Ethics reform?

[Johnny Coli]

From the Washington Post...

GOP Seeks Curbs On '527' Groups

What with all the scandal surrounding Jack Abramoff, and his disclosed ties with members of congress (mostly those in the GOP, but who's counting, right), you'd think the GOP would want to at least pretend that there was some reform in the works. Right? Yeah, right.

Two months after congressional leaders pledged wholesale reforms of government ethics and lobbying rules following the guilty plea of former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the leading proposals are less extensive than the initial promises and are moving slowly toward passage.

[...]

Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), recently elected House majority leader, has argued that it is far more important to increase disclosure requirements for lobbyists and lawmakers than to limit their interaction.

 

That was pretty predictable, of course. But this wasn't.

But in a surprising development yesterday, House GOP leaders decided to try to intervene in a fast-growing sector of campaign finance that has mostly benefited Democratic candidates.

 

 

So "reform" really means cripple your opponent?

Republicans were excited at the prospect of crippling these groups. "We strongly commend these efforts as an important step towards much-needed reform," said a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee.

Uh huh.

 

 

"We need some bold action," [Rep. Christopher] Shays [R-Conn.], said. "If we can't show some energy on this, I think you're going to see another party in control" of the House after the November elections.

 

We get it, Chris, we get it.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

[Ghost of BiB]

Whatever.

 

Something needs to get done across the board, though. How much time is spent by Congress Critters drumming up money vs. legislating?

 

I'm not savvy enough to understand lobbying anyway. No matter what angle I look at it from, it all looks like bribery to me.

[KRC]

Token moves with no substance. It is an election year, so they need to look like they are doing something without actually doing something. Gotta love Congresscritters.

[Johnny Coli]

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

631684[/snapback]

So it's totally cool with you that the party that has contol of all three branches of government is passing legislation (or attempting to pass legislation) that helps them in their goal of staying in power? And they're calling it "reform"? And I'm a whiner for pointing out the hypocrisy? Just trying to get a clear picture of what you're trying to say in your eloquent post, Joe.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

From the Washington Post...

GOP Seeks Curbs On '527' Groups

What with all the scandal surrounding Jack Abramoff, and his disclosed ties with members of congress (mostly those in the GOP, but who's counting, right), you'd think the GOP would want to at least pretend that there was some reform in the works.  Right?  Yeah, right.

That was pretty predictable, of course.  But this wasn't.

So "reform" really means cripple your opponent?

Uh huh.

We get it, Chris, we get it.

631662[/snapback]

 

You almost sound surprised. When's the last time the government did any sort of "ethics reform" that wasn't simply some sort of smokscreen to hide their lack of ethics? Isn't this just business as usual?

 

Although Shays' comment floored me. Some subtlety is usually exercised in these situations...

[Ghost of BiB]

You almost sound surprised.  When's the last time the government did any sort of "ethics reform" that wasn't simply some sort of smokscreen to hide their lack of ethics?  Isn't this just business as usual?

 

Although Shays' comment floored me.  Some subtlety is usually exercised in these situations... 

631753[/snapback]

 

Congress hasn't exactly been subtle, lately.

[Chilly]

I'll reform you.

[Mickey]

So it's totally cool with you that the party that has contol of all three branches of government is passing legislation (or attempting to pass legislation) that helps them in their goal of staying in power?  And they're calling it "reform"?  And I'm a whiner for pointing out the hypocrisy?  Just trying to get a clear picture of what you're trying to say in your eloquent post, Joe.

631727[/snapback]

You have to understand Joespeak where "waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" roughly translates to "you are right but I can't admit it". Does that help?

[Taro T]

From the Washington Post...

GOP Seeks Curbs On '527' Groups

What with all the scandal surrounding Jack Abramoff, and his disclosed ties with members of congress (mostly those in the GOP, but who's counting, right), you'd think the GOP would want to at least pretend that there was some reform in the works.  Right?  Yeah, right.

That was pretty predictable, of course.  But this wasn't.

So "reform" really means cripple your opponent?

Hasn't it always meant that?

