House Democrats Backing Off Lobby Reform
By Steve Foley Posted in Democrats | Spotlight Blogs — Comments (25) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Promoted from blogs, with a caveat. The Democrats are not 'backing off' lobbying reform; to do that, they would have to have made a credible case that they were going to implement lobbying reform in the first place.
And if you believed that they were going to actually implement lobbying reform, I have to ask: have you examined your other opinions for damfoolishness yet? We've got another election coming up soon, you see, and I have to live with your, ah, enthusiasms. - Moe Lane
In yet another campaign promise democrats have failed to live up to. It’s looking more and more like tough lobby reform is losing support in the House.
After an all-out assault on the so-called “Culture of Corruption” leading up to last November’s election and regaining of the House and Senate, House democrats seem to be getting a case of cold feet as they reevaluate exactly what such reform would mean to them personally.
Read on.
The new reforms proposed in the passage of S1 in the Senate would change current lobbying laws in three critical ways which have some lawmakers second-guessing their participation. They are as follows.
1) Require lobbyists to disclose details about large donations they arrange for politicians.
2) Make former lawmakers wait two years, instead of one, before lobbying Congress.
3) Bar lobbyists from throwing large parties for lawmakers at national political conventions.
I think number two is causing them the most consternation but number three isn’t too far behind. I mean, large lavish parties are their birthright, right?
According to this article from ABC News the primary concern is over “Bundling”:
The chief stumbling block in the House centers on whether to require disclosures of a fundraising practice called bundling. It involves lobbyists soliciting and collecting campaign donations from other people and then presenting them in one package to the targeted candidate.
Under current law, each individual check-writer must report his or her donation. But the lobbyist-bundlers, who use the practice to ingratiate themselves to politicians, often go undetected.
Meaningful disclosure of bundling "is the defining issue of this bill" and must remain in the House version, said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a private group that supports greater transparency in government.
However, resistance from some House members is so strong that Democratic leaders are thinking of dropping the bundling language from the bill, and perhaps allowing proponents to offer it later as an amendment or separate legislation.
I guess once you’ve secured your seat in the House or Senate all those great ideas about reform and all that lip service spouted about “transparency” and “a better way” takes a back seat to personal entitlements, fringe benefits, and future security???
My hope is that voters are paying attention to this and other examples of liberal hypocrisy and the lengths the new democrat party will resort too, to regain power. I’m not holding my breath.
If the Democrats in Congress really wanted lobby reform they’d call for an end to and abolishment of the IRS. A national sales tax and simplified tax code would give lobbyists very little to lobby about.
The Democrats campaigned on lobby reform. That was a successful issue for them because the Republicans were getting lots of K Street money and were corrupt.
The Democrats sweep into power, the K Street money to corrupt Republicans dries up. K Street money now goes to Democrats who only act in the best interest of the country and are never corrupt.
Problem solved. Why all the huffing and puffing?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
special interests and large companies hedge their bets by giving to both sides in every election cycle. It wasn't that long ago when Rupert Murdoch did a fundraiser for Hillary.
You're right, though; Democrats need to stop pretending they're any different now than they have been in recent memory and hold themselves to their own professed standards. It used to be a GOP campaign issue that Congress exempts itself from legislation the rest of us are subject to. Now they've given that issue back to us to use again.
role in sluicing contracts toward her husband's defense firms and I expect to expire before accountability and the Democrats ever get into some sort of synch.....
__________________
Taunted by a Liberal in Parliament that he was going to die "on the gallows or of a vicious social disease," Disraeli replied "That depends on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
They get a pass from the MSM
Kind of like those no-bid contracts Halliburton obtained during the Clinton years??? Not much about those either!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
Where is the DoJ? Why the h*ll is everyone in this country subject to investigation except Democrat politicians? I am serious, someone please explain this. Pictures with farm animals?
in his freezer Jefferson, do we think the DOJ is going to be bothered with Feintsein or some other currupt democrat?
As for the lobbying idea? Reform only sounds good when you are the guys not getting any money, once the guys not getting it, get the chance to get it, then reform doesn't sound so hot anymore.
I am the kind of person I don't think there should be a bunch of limits on how much people can give, but I would like to see transparancy. If somebody writes a check, for any amount for any reason and sends it direct or through a lobbyist it would be nice to know who, how much, and the lobbyist, when involved.
I also don't care much about the parties etc, mostly because I figure restricting them, will just change how it is done so that the lobbyists can bury their names deeper into the woodwork. I would almost rather know who, how much, how long, how often, and make it available within a few days of the event, and make it totally public, as in require it be web accessible.
and ideologically-challenged US Attorneys was only a first step.
Considering the protection afforded to federal employees by their union, removing the partisan, career-minded bureaucrats within the Department of Justice won't be easy, if not virtually impossible.
Apparently, Deputy AG Gorelick made sure the deck was stacked in favor of the ACLU and democrat politicians.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
unions aren't the issue, disinterested or cowardly management is. The upper levels of the Fed aren't union and the Fed's bargaining scheme gives the employer far more freedom of action than most state bargaining laws. The Fed is its own problem with overly restrictive merit system rules enforced by the squishy MSPB and a "therapeutic" HR culture.
In Vino Veritas
with the "cowardly management" aspect. Selective leaks to the partisan press from the rank-and-file within the Department of Justice would certainly have a chilling effect on political appointees.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
though. You just articulate a policy prohibiting press and legislative/congressional contact IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY. That way you don't get into 1st Am. problems, at least not as much problem, in restricting their speech rights as citizens as opposed to as employees. There's a pretty supportive body of case law on restricting speech in an official capacity. Since anything juicy they might know is learned in their official capacity, the leaker gets to spend some quality time with some bad-tempered suits from headquarters and maybe disappears, at least for a while. Doesn't take much of that and people start to think twice about being "friends" with reporters and legislators/staffers.
