In January, at the height of the [tag]Abramoff[/tag] [tag]scandal[/tag], House [tag]Republicans[/tag] stepped up to show they were serious about curtailing the influence of lobbyists on Capitol Hill. Sure, there were some pretty serious loopholes, and it was likely that the House GOP plan was worse than the status quo, but those pesky details aside, the Republican leadership said it was committed to “[tag]lobbying reform[/tag].”
What they were actually committed to was waiting for the attention to fade away so they could blow off the issue altogether.
When Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) announced his resignation as majority leader in January — soon after lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to corruption charges — House Republicans panicked. Dozens of GOP lawmakers, fearing a political backlash, flooded the office of House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) with urgent pleas for lobbying reform.
Their message was clear: Hastert needed to champion legislation to crack down on unethical behavior and impose tough new restrictions on lobbyists and congressional perks. Hastert, who had previously shown scant interest in the issue, responded with proposals that surprised longtime reformers with their reach: a ban on privately funded travel by lawmakers and severe restrictions on lobbyist-paid meals.
“We need to reform the rules so that it is clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what is ethically acceptable,” Hastert said at a news conference 10 days after DeLay stepped down.
But that was then. Six months later, the legislation has slowed to a crawl.
Actually, “crawl” suggests there’s still some progress, but it’s slow. The reality is Hastert & Co. unveiled weak reform measures, which they never really intended to pass, and then left to die on the vine.
In one of the more ironic twists, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which had partial jurisdiction over the legislation, blamed reform advocates for Congress’ lack of follow-through.
The lack of powerful public backing for the legislation has prompted recriminations. “The advocates of reform utterly failed to mobilize public support,” Collins observed.
Joan Claybrook, president of the liberal organization Public Citizen, said her group and others instigated thousands of e-mails to Congress and called it “totally ridiculous” that lawmakers place blame on her coalition for not producing more protests. But the substance of Claybrook’s response is secondary to the audacity of Republicans blaming outsiders for the GOP’s inability to legislate.
The reality is Republican lawmakers simply wanted to wait this story out. When Abramoff was on the front page, the GOP needed to appear concerned. Now that Abramoff isn’t dominating headlines, their interest in “reforming” the way Congress does business has faded away.
Billmon, describing a reaction to a different issue, captured the Republicans’ attitude perfectly last week.
But what it really indicates, I think, is the complete confidence the GOP majority now places in the chronic amnesia of the American voter — and the willingness of the corporate media complex (particularly its broadcast arm) to avoid doing or saying anything that would jog the patient’s memory, at least when doing so might directly damage the interests of a powerful business constituency.
The piglets must assume that no matter how bad the juxtaposition of the two items above may look in June, by November it will just be another half-remembered trivia question — like the infamous Dubai ports deal, which is being quietly resurrected now that all the fuss has died down.
They’re probably right: There no longer seems to be any limit on what the devious and the dishonest can get away with in this country, as long as they’re willing to be patient about it.
Billmon was describing the GOP and a proposed minimum wage increase, but the dynamic applies equally well here.