Uh huh.

We get it, Chris, we get it.

631662[/snapback]

I would actually like to see the full text of his comments because it seems to me he was referring to "lobbying reform" in general, not the 527's in particular. But getting back to your previous comment, lobbying / campaign / whatever you want to call it reform is ALWAYS about protecting incumbents. Limiting the amount of money that can be spent by challengers (which is a big part of what 527's accomplish) is always considered a good idea by those in power.

[Taro T]

Whatever.

 

Something needs to get done across the board, though. How much time is spent by Congress Critters drumming up money vs. legislating?

 

I'm not savvy enough to understand lobbying anyway. No matter what angle I look at it from, it all looks like bribery to me.

631698[/snapback]

No, no, it's not bribery because the politician ALWAYS supports the position that the donator supports PRIOR to the donation. The money given to the politician is simply money given to support a person who holds the same position that the lobbyist / donor supports and help that person get (re)elected. Because the lobbyist knows what a wonderful job congresscritter x is doing and it is just a terrific coincidence that the lobbyist may be asked to help in drafting / formulating legislation.

 

It's just another way that we have the best elected officials that money can buy. (Apologies to Mel Brooks.)

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

No, no, it's not bribery because the politician ALWAYS supports the position that the donator supports PRIOR to the donation.  The money given to the politician is simply money given to support a person who holds the same position that the lobbyist / donor supports and help that person get (re)elected.  Because the lobbyist knows what a wonderful job congresscritter x is doing and it is just a terrific coincidence that the lobbyist may be asked to help in drafting / formulating legislation. 

 

It's just another way that we have the best elected officials that money can buy.  (Apologies to Mel Brooks.)

631905[/snapback]

I would like to read Shays comments to, usually he is an independent minded reformer and less partisan than most. 527s are a problem, I am not going to deny it, religious groups use the well too.

 

But would the consequences be?:

 

It would be interesting to see if besides the predicted short term dems get hurt. Long run it would force interest groups to more closely ally with a party and have less independence, money would flow more directly. This usually might help Dem unity, which they seem incapable of now, not because of ideas but egos...hmm.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

It would be interesting to see if besides the predicted short term dems get hurt.  Long run it  would force interest groups to more closely ally with a party and have less independence, money would flow more directly.  This usually might help Dem unity, which they seem incapable of now, not because of ideas but egos...hmm.

632043[/snapback]

 

The flip side of that is that the majority (by no means all...e.g. Pat Robertson's crowd) of whack-job nut-case bizarro parties seem to get lumped together with the Democrats by default. Closer ties between the Democratic Party and lunatics like, say, Earth First aren't necessarily a good thing.

[Taro T]

I would like to read Shays comments to, usually he is an independent minded reformer and less partisan than most.  527s are a problem, I am not going to deny it, religious groups use the well too. 

 

But would the consequences be?:

 

It would be interesting to see if besides the predicted short term dems get hurt.  Long run it  would force interest groups to more closely ally with a party and have less independence, money would flow more directly.  This usually might help Dem unity, which they seem incapable of now, not because of ideas but egos...hmm.

632043[/snapback]

That's the $29MM question. I don't know what the consequences would be, but am willing to predict they won't be what the "reformers" intend them to be.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

The flip side of that is that the majority (by no means all...e.g. Pat Robertson's crowd) of whack-job nut-case bizarro parties seem to get lumped together with the Democrats by default.  Closer ties between the Democratic Party and lunatics like, say, Earth First aren't necessarily a good thing.

632057[/snapback]

Earth firsties will always want separation and never give to the Dems, I am thinking more the groups that fundraise and then give to Dem or Repubs candidates or run independent expenditure ads during campaign.

 

Still not sure how you can right a bill changing this without violating SCOTUS rulings. Most likely there will be some additional reporting reqs, but that is probably all they can do. Structural changes can be worked around with good lawyers and both sides have them

 

More just pissing in the wind really. Lobbying agent reform is about all that can be addressed. Still very cynical they will actually do anything of substance that can stand up in the SCOTUS.