Senate Republicans scuttle ethics reform measure

For the better part of 2006, congressional Republicans convinced themselves that the notion of a “culture of corruption” lacked political salience. GOP lawmakers were being indicted and resigning in disgrace, but it was an “inside the beltway” story, they thought. The typical American wasn’t terribly interested.

They were, of course, completely wrong. As Zachary Roth recently noted, “In official exit polling, more voters named corruption as an extremely important issue than any other, including Iraq…. [N]o experts deny that the issue played a much more crucial part in the Democratic win than almost anyone had expected.”

With this mandate in mind, Senate Dems hoped to pass a meaningful reform measure yesterday. Senate Republicans, who might have noticed the midterm election results, had other ideas.

Senate Republicans scuttled broad legislation last night to curtail lobbyists’ influence and tighten congressional ethics rules, refusing to let the bill pass without a vote on an unrelated measure that would give President Bush virtual line-item-veto power.

The bill could be brought back up later this year. Indeed, Democrats will try one last time today to break the impasse. But its unexpected collapse last night infuriated Democrats and the government watchdog groups that had been pushing it since the lobbying scandals that rocked the last Congress. Proponents charged that Republicans had used the spending-control measure as a ruse to thwart ethics rules they dared not defeat in a straight vote.

“It’s as obvious as the sun coming up somewhere in this world that they tried to kill this bill,” a furious Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said last night in an interview. “And all 21 Republican senators up for reelection are going to have to explain how they brought down the most significant reform ever to come before this Congress. They brought this baby down.”

Fred Wertheimer, president of the watchdog group Democracy 21, added, “Whatever they’re saying, Republican votes tonight were votes to prevent the Senate from enacting major lobbying and ethics reforms to deal with corruption scandals in Congress. I don’t think anyone’s getting away with anything here.”

I hope not.

Josh Marshall summarized this nicely:

Republicans use poison pill to derail ethics reform in the Senate.

No ethics reform unless the Republicans get a line item veto.

Call it what it is. The senate Republicans don’t want an ethics bill. The corruption’s just to sweet for them to let go of.

A quick post-script: if you look at the roll call on this vote, it shows Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid voting the wrong way on this, joining the Republicans. This was a procedural move — by voting against it, Reid can bring the legislation back to the floor later in the year. Reid supports the bill. Just wanted to clear up any potential confusion.

2 observations:

Didn’t Nancy Pelosi take a lot of grief because she wanted to limit Republican input and amendments to the initial 100-hour legislation so that it could be passed no-fuss/no-muss? Didn’t the GOP House members get up and so piously denounce Speaker Pelosi for going back on her promises? Isn’t this a prime example of why Pelosi did what she did and the next time the GOP gets all pious about being excluded from deliberation and input they should be told to collectively shut their pie-hole?

and, second, why does the charge of being “obstructionist” seem to be trotted out regularly and extremely effectively against Dems for opposition to GOP legislation, but seems to have absolutely no effect or consideration in this type of case when the GOP is clearly “obstructing” Democratic legislation?

  • Why not bring the line-item veto up for its own vote, and vote it down, then bring back the ethics reform bill? That would prove clearly that the Republicans are playing games to keep their culture of corruption.

  • Why not bring the line-item veto up for its own vote, and vote it down, then bring back the ethics reform bill? That would prove clearly that the Republicans are playing games to keep their culture of corruption.

    The line-item veto was declared Unconstitutional in 1998 by the Supreme Court – it doesn’t need to have to come to a vote to prove that the GOP are playing games. And one would think if it were that big a GOP priority, they would have voted on it sometime during the last 6 years.

  • At least Republicans are consistent on this issue: they were for corruption in government before they were for it.

    Ethel-to-Tilly is right. The Dems need to come out with guns blazing in the press to prove that heading into the ’08 elections the Repubs chose not to hear what the voters said in ’06 elections.

  • And what exactly was different about this “line-item veto” from the one struck as unconstitutional?

    How would this one have passed muster? Simply by shifts on the Court?

