Nancy Pelosi Is Right (On This One)
By Senator Jim DeMint Posted in Congress | Congressional Contributors — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
S. 1, The Legislative and Transparency Accountability Act of 2007 is a carbon copy of the ethics and lobby reform bill that I voted against last year along with a handful of fellow Senators. I voted against it because real reform is not possible without addressing the issue of congressional earmarking – a practice wherein lawmakers set aside taxpayer dollars for what often times amounts to pet projects – or pork – for their local districts.
The all-too shadowy practice of earmarking lends itself easily to corruption, quid pro quos amongst members of Congress and a chit in the favor currying game that some in Washington have become masters of. It’s no wonder that disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff described this process as Congress’s “earmark favor factory.”
Read on . . .
Ethics reform legislation that does not shut down this “favor factory” is a sham. As currently written, S. 1 is pathetically weak in this area. The earmark reform provisions in the bill do provide some level of transparency, but not enough. Left unchanged, this bill would amount to nothing more than the creation of a trophy case in which pork-hungry lawmakers could proudly display their winnings for all the world to see. That is not the way to clean up Washington.
For that reason I intend to offer a variety of amendments to S. 1 intended to strengthen the legislation.
One of those amendments is modeled after the earmark reform package that Nancy Pelosi offered in the House. Much to my delight (and surprise), Speaker Pelosi has crafted an earmark reform package that was supported by all House Democrats and goes much farther than the provisions in the Senate bill.
This amendment would define earmarks appropriately to include earmarks other than just those directed to “non-federal entities” as well as those in report language where approximately 95 percent are tucked away. It also prohibits members or their spouses from directly benefiting from the earmarks they secure.
Finally, it explicitly prohibits trading votes for earmarks – no quid pro quo.
Adopting this common sense amendment would be a good start for the Senate as we debate this bill. I am encouraged to see House Democrats join with limited government conservatives like myself in advancing common sense reforms and I hope their Senate counterparts will follow suit.
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | Which one messed up? — Comments (17) »
Nancy Pelosi Is Right (On This One) 5 Comments (0 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
There has also been some talk that last session's S. 1508, which would require Senate candidates to file FEC reports electronically (as do other candidates now, as well as PACs), would be included as part of the early ethics packages.
Will you support its passage?
Finally, it explicitly prohibits trading votes for earmarks – no quid pro quo.
On paper, this sounds like a great idea, but then again, so does socialism. The real problem comes when you try to take it from the page to the floor of the senate.
How is this going to be defined and enforced? How can you prove that a senator is voting in a particular pattern based on favors owed for previous votes, and who and how are you going to punish for infractions (the bill's sponsor, the person benefitting from the earmark, the voting senator, or all of the above)? How are you going to prevent the establishment of some sort of indirect vote exchange arrangement? Is it even consitutional to legislate how a senator can vote? Have you given any thought to the lawsuits this thing could generate?
PLEASE don't tell me that you're expecting Senators to simply obey this rule because they're honor bound to do so; I don't see how the American people's faith in government is going to be restored by Congress passing a meaningless and unenforceable law that it plans to ignore before it's even signed - or will this bill, like most Congressional ethics bills, only apply to Executive branch employees?
We got to this point because common Americans have been lead to beleive that too many in that august body seem to think that laws and even basic moral obligations don't apply to them. The last thing we need is another ethics bill that comes out of the box with "wink and nudge" compliance enforcement.
At first I thought that Nancy Pelosi was calling herself a "limited government conservative" and I almost fell over. LOL.
Of course, everything made much more sense when I realized it was just the awesome Senator Jim DeMint barking common sense to anyone who will listen. (At least ONE Senator from South Carolina has a lot of sense.) I wish more in Congress would listen.
Fight the good fight, Sen. DeMint. That's the only way we will ever get any progress at all. And don't forget - as Margaret Thatcher says - "First you win the argument, then you win the votes."
Oh yeah...Thomas Ravenel for Senate in South Carolina in 2008. We gotta get Lindsey Graham outta there. He's not got so much common sense as Sen. DeMint.
How about COMPLETELY banning earmarks that are not specifically called for in ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 of the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (and emphasized in AMENDMENT X)???? AND, IF it's at all possible, preventing legislators from threatening tax breaks and/or monopolies for a company's competitor if whoever the legislator phoned up doesn't (cough, cough) uh, "contribute"?
"I don't think it's bribery; I think it's extortion. Bribery, you know, is when the person that's giving the money does it voluntarily. What it is in Washington is extortion because they all ask for the money." -- Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on FNC's The O'Reilly Factor, Feb. 22, 2001
"It's a shakedown system" -- Christopher Hitchens to Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball, Jan. 16, 2002
"Is it donors' fault if they are being forced to buy 'protection' from powerful politicans?" -- Robert W. Tracinski
"John McCain told me that the industries which contribute the most to political campaigns are the ones which are the most heavily regulated by the federal government." -- John Fund on Hardball March 26, 2001
"Corruption lies in the heart of the receiver, and not in the wallet of the giver." -- Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT) on the floor of the Senate, March 29, 2001
"Contrary to popular belief, people who deliberately go out to buy political influence are vastly outnumbered by people who are sold political influence by creative or desperate politicians." -- Rick Gaber
"The problem with politics isn't the money; it's the power." -- Harry Browne
The tax code is as much a magnet for rent-seeking favor-mongering as spending.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill