Congress Passes Ethics Overhaul Bill
The U.S. Senate has given final approval to a far-reaching package of new ethics and lobbying rules, with an overwhelming majority of Republicans and Democrats agreeing to better police the relationship between lawmakers and lobbyists.
If President George W. Bush signs the bill into law, which administration officials indicated he would, members of Congress would face a battery of new restrictions. The legislation, approved by the Senate on Thursday on a vote of 83-14, calls for bans on gifts, meals and travel paid for by lobbyists and makes it more difficult for lawmakers to quickly capitalize on their connections when joining the private sector.
The measure, which grew out of scandals that have tarnished the image of Congress, represents a cultural shift in the traditions of Capitol Hill. While proponents hailed the measure as the most significant reform since Watergate, questions remained on how some provisions would be enforced and whether the measure would change lawmakers' ability to secure pet projects known as earmarks.
Read the law and small print....will not change much of anything in D.C...
"business as usual"..
Dumb!
Seriously.
The Democrats should just do the same thing that the Republicans did until they can curtail their power, money, and influence.
No sense of putting restrictions on yourself.
Oh, their approval rating will go up now.
"you can take the second floor addition to my trailer out of my cold dead hands"-Ted Stevens
How much you wanna bet Bush would have vetoed this bill in a heartbeat if it didn't have a veto-proof majority?
How about a ban on politicians going to work as lobbyists or for corporations that they oversaw while in Congress, for, oh let's say 10 years after their terms expire?
This new ethics bill is very strict!
Congressmen can now only accept bribes with their left hands, and only after 10 am on days that end in "Y."
myiq2xu @ 7:
Nicely said and very clever...
Regardless the rules, the crooks of all parties will find a way to get their graft on. The only way to deal with the issue is to make lobbying illegal. If special interests want the attention of Congress, the only legal way should be by petitioning for a hearing and if granted, to hold those hearing in public, in front of the cameras, with the public allowed to present countering testimony.
The other thing that needs to happen is that all campaigns, from highest office in the land to the local dog catcher need to be funded by the federal, state and local governments. As long as there is private funding of campaigns, the big-money special interests have a way to corrupt the system. If private money is to be used, there should be a limit of $100 or so, and government supplied auditors attached to each campaign, just to make sure thing stay kosher.
Lobbying is bribery and influence peddling, formalized so as to present a veneer of legitimacy. I consider any politician who keeps company with lobbyists to be a crook.
By the way, did you see the speeches both Reid and Pelosia made last evening as to
ALL the "accomplishments" made by the Dems this Session? Do either of them remember
the Nov. 06 Elections? GET OUT OF IRAQ ! Tell me Mr. and Ms. "How close to accomplishing
what WE THE PEOPLE elected you to do are you"???
BFD! It's a bone to the dolts that think the dems are going to do something about the mess we are in.
With Senates giving chimpy his revised FISA, what good is this?
Doogie, it appears that the Democrats in Congress WILL NEVER DEFUND THE WAR IN IRAQ which they can do right now (and there would be nothing to veto, just don't pass war budget).
The Democrats just want to sit on the sidelines and bash Bush & Company on the war, but, as always, when push comes to shove, THE WON'T DEFUND THE WAR.
So all this other stuff, like phony ethics bill, doesn't amount to a hill of beans!
Jersey @ 12:
Agreed, and the Senate by approving bush-lite's survilance law, just handed Gonzo
more power as to wire tapping, instead of having that authority where it belongs w/
FISA.
Senate approval rating is about 3% now
They made sure there were loopholes large enough to drive through a freight train full of cash.
L.A. Confidential, that ridiculously low approval rating of the Democratic controlled Senate and House shows that the American public is not fooled by their passing this phony "ethics" stuff. (I wouldn't be surprised that if you read the fine print, the ethics are even worse under the new law, but the Congress think they can fool the voters by labeling the law "ethics overhaul")
Jersey @ 16:
Basically two things are happening parallel to each other. They are attacking our constitutional freedoms and our wallets and its working very well.
