Yesterday, Susan linked to Steve Clemons’s interesting article about the Democratic strategy on ethics reform and asked “Do we attack the problem, or fix the problem?”
Clemons is concerned that Harry Reid thinks it is “the wrong time to be engaged in construtive “reform” proposals with the other side. He said that this was the time to draw a line and to show how “our side” differed dramatically from “their side.”
While Clemons can see the merits of that strategy, he argues:
However, generating constructive and positive policy proposals — that fix problems and that would appeal to “most Americans” meaning Dems, reasonable independents, and independently minded Republicans” — are vital parts of a successful political strategy, in my view.
But this is not an either/or situation. Yesterday, Harry Reid unveiled the THE HONEST LEADERSHIP AND OPEN GOVERNMENT ACT. The HLOG Act is an aggressive piece of legislation, and it would go a long way to cleaning up the sleeze in Washington. It absolutely is useful as a “constructive and positive policy proposal”. And we can take it to the people.
Of course, this GOP-led Congress is not going to pass the HLOG Act in anything like its current form. But, by staking out the ground, Reid makes the Republicans not only defend their past actions, but explain their tepid support for aggressive reforms.
If the GOP compromises and incorporates some of the HLOG Act into their ethics bill, then we will have had some positive influence on ethics reform, and we can campaign on doing more.
If they refuse to negotiate over the Ethics Bill, then we will stick DeLay, Cunningham, Scanlon, and Abramoff in the face of every Republican in the country, and we will take over this Congress.
To see what I mean, Washington Post has some of the highlights of the bill.
I love the topic headings…
…in a sign that an ethical “arms race” may be developing, the Democratic [lobbying reform] plans go further than the Republicans’ proposals.
The Jack Abramoff Reform
Rather than limiting the value of a gift to $20, as House Republicans are considering, Democrats would prohibit all gifts from lobbyists.
The Grover Norquist Reform
Democrats also take direct aim at some of the legislative practices that have become established in the past 10 years of Republican rule in Congress. They vowed to end the K Street Project, under which Republicans in Congress pressure lobbying organizations to hire only Republican staff members and contribute only to Republican candidates.
The Tony Rudy Reform
Lawmakers would have to publicly disclose negotiations over private-sector jobs, a proposal inspired by then-House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman W.J. “Billy” Tauzin’s job talks in 2003 that led to his hiring as president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America in January 2005.
Executive branch officials who are negotiating private-sector jobs would need approval from the independent Office of Governmental Ethics.
The Frist & Hastert Reform: Prohibit “Dead of Night” Special Interest Provisions
Under the Democrats’ plan, House and Senate negotiators working out final versions of legislation would have to meet in open session, with all members of the conference committee — not just Republicans — having the opportunity to vote on amendments.
Legislation would have to be posted publicly 24 hours before congressional consideration. Democrats also proposed to crack down on no-bid contracting and to require that any person appointed to a position involving public safety “possess proven credentials.”
Other parts of the bill include:
The Ralph Reed Reform
Toughen Public Disclosure of Lobbyist Activity. Significantly expand the information lobbyists must disclose – including campaign contributions and client fees. Require them to file disclosure reports electronically, and increase the frequency of those filings. Require lobbyists to certify that they did not violate the rules, and make them subject to criminal penalties for false certifications.
The Halliburton Reform
Restore accountability and openness in federal contracting by subjecting major contract actions to public disclosure and aggressive competition; criminally prosecuting contractors who cheat taxpayers, with penalties including suspension and debarment; imposing stiff criminal and civil penalties for wartime fraud on government contracting; prohibiting contractors with conflicts of interest from conducting oversight or writing contract requirements they could bid on; mandating full disclosure of contract overcharges; creating tough penalties for improper no-bid contracts; and closing the revolving door between federal contract officials and private contractors.
The Brownie Reform
End rampant cronyism by requiring that any individual appointed to a position involving public safety possess proven credentials, and training or expertise in one or more areas relevant to the position.
