Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (10410)	5/23/2007 9:46:07 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224749

Democrat reform promises fizzle By: Jeanne Cummings May 21, 2007 President Bush set a precedent for voluntarily naming his campaign fundraisers. It's a familiar backpedaling pattern emerging early in the new Democratic-controlled Congress. From lobbying reforms to anti-corruption proposals to curbing earmarks, Democratic lawmakers who railed against Republican corruption a year ago have flinched from imposing the harshest standards on themselves. Consequently, this Democratic Congress may end up no better prepared to police itself than the Republicans were when the Jack Abramoff bribery scandal broke and the spate of criminal convictions it spawned surfaced as a primary reason for voters' angst last fall. Indeed, the public may become increasingly dependent on the lobbyists to disclose the business of lawmakers. Why? The outsiders will face more serious consequences if they don't follow the law, including the threat of Justice Department investigations, than the incumbents. One measure coming to the House this week illustrates the point. It would require lobbyists to disclose how much money they've bundled in donations for campaigns. That provision provides insight into which lobbyists are closest to certain lawmakers. It also could provide the first accurate information on the subject. Candidates have never been required to disclose the names of their bundlers or how much money they directed to campaign coffers. Presidential-level contenders usually make the names of their fundraisers public on a voluntary basis. That's largely because President Bush set a precedent for doing so in the 2000 campaign. But the prevalence of the practice at the House and Senate level is unclear, and even Bush's precedent-setting disclosures were incomplete. He released the names of supporters who raised at least $100,000 for his 2000 campaign and those who collected double that amount in 2004. What wasn't disclosed was how many of the fundraisers exceeded those totals and raised a half-million or even a million dollars for the Bush-Cheney ticket. If the bundling disclosure bill passes the House and survives a House-Senate conference report, lobbyists would have to confess the total amount they raised through friends and business associates for candidates, their leadership campaign committees and party committees. The public would no longer have to depend on incumbents to voluntarily tell the whole truth about their backers. Watchdog groups say the bundling measure is an essential piece of a serious reform effort. Even so, the fact that House leaders decided to move it separately from the primary lobbying disclosure reform bill suggests they are willing to risk its defeat.