And, insofar as earmarks, I read they are actually MUCH HIGHER AND MORE NOW under the Democratic controlled House and Senate than they were under the Republicans, MUCH higher. (So much for ethical change under the Democrats; it's actrually much worse, I'm sad to say.)
The U.S. Senate has given final approval to a far-reaching package of new ethics and lobbying rules, with an overwhelming majority of Republicans and Democrats agreeing to better police the relationship between lawmakers and lobbyists.
There should be no "relationship" between lawmakers and lobbyists. We elect the lawmakers to BE our lobbyists.
As one drag queen quipped in a SF night club "I had a relationship with an Eskimo once, but it got so cold, we broke it off."
Apparently the majority of them are in on a plan to turn this once great nation into a cheap-butt "banana republic" to be ruled by "tin-horn" dictators such as Bush and an endless string of them to come in the future doing what they will concerning the laws of the land and using the U.S. Treasury as their personal "piggy-bank".
{{{yawn}}}
the public SAID they wanted this.
Suggestion: absoultely no limitation on political contribution of any kind -- as being freedom of speech -- BUT THERE MUST BE FULL DISCLOSURE, UNDER THE STRICTEST OF ENFORCEMENT, WHERE EVERY PENNY COMES FROM.
Sounds like they just cut out the cheap bribes and upped the ante on Pay to Play.
We have the best government that money can buy!
*This* is the sort of thing they consider worthy of their time, because it plays into their shallow marketing campaign. They want to be the 'un-corrupt' party. Well, symbolically, I mean.
If they were *really* interested in government corruption, or even just performing the basic duties of Congress, we'd be in the middle of impeachment hearings right now. They'd prefer to just run a nice little media campaign instead.
The really tragic part is that the American people seem to recognize this, and don't give a damn about these toothless "reform" stage shows. Congress' approval rating continues to drop, and the out-of-touch Beltway crowd just keeps shoveling more of the same. Cave completely on substantive matters, so you can successfully pass the bullshit 'marketing campaign' bills.
Out of touch. They'll soon be back in the minority, and they won't even understand why.
sulphur, yah, cheap bribes like "no free meals" or "first class plane travel" BIG DEAL!!! While the really big stuff goes more underground than before!
Bottom line, the Democrats say that they were elected to get the USA out of Iraq. They have the power to do that right now (defund the war, nothing to veto), BUT THEY WON'T DO IT, so Americans are not fooled by this phony so-called "ethics law"; hence the 3% approval rating.
We may disagree with the Republicans, but at least we get "truth in adverstising" with them.
There may be some actual need for this bill but in this world and with the Rove-Cheney-Bush white house its IMPOSSIBLE to trust anything they say or do.
LA Confidential, I know it is tempting to blame everything on Bush and Company, but it's about time for the Democrats in Congress TO STAND UP TO THE PLATE!
Jersey @ 29:
My cheers from last Novembers sweep have dissipated into a cynical monotone. Niether "side" is coming clean with the American people.
Wouldn't banning republicans from running for congress or the senate accomplish the same thing? It's not like they're going to follow this law any more than other laws they enjoy ignoring.
LA Confidential, and, now that the Democrats controll both houses of Congress, it actually helps the GOP win the whitehouse in '08. Voters seem to like split govt. -- fear giving too much power to one side.
Moreover, how can the Democrats win with Hillary as their nominee -- which barring some unforseen circumstance, is now a foregone conclusion.
Think back, because of Bill Clinton, the House of Representatives went over to the GOP.
Now because of Hillary Clinton, the White House (which otherwise would go to the Democrats) will end up staying with the GOP.
Both Clinton's, Hillary and Bill, have sucked the Democratic party dry.
myiq2xu @ 24:
No we don't. We have the best betrayers of trust that money can buy.
Jersey @ 33:
If Hillary wins the WH, the Republicans will have won; she's no different in any substaantive way. A corporatist, neocon-lite.
