Republicans’ gall knows no limits

July 31, 2007

Congressional Republicans picked a bad time for a new series of corruption scandals. This happens to be the week in which both chambers are considering major new ethics reform measures.

The good news is, the House passed its measure today by a wide margin.

The House has passed the final House-Senate agreement on the Honest Leadership, Open Government Act by a vote of 411-8. This is tough legislation designed to end the culture of corruption and restore accountability in Washington. The bill ends the tight-knit relationship between lobbyists and lawmakers and takes another major step toward making the 110th Congress the most open, honest Congress in history. This legislation will bring unprecedented transparency to lobbyists’ activities and is another major step to change the way business is done in Washington.

The bad news is, there’s at least one Senate Republican for whom chutzpah has no meaning.

Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, whose home back in Alaska was raided by federal investigators Monday in a wide-ranging corruption investigation, has threatened to place a hold on the Democratic-drafted ethics legislation just passed by the House and expected on the Senate floor by week’s end.

The senator told a closed session of fellow Republicans today, including Vice President Dick Cheney, that he was upset that the measure would interfere with his travel to and from Alaska — and vowed to block it.

The same guy who’s likely to be busted for taking bribes is blocking the Senate from voting on an ethics reform bill?

I often feel sorry for satirists; Republicans must make it tough for writers to exaggerate for comedic effect.

For what it’s worth, the reform measure supported by Dems is a pretty big deal. It doesn’t go as far as some observers would like, but it goes further than any similar measure in a generation. Senate Dems collected some of the comments from relevant groups:

Democracy 21 — “The lobbying disclosure reforms will provide a sea change for citizens in the information made available to the public about how lobbyists and lobbying organizations provide campaign contributions and various other forms of financial support to assist members of Congress. For the first time, citizens will be able to get a full picture on how lobbyists and lobbying organizations use money in Washington, D.C. to gain access and influence in Congress.” [Statement by Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer, 7/30/07]

Common Cause — “Significant reforms in this bill should change the way business is done in Washington by shining the light on the often mutually dependent relationships between lobbyists and members of Congress, and how money is raised and spent on Capitol Hill.” [Common Cause Press Release, 7/31/07]

Campaign Legal Center — “The proposal officially unveiled today makes good on the promises of greater transparency from the new leadership. The work will not be done until the law is on the books, but this proposal should break the logjam while delivering substantive and much needed change.” [Statement by Campaign Legal Center President Meredith McGehee, 7/30/07]

League of Women Voters — “For the first time, Congress is requiring disclosure of big-dollar bundling by lobbyists—a key element for truly reforming the way business is done in Washington. A vote against this bill would be a vote for ‘corruption as usual.'” [Statement by League of Women Voters President Mary G. Wilson, 7/30/07]

Public Citizen — “Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid demonstrated leadership and a strong commitment to reform in their clever end-run around roadblocks. The bill includes new measures to enhance the transparency of government, including disclosure of campaign fundraising by lobbyists.” [Statement by Public Citizen’s Congress Watch Director Laura MacCleery, 7/30/07]

Stevens, in the midst of a corruption scandal, is going to block this bill?

The mind reels.

i’m confused. how would this interfere with stevens’ travel to and from alaska? unless he has lobbyist paying for his trips all the time…….

  • I think this is the kind of story the phrase, “Are you F’ing Kidding Me? (otherwise known as AYFKM?)” was designed for.

  • Just Bill, my guess is he travels on corporate jets, claiming that air schedules are too limited from Alaska.

    The upside: binding, unlimited holds (also accurately described as one-Senator vetoes) are truly absurd. If Stevens putting a hold on an ethics bill isn’t enough to bring the entire phenomenon of holds to an end, I’m not sure what it would take.

    (Logic quiz: if holds are part of Senate Rules, and therefore require a vote to change, could a Senator put a hold on a motion to eliminate holds and thereby ensure holds are never eliminated?)

  • zeitgeist, if he is travelling on corporate jets, of course he must be paying for the service. otherwise that would be an ethics violation wouldn’t it? /snark

  • I hought “holds” were just essentially registering an intent to filibuster.

    Screw him. Let him place his hold, and then make him filibuster it. Who else is going to stand alongside him?

    But make this be a filibuster in the classic senseof the word. Republicans get up and oppose this. NO DEMOCRATS GET ANYWHERE NEAR A PODIUM AND CONFUSE THE ISSUE! PLEASE!

  • “if he is travelling on corporate jets, of course he must be paying for the service.”

    I think that’s the issue for Stevens. IIRC, under current ethics codes, Congresspeople traveling on corporate jets must reimburse, but they do so at the equivalent first-class fare. Under the new law, they would be required to pay the equivalent cost of chartering a plane – a huge difference.

  • I can see where he might have a problem. There are only 25 flights a day going from DC to Anchorage!

  • Now if we could only find one Senator courageous enough to place a “hold” against any further war funding by the Iraq Comedy Theatrical League (otherwise known as a whole bunch of ReThugs and one Darth Lieberman), we could turn this whole sordid “hold” thing on its ear….

  • Stevens is an 83 y/o part of that Culture of Corruption, totally self absorbed who will block the bill for selfish, personal reasons. Why should he care, he’s done with after this term anyway.
    He only thinks of himself. There should be a senate amendment that states a bill cannot be blocked for selfish, personal reasons and should have at least 2 other co-sponsors.

    It’s ridiculous that an 83 y/o senator who won’t accept that the brain slows as we age into our eighties and let go of trying to run the countries business, is able to place a hold on legislation (this is the second time he’s done this in this session) against a majority opinion for personal reasons of “convenience”. It makes a mockery of the intentions of senate rules and should not be allowed to stand.
    Talk all you want but unless you yell, Stevens can’t hear you.
    Some one should start impeachment proceedings against Stevens not only as a matter of necessity but also as a matter of being humane. Time to go home now senator, and stay there til they come for you.

  • btw***anybody know how long he can keep the bill blocked with his “hold”? Is there a time limit before he can be forced to let the bill come up for debate and a vote?

  • Id there any one out there who can explain Senate rules regarding “holds”? Why do weevere have filibusters or cloture votes if a single senator can block a bill by putting a “hold” on it? That means all legislation needs a unanimous vote of 100 to 0 pass. And if we are going to have filibusters (a relic of the past), let’s have real filibusters where the senator has to stand up there and talk non-stop!

  • I don’t think a comedy troop on LSD could coome up with a scenerio this bizarre.

  • MW, here is Wikipedia on “Secret Hold,” which is what holds normally are (and the only thing worse than holds in general).

  • The senator told a closed session of fellow Republicans today, including Vice President Dick Cheney, that he was upset that the measure would interfere with his travel to and from Alaska

    Given his current situation, the question may soon be moot. His next trip to Alaska may be his last, thus solving the problem of any inconvenience he might suffer.

  • Doesn’t this bill also disqualify a member’s pension if he/she is convicted of a crime relating to their office? If so, then Stevens may be trying to preserve his pension. He probably doesn’t have one coming from somewhere else, although he’s probably got tons of money stashed (ill-gotten, of course!).

  • I’d like to know if any of you “haters” can tell me how Congressman William Jefferson feels about this Legislation?

    • Comments are closed.