refers to, but can almost universally name all three judges on American Idle, without being able to name one justice on the US Supreme Court. I would definitely urge Democrats to vote for this, and make it a campaign issue that they will propose stronger reforms once they’re in charge.

  • Like I said in the last thread, transparency is the best cure.

    If the GOP doesn’t think anyone minds their being bought out, then they should make their little black books easily available to the voting public and to potential rivals for office. Every trip, steak dinner, and topless bar party. If it isn’t illegal or against the rules, except for failing to report one’s activities, then there is no incentive to hide it. And voters would be informed of where their legislator’s true interests lie.

    But restrictions are inevitably going to encourage legislators of any political stripe to create loopholes so they can still get what they want.

  • You can count on the GOP going after Dems who vote against this piece of “reform legislation.” Look what they did to resistant Dems over immigration (i.e., “Dems support making illegal immigration a felony”).

  • “Democrats tempted to vote for this sham because they’re scared of 30-second ads that accuse them of opposing lobbying reform ought to ask themselves whether they really think so little of their constituents.” – WaPo

    Remember Max Cleland?

    Yes, constituents are stupid.

  • The question for me is ……if the Dems do regain power in 06, do they have the intention of passing some real ethics reform? I suspect not.
    “Poser” ethics reformers from the Democratic side can now shout for big changes knowing that the party in power will maintain cash flow status quo.

  • Rant 2 for today: the Democrat’s idiotic obsession with “real”. If I hear the adjective “real” used in front of any term that nobody in the electorate cares about enough to actually understand, I’m going to fucking go ape-shit. We should fine Democrats for saying “real”. What a stupid way to lose elections, unnecessarily.

    Democrats vote against lobbying reform because it’s not REAL lobbying reform.

    Democrats want to “have a REAL debate on Iraq”.

    Democrats want a REAL investigation of NSA spying, Iraq lies, etc etc etc

    I mean, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!!

    Nobody out there in television-land knows or cares enough about these things to even tell what is “REAL”! So all this talk about “real” just makes you sound like a whiny pedant. “Hey, no fair, it didn’t count, it wasn’t REAL!” Yeah, right, loser. Or liar– like O.J. Simpson’s promise to “find the REAL killers of Nicole”. Uh-huh.

    Just remove the word “real”. We want Lobbying reform. We want A debate on how to get out of Iraq. We want AN investigation on NSA spying, Iraq lies, fucking hookers in the Congress and in the White House press room, whatever. NOT “REAL”. Just one.

    Most people HAVE NO IDEA that some “sham” version of what we’re asking for has already happened. They don’t follow the news. Make the Repug sound like the whiner,”Waah! But but, we already HAD an investigation of Iraq, waaah!”. Or just make their head explode by insisting that no such thing happened– why not, they do it to us all the time! It’s easy, just do the Stephen Colbert thing– you know what is right because you feel it in your gut– and simply say, “No we didn’t, no such thing happened, regardless of what you want to call it, etc etc..”. Stick to that like glue. The right-wingers do that to us all the time; it’s time to start giving it back.

    • Comments are closed.