WaPo has an article about how the dems in the house intend to tackle ethics. They intend to include the new freshmen entering (some of whom ran on ethics issues) and they seem to want to actually have debates on the issues and open up the various blots up to the public.
I think that bills that are freely debated and aired in public beat the heck out of the midnight specials engineered by the repubs the last 6 years. I know that we have talked often on these pages about what we would like to see happen but I just can’t get enough of the current whiff of hope.
What if the dems actually include ideas and debates from the newcomers (and maybe even the newly minted minority)? Would the airings get airing on the air? Or would it just be more “DEMS IN DISARRAY”?
Options for invigorating the ethics committees include: independent oversight, ethic committee alone, and independent oversight that sends egregious behaviour to the ethics committee. I would wish they would add one: ethics committee sends egregious behaviour to the independent oversight, but maybe they have the right of it.
more on the flip
Other options for ethics were listed as pulling apart various behaviours that need spelling out in ethics bills such as lobbyists gifts and travel. Nothing was said of the continual need for fund raising by the members of the house since they run every two years. Abramoff got some of his clout by helping out with fund raisers and with giving spouses work through third party avenues. I still think we need to address 1)free air time for candidates, 2)revisiting the fairness doctrine 3)opening up venues for debates of all sorts.
If the MSM isn’t going to give enough coverage and enough background to the various issues to help people determine what is needed then blogs will have to step up to the plate in some fashion. We have done so in the past with limited means and resources. Maybe with the new freshmen looking to increase their own clout, they will find common cause with the blogs?
there are two separate tracks.
One is internal house rules (and senate). The Dems can push those through. The others are related to systemic problems that can only be addressed by law. The biggest opponent of McCain-Feingold was Mitch McConnell, who is now Senate Minority Leader. We can’t pass shit with him in that position. So, our job is to embarrass him and punish his allies politically by forcing them to filibuster popular reform legislation.
Does the Senate even have the equivalent of an “Ethics Committee?”
And can the Senate dems, like the house dems, set the rules of debate so that repubs can be potentially embarrassed by their lack of cooperation? And votes (although I gather a senator can just put a hold on legislation)?
When the prevailing attitude in DC by all parties is, “Wake up to reality, this is the way things are done here,” then it is a real Mt Everest to climb to eliminate the corruption and influence buying.
I would like lobbyists to become extinct. All of them. I have this radical idea that representatives should be understanding who they represent and what those constituents feel are important to their lives. That means they would actually have to get out among the people in their state and have dialog with them and an interchange of ideas.
Guess I am just ever the radical.
Shirl
to invest in a lobbyist to present a case to the rep. But I concede that it shouldn’t be that difficult to pick up a phone or pick up a pen and contact them directly. And the reps would claim that they do respond. And I have letters to prove that the aids do churn out replies religiously, even if the answers sometimes miss the point entirely.
My major heartburn comes when the damn rep allows lobbyists to write the bills for them. Now the reps ought to be damned embarrassed about this but never seem to be, maybe because the media never calls them on it.
The primary thing the lobbyists do is present the views and positions of particular industries or groups with a common cause (ie, environmentalist groups, civil rights groups, etc.) who have a real stake or interest in the substance of legislation or regulation being considered, either in Congress or by one of the numerous federal agencies (FEMA, FERC, EPA, OSHA, etc.) who actually implement the policies that Congress passes. This can mean coordinating industry spokespersons to testify before committees or agency commissions, drafting comments in response to proposed rules, and even writing suggested or alternate pieces of legislation that favors their client’s interests.
Insofar as this represents allowing free speech, or educating government officials at the various levels as to what a particular industry or interest group believes are valid points to consider in drafting legislation or creating regulatory procedures, this is fine. Not everyone in government can anticipate or understand the impact certain kinds of legislation might have on a given industry, or group of people, so it’s valuable to let all interested parties have a voice in the process.
Where the problem comes in is that the same voices offering advice and suggestions and commentary are also the ones providing substantial campaign donations — which can have the effect of their voices and viewpoints being given unfair preferences or consideration. Industry PACs focus their attention and their donations at legislators who are “friendly” (ie, who favor their agendas and are in a position to tilt the legislation being considered in ways that the industry wants), and mobilize their membership and resources (which can include persuading industry employees at all levels to support or vote for given legislator as well).
Take campaign donations and other bribes… er, perks… out of the picture, and the industry’s point of view has to win approval on its merits, not on the strength of its members’ donations or ability to get a legislator re-elected. Take the NEED for those extensive campaign funds out of the picture — provide a equal, fair and adequate public campaign fund and media coverage so that all candidates can get their views and messages out to the voters — and candidates will be less desperate for those donation dollars. Ensure that all points of view be heard, even citizen groups and activists who don’t have the resources of a major industry trade association, when legislation or regulations are being considered and drafted. And encourage strong ethics guidelines for lobbyists, similar to those followed by other professional advocates (lawyers, medical professionals, counselors, teachers, etc.).
It’s fine for industry trade associations or other advocacy groups to promote their clients’ or members points of view — that’s part of the democratic process, and as we know (internet tubes??!!), some legislators need all the educating they can get. What we want to avoid is giving any one voice more weight or credibility due to the depth of their pockets, instead of the merits of their arguments.
(I have worked for lobbyists, particularly trade associations, so I know something of the process here….)
you should have written this diary!