In Vino Veritas
it would be that simple: "You just articulate a policy prohibiting press and legislative/congressional contact IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY."
The "leaker's" of highly-classified intelligence information from within the NSA and CIA still haven't been prosecuted, and their actions could only be characterized as criminal.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
about cowardly management. That kind of leaking is clearly a crime and if any adults were in charge, they'd have turned CIA and State upside down and shook them - hard. It wouldn't be that hard to get some dismissals and maybe some criminal convictions. Public employees who do this stuff do it because they expect to get away with it; usually they do. Since they never expect to be confronted about it, when they are, they crumble. You make an example of a few with noisy public firings and prosecution if the evidence is there. Once you do that a few times, interest wanes in doing this sort of stuff.
Obviously, since I worked for a state government, I've never done it with national security materials, but I've done my fair share with leaks to defense attorneys, leaks into and out of correctional facilities, and lots of leaks about environmental and resource policy issues. If you catch them, which means if your supervisors are really supervising, you fire them or give them the German choice; most of the time the union is the one recommending that they take the German Choice, since they don't want to spend the money on a losing grievance and arbitration. I never had much trouble with it in a much more unionized environment than the Fed is, so long as I was allowed to do it. Back to that cowardly management issue. More often than not, management at the work site supported and covered for the leaker, so it had to be a top-down exercise. There just doesn't seem to be much "top" in DC.
Hell, I'd do it for free and for fun if GWB would give me a small, competent staff, an open travel authorization, and an "expansive" mission statement. Nothing is better for employee morale than having a couple of unknown suits show up in an office and having someone just disappear.
In Vino Veritas
Any investigation that deep into the bowels of the bureaucracy would inevitably lead to the Partisan Press and would be portrayed as an assault on their "First Amendment rights" and the "public's right-to-know."
The ensuing battle to defend my personal character and integrity would be - "expensive."
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
Comes into office with a republican congress, he could have just fired all the attorneys. Appointed reasonably competent successors and had them demand their subordinates explain their prior actions to them.
Theres nothing like explaining past actions to a competent attorney to put people on edge.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
The problem in the specific area you're talking about is two fold. Fold one, AGAG. Fold two, Bush.
With respect to the NSA and CIA leaks, there was an article in the media that I managed to lose so I can't link, that said AGAG said that DoJ had tried to question people about the leaks but the agencies wouldn't cooperate. So DoJ folded their tents and went home. They also never bothered to empanel a grand jury and call the NYT and WaPo reporters and editors either. And heaven forbid they name a special prosecutor.
These gutless, nutless wonders appoint a special prosecutor to investigate a case where no laws were broken and raise all sorts of hell for three years (Plame/Wilson), Wilson commits perjury in front of the 9/11 Commission and Scooter Libby gets indicted.
Top secret terrorist surveillance and interdiction programs get leaked to the papers and, oh well! I am more and more disgusted by this Administration every day and I don't see any hope of it getting better.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
at the Agency level nor with your AG's office; you do it with dedicated HR/LR staff, and I don't mean that nice little HR girl down the hall that refers people to Employee Assistance, I mean some hard-bitten type who knows the rules and knows how to use them.
Government lawyers, even those who aren't hardcore Democrats, are so litigation averse that they run from their shadows, so you hand them a completed action; you don't let them investigate ANYTHING or decide anything. I even went so far as to make my own complaints to the cops rather than going through the AG or a DA. We just took our administrative action, then made the complaint.
I've dealt with agency heads trying to tell me that it was "their" department and "their" employees and the central government had no business dealing with it. Usually all that took was telling them they could work it out with me or they could work it out with me and the COS or the Governor. Rarely did they want to "work it out" with the COS or the Governor.
From what I've seen, even if someone had an inclination to do something, they'd get no support from the WH.
In Vino Veritas
At the end of the day, the real problem is Bush.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
The chief issue here would seem to be who "some House members" are that are so opposed to the bundling disclosure as to endanger the entire bill, not what's being considered to get the larger portion of the bill through.
Your 'chief issue' is not this article's 'chief issue' - or mine, for that matter. This article's 'chief issue' is about how House leadership is going back on what it promised to do if elected. My 'chief issue' is how this should have been completely unsurprising*.
Now, I'm going to guess that you voted a Democratic ticket last November. If you did - note I said 'if' - I'd like to check something. When the Democrats come by next year and tell you that they're going to clean up Congress, will you at least laugh in their face this time?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
*If you want to write a blog post about your 'chief issue', feel free. Finding out who's holding it back might prove of interest to our readers, and since it's important to you, go ahead and track it down! Even if they turn out to be Republicans.
I like this part the best: If the Democrats in Congress really wanted lobby reform they’d call for an end to and abolishment of the IRS. A national sales tax and simplified tax code would give lobbyists very little to lobby about.
A little reality here please.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
The people in a democracy get the kind of government they deserve.
Apparently enough people are happy(or atleast,dont care)that politicians,the vast majority of them, are only interested in lining their pockets and getting reelected.We let them get by with this instead of demanding better.
Term limits, where art thou?
blocked by Democrats in the House!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
Gotta love that new tone. Madison apparently didn't consider the case of what happens when a branch doesn't do its job.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777