Under the cover of the screaming about immigration, these guys quietly cop out on lobby reform. I say throw all the greedy bums out...
Senate Easily Goes Along With Diluted Lobbying Bill
OKs Bans, Kills Ethics Panel, But Dissenters See Loopholes
By DAVID LIGHTMAN
Washington Bureau Chief
March 30 2006
WASHINGTON -- What was once planned as sweeping legislation aimed at cleaning up lobbying abuses in Washington wound up Wednesday as little more than a ban on gifts and meals and a way for the public to more easily keep an eye on lobbyists.
The Senate voted 90-8 to pass what remained of the lobbying reform bill - but only after members stripped most of the provisions reformers badly wanted. The vote came on the same day high-powered lobbyist Jack Abramoff was sentenced to a five-year, 10-month prison term in a case involving a Florida cruise line, a case with links to the federal corruption investigation Abramoff is aiding. He still awaits sentencing on other charges.
The Senate bill left out the plan sought by reformers to set up an independent ethics office to monitor potential abuses. Also gone was a proposal to bar private travel paid by special interests, as well as a bid by reformers to change the way "earmarks," or special projects, are inserted into bills.
Nevertheless, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., one of the bill's chief sponsors, said the final bill "upends the status quo."
He cited its new requirement for lobbyists to disclose their activities more often and new rules that make it tougher for former members to lobby lawmakers.
"This is not a perfect bill," said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., one of the measure's key architects, "but what we're saying here is there's now a sign in front of the Capitol saying, `Not for sale."'
Other senators were clearly disappointed. "We will revisit these issues," pledged a somber Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who voted no.
"Overall, this fell short," added Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who also voted no. "It does not address travel or enforcement, and it does not really strengthen [rules that limit] the `revolving door."'
Opponents found it telling that the last hours of the debate featured disagreement, not over major reforms, but on just what kind of meals would be barred.
Dodd won approval earlier this month of a ban on all lobbyist-paid meals, but Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., wanted the ban expanded to include anyone at firms that employ lobbyists.
Allowing such people to buy lunch for senators is a loophole, Feingold said.
"I think it could raise some of the things that we've talked about in relation to the whole Abramoff scandal," he said.
Dodd was leery. "This bill is about lobbyists," he said.
That led to debate over who should pick up the check for members and staffers. "If someone buys you lunch, buys you dinner, buys you breakfast, you can say, `Hey, I want half the bill,'" said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del.
Feingold's plan lost 68-30.
Other efforts to toughen the bill lost by similarly lopsided margins.
What did survive in the bill's final version was an increase to two years of the current one-year period a former member must wait after leaving Congress before being permitted to lobby Congress.
Although Lieberman praised the change, Obama said it did not go far enough.
Nothing in the bill prevents a former member from heading a trade association and directing the dozens of lobbyists on his or her staff to contact Congress.
The bill also requires congressional lobbyists to file quarterly spending reports, rather than the current semiannual system. The reports must be available on the Internet.
"This is important," said Susan M. Collins, R-Maine, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee chairman. "The public can evaluate the spending that occurs, knows who is lobbying whom. I think disclosure's going to make a big difference."
The bill also doubles the penalty for non-compliance to $100,000.
Reformers, though, were disappointed that no independent office will be able to launch investigations of abuses. That idea was soundly rejected Tuesday 67-30.
Senate Ethics Committee Chairman George V. Voinovich, R-Ohio, said an independent office would "harm the Senate ethics process rather than improve it."
Currently, the Ethics Committee can investigate allegations, and Voinovich said creation of a separate office is "somewhat offensive."
The committee has three Democrats and three Republicans.
Lieberman countered that the office would not have replaced the committee.
He wanted a nonpartisan office headed by a full-time executive director serving a five-year term, appointed by the Senate president after consultation with leaders of both parties.
Without the office, he said, "there is a missing piece. The missing piece is enforcement."
The bill now goes to the House, which is expected to consider legislation next week. But the House has never warmed to the idea of an independent office, and the difficulty of getting any bill through the Senate was seen as a signal the road ahead will be bumpy.
But, said Lieberman, at least the issue is now in play. "Can you imagine a bill like this could have won passage a year ago?" he asked. "No."
Copyright 2006, Hartford Courant |