  • RacerX—the inherent danger of bringing up the line-item veto for a vote in the Senate is that no one knows for certain that Lieberman will vote against it. 49 ReThugs + 1 Lieberman + 1 Cheney = disaster…and Lieberman has argued in the past for giving “this” president such power—which would effectively negate any item coming down from the Hill that’s lacking a veto-proof majority. There’s also enough “oomph” in the House’s Blue-Dogs to possibly squeeze the issue through in that chamber.

    Bluntly put, sir—giving Bush the line-item would, in effect, make Dems “a majority in name only.”

    this wretched thing has “Tyrannis Rex” written all over it…and the Senate GOP wants to be the tyrant’s “nobility….”

  • i guess i missed something here. so 21 republicans were against the measure. doesn’t that leave 29 other senators to vote in favor? sometimes i so don’t understand how congress works………

  • I don’t think charges of obstruction are ever that damning. It part, it’s just sour-grapes name-calling. In part, it’s an attempt to stop fighting issues on their merits and to make the minority gun-shy.

    Fight these things on the issues and let the voters decide who was right.

  • Former congressmen and senators should be banned from becoming lobbyists. That’s the ethics reform Americans should demand.

  • Make the list of 21 Republican Senators available to as many American voters as possible. They have some splaning to do, and they should be defeated for their mocking ways! -Kevo

  • Draining the swamp will have to begin with Pelosi. Ethics reform hearings in the House will put heat on the Senate. Dems that engage in a real corruption reform campaign right now will clobber the Repubs in 08.

  • So they derailed much-needed ethics reform over an issue that has been declared unconstitutional.

    I would call them “fucking idiots”, but that would be an insult to fucking idiots.

  • I have a problem with the way the Dems played this though. So the Dems didn’t have enough votes to overcome a filibuster.

    I say make them filibuster. Let it be on the evening news for a few nights that the GOP is pulling out the big guns to prevent Congressional ethics reform. Why allow the GOP to just “scuttle” it?

    Once again, the Dems squander an opportunity to make the right look bad.

  • Can’t the Dems just strip out the line-item veto in Conference committee without a vote or any public scrutiny? isn’t that what the GOP did for the past 12 years?

  • i vote for all of the above. put the line-item up first (making sure of course that you have some repub crossover insurance votes), argue on teh floor that it is unconstitutional, but the R’s want it anyway, Constitution be damned. then have it lose.

    then bring the ethics package back up. if the Rs want to add the line-item veto, make them filibuster – while Dems take the issue directly to the public.

    by the way, dont the rules of order apply? can’t the chair rule the line-item amendment non-germane to a lobbying reform package? wouldn’t it then take a majority to overrule the chair on the relevance question? and if so, why aren’t the Dems using the power of chairing the debate to do so?

  • This is what happens when you are addicted. You will do what ever you have to keep your addiction fed.

  • And what exactly was different about this “line-item veto” from the one struck as unconstitutional?

    Found one explanation [Fair waning: Links to Glenn Reynolds. Have eyewash and rubber gloves at the ready]

    Gregg’s amendment uses the president’s existing recission authority as a mild version of a line-item veto and is designed to give the President a tool for highlighting wasteful spending and forcing Congress to take a second look at such proposals. The proposal would clearly make it more difficult for Members of Congress to slip wasteful spending like earmarks into legislation.

    According to Gregg, the amendment provides that the president can send up to 4 rescission packages per year. Congress would be required to fast track the President’s recommendation within 8 days.

    Also, unlike a line-item veto proposal that was defeated in Congress in 1996, Gregg’s amendment today requires congressional affirmation of the President’s rescission package.

    Savings from rescissions passed by Congress must be used for deficit reduction. The authority sunsets after 4 years – giving Congress the ability to evaluate merits of rescission authority after President Bush and his successor have had the opportunity to use.

  • Mitch McConnell, who sued to overturn the 1990’s line item veto for Clinton, now, after six years of total Republican’t power, decides that it is needed.

    Please!

  • Homer’s got it. Ds should never miss an opportunity to let Rs hang themselves in public with nooses they’ve tied themselves Wake up, Harry.

  • Damn—either I’m dreaming, or the Dems just rammed this thing through, 96-2.

    SUH-WEEEEEEEEEEEEET!!!

  • Comments are closed.