Jersey @ 34:
Jersey, I honestly don't think the GOP has a prayer of winning the White House in '08. A lot of political analysts are already saying its Hillary's race to lose (and that doesn't exactly please me, because I'm no Hillary fan, but its better than Guiliani or Romney)
Doggio, polls seem to show Dems would win the whitehouse inthe abstract, but when you actually name a candidate, like Hillary or Obama or Edwards, how can they win?
Simply picture this:
A DEBATE BETWEEN HILLARY OR OBAMA OR EDWARDS against ROMNEY OR GUILLIANI?
Now, picture that, who would Americans see as much more in command, telegenic, and winning?
I'm sad to say that, especially with the dull/wooden Hillary, the Dems will most definutely lose (to say nothing of Hillary's divisiveness and intensity against her, around the country).
The Dems have dropped the ball with their current crop of nominees.
Andrew, don't rely on what those so-called "political analysts" are saying. They are ALWAYS wrong, they feed upon themselves and only listen to each other and are insulated.
Look, all the "political analysts" were calling McCain the front runner, when it was clear to those who looked that McCain could NEVER get the GOP nomination, never!
Those "political analysits" are saying merely what they want to hear -- but are dead wrong.
The Dems are going down to defeat in '08 unless they can get some other nominee.
Jersey I will make a friendly bet with you. I'm interning for a state senator so I hear alot of the beltway talk. He says the Repubs are basically quaking in their boots over '08 and it'll make '06 look like a drop in the bucket. I think it's gonna be a watershed moment for the Senate, House and WhiteHouse races.
Andrew, bet all you want, but you still do not answer my question or face the music:
AGAIN, PICTURE A DEBATE HILLARY v. ROMNEY or
HILLLARY v. GUILIANI
Watershed moment, you say?
Jersey @ 39:
Sorry you are so negative/pessimistic as to the Dem candidates; but I do give the
American public the benefit of doubt, and THEY will not elect another Repig in 08.
And, not to be overly judgemental of your "expertise" as a pollster, but I'll go with
Edwards/Obama/Hillary anytime when facing off against any and all Repig candidates
in any and all debates.
Gee, all the negativity regurgitating Republican talking points here is truly amazing. Clearly many are just bloviating and have no idea what they're talking about. That's what happens when you let the Corporate Media do your thinking for you.
Sure, the bills not perfect, no perfect bill would ever make it out of committee much less survive a vote of the full House or Senate.
Why not listen to what Progressive Congressional watchdog groups are saying about it before going off half cocked? Public Citizen (the organization founded by Ralph Nader) Democracy 21 and Common Cause have all embraced this bill and hailed it as a landmark.
Common Cause
http://www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=194...
The bill does not perfectly prevent corruption or stop the corporate hijacking of government, but its a good start. By undermining the complete control of our political system by big money interests, it helps open the door to taking back government by the people. It will be a long, slow uphill slog to put democracy back in the hands of the people and ween it from corporate and elite special interests.
Here's a couple of things you can do to help:
1. Get active. Go to your local party meetings, invite friends and take it over.
2. Always vote in primaries for the most Progressive candidate. If you don't, don't complain about the selection of candidates because you didn't do your part.
Andrew @ 38:
Winning the WH...no....Stealing the next election...YES....Thanks to Feinstein.
Doggio, OK have it your way.
I suggest you go on line and take a look at videos of Romney or videos of Guiliani. Then look at the shrill and boring and wooden Hillary or the say nothing but platitudes/boring Obama.
Romney and Guiliani have strong executive experience as well.
Obama and Hillary are lite US Senators, and Senators rarely win.
Again, Democrats COULD have won in '08, and win in generic polls, but NOT when you name any of their crop of nominees.
Moreover, Hillary nor Obama can't carry any states from the populace south, and with Romney and/or Guiliani, states such as New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, upper Midwest, are all in play for the Republicans.
If Guiliani or Romney can get past the conservative base of the Republican party and become the nominee, THEY will capture the center, NOT Hillary or Obama.
Think about it
Jersey... I wasn't aware that was a question aimed at me. The watershed moment wouldn't be the debates, it would be election-day. GOP fatigue has set in with a vengeance and I would be extremely surprised if Republicans retained the White House. I mean, we may not be completely satisfied with our choices, but the Republican base is downright disgusted with their front-runners... expect a record low voter turn-out on their part.
