About those sweeping lobbying-reform proposals…

In January, [tag]House[/tag] [tag]GOP[/tag] leaders unveiled a proposal to [tag]reform[/tag] the way Congress does business and, at least on the surface, curtail the influence of [tag]lobbyists[/tag]. The plan was presented at the height of the [tag]Abramoff[/tag] scandal, and was meant to prove that Republicans were serious about cleaning up the mess on the Hill (which they had created).

The proposal was straightforward enough: emphasis on disclosure, new limits on meals and gifts, a ban on lobbyist-sponsored travel, and a curtailed access for former lawmakers who register as lobbyists. There were some loopholes that suggested the House GOP plan may actually be worse than the status quo, but why quibble? [tag]Hastert[/tag] & Co. wanted “[tag]lobbying reform[/tag].”

At least, they used to.

House Republican leaders have quietly scaled back their plan to limit the political influence of lobbyists, dropping proposed requirements that lobbyists disclose which lawmakers and aides they have contacted and how they have raised money for politicians.

The changes were made public in an amended bill posted on the House Rules Committee website Friday while Congress was wrapping up a two-week recess. Even before the latest move, political ethics experts had called the House plan weaker than a lobbying bill the Senate passed last month.

In other words, all that talk from the House GOP about cleaning up the process was hollow before, and when they thought no one was looking, they made it even 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 House bill is “sleight of hand from a Congress that is more concerned with facing the voters than with facing the problem,” said Gary Kalman of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a government watchdog organization. Added Chellie Pingree, president of Common Cause: “They are maintaining the status quo and calling it reform.”

You don’t say.

So what do Lobbying reform and Immigration Reform have in common.

In both cases the house is focusing on building a wall (to keep out money and influence – or – to keep out illegal/undocumented workers ) to reduce supply rather than making changes to reduce demand.

Under immigration, if you want to reduce demand you have to (really) crack down on companies that hire illegal workers or contract with illegal ‘independent’ contractors. Do this and you are reforming immigration. Sadly, the laws are in place, but the administration does not have the right practices (warning a company that you will be looking for illegals TOMORROW is not the right way to catch them) nor does Congress provide enough funding to conduct the crack down.

For lobbying reform, you just have to apply the existing rules and STOP PORK BARREL SPENDING (aka Earmarks) and last minute conference changes to laws. Do this, and lobbyists will have far less incentive to bribe congressmen. All Hassert and Frist have to do is stop putting corrupt congressmen on the conference committees.

We don’t need new laws, we just need an honest government.

  • Here’s a real test for the Democratic leadership: do they truly want reform, or do they just want to swap positions with the Republicans currently gaming the system? Listening to Pelosi, Emanuel and others in prominent positions, I’m almost afraid of the answer.

    Democrats can split the difference and, in all likelihood, find themselves a slightly less marginalized minority come January 2007… or they can go for broke on reform and realize that, if they do come into power, they have a true mandate to make government more responsive to the public.

  • The Republicans in the House likely betting that their “lobbying problem” went away with DeLay’s decision not to seek reelection.

  • so they weren’t even for reform before they were against it? no flip floppers, these.

  • My guess is that the current lame crop of Democrats in Congress would behave exactly as they have behaved under Republican leadership, even if a massive get-out-the-vote campaign added enough junior Democratic colleagues to tip the scales.

  • Comments are closed.