Jersey @ 46:
I have not only been thinking about it, but have been studying it also and YOU are
soooooo terribly out of touch w/reality that I have no further urge nor need to discuss
or debate this issue w/you.
Andrew, are you kidding, low turn out for the GOP you say?
Hillary as the Democrat nominee would drive to the polls every GOPer and anti-Hillary voter. SHE will drive the Republcans to the polls and drive the Republican high turnout.
Think about that!
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic. The tiff stops here fellas-Sitemonitor]
Clark/Feingold '08. That's a Democratic ticket no Republican could beat.
Big whoop. So now the honorable congress-people aren't allowed to go on golf trips or get free tix to basketball games? How about some real ethics reform like taking private money out of the elections process by having publicly funded campaigns? Now THAT might actually reform something...
Andrew @ 41:
I think something very big is going to happen between now and the next Presidential election, and I somehow doubt that Bush and his team are going to leave willingly.
You don't turn the Presidency into something like a dictatorship, then hand it to the other party justr because the "law" says you have to. Particularly not if you've been violating the law from day one anyway. Most especially not if you consider government to be nothing more than a hammer for beating your enemies into submission.
Anyway, I think they know very well that they'll lose the elections in a big way, whether they cheat or not. But I'm not convinced that they'll even play the game if they're sure to lose.
a guy, Taking private money out of campaigns is an extreme infringement of freedom of speech.
The answer is simply to demand FULL DISCLOSURE where ALL contributions come from, under strict penalty for not disclosing.
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
I suggest that you check out these websites if you want to keep up to date on the consistently Conservative leanings of our Corporate Media:
http://www.fair.org/index.php
http://mediamatters.org/
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
[NICE JOB JERSEY. YOU'VE MANAGED TO DERAIL THIS THREAD TWICE-SITEMONITOR]
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
Jersey, gig is up. Go back to freerepublic. You're only embarrasing yourself now. If you want to try and insert some dissent on this board, you have to be more subtle. It's fairly obvious to most people here now you're a con troll.
I'm not saying that they haven't mention it.I want to know why they haven't come out and made the truth blatantly obvious to the whole nation.That they have failed to do....you know do what real unbiased reporters do for the public....If they were doing their jobs we would have a Prez under alot more pressure than he has been under...but no....he gets a pass.If they were doing their jobs the public outcry would be louder for impeachment...after all isn't lying us into a war an impeachable offense?
ooppss...sorry...I must of gotten into this one late...
Jack Abrahams....the reason why there should be no access to public officials from "special interests".And the list just starts there.
Through out history we've seen times were government plays on the fear of people. But the truth lies within our founders - Ben Franklin, said "Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=281 Take nothing for granted, these are the liberties that our forefathers have fought for. Power is Corrupt.
Yeah, if Franklin were alive I think he would have a few choice words and maybe a bitch-slap for ole Dubya.
What a farce, the republicans claiming the 'Dems caved, the ethics bill isn't tough enough'.
Notice the bill does NOT include the commandment,
'Thou shall not fornicate with underage pages'.
Who do you suppose snuck out that provision after midnight?
(Can you spell 'Repugnicant'?)
Phuck Ewe CRAIG, CRAP-O
Big deal Condi is THE GREATEST LOBBIEST ..EVER. No more lobbiests as secstate please.
To get this ethics bill passed, how many did they have to bribe?
Snowball @ 44:
I don't think it's the corporate media bringing the dems down, it's the lack of results. They are bordering on spineless already, except for about 1/4 of the party. That's ridiculous! They weren't elected to drain the swamp, which they haven't.
Also there's concerns that this bill is toothless...
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1648556,00.html
Through out history we've seen times were government plays on the fear of people. But the truth lies within our founders - Ben Franklin, said "Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=281 Take nothing for granted, these are the liberties that our forefathers have fought for. Power is Corrupt.
Comments are closed on this entry