ABC News informs us that "House Democrats are suddenly balking at the tough lobbying reforms they touted to voters last fall as a reason for putting them in charge of Congress." "Now that they are running things," says ABC, "many Democrats want to keep the big campaign donations and lavish parties that lobbyists put together for them." Similarly, they are "having second thoughts about having to wait an extra year before they can become high-paid lobbyists themselves should they retire or be defeated at the polls."
The upshot is that key reform proposals that "once seemed on track to fulfill Democrats' campaign promise of cleaner fundraising and lobbying practices" now are "in danger of being dropped from the House version." Among these reforms are proposals to require lobbyists to disclose details about large donations they arrange for politicians, to make former lawmakers wait two years, instead of one, before lobbying Congress, and to bar lobbyists from throwing large parties for lawmakers at national political conventions.
As I wrote on this blog last month:
"Although the House Dems ran against the 'culture of corruption' in Congress, the subtext apparently was their desire to gain control of the institution in order to take maximum advantage of that culture. The story of politicians running against corruption only to succumb eventually to the very corruption they oppose is familiar one. What's unique here is the absence of a transition period -- when it comes awarding themselves perks at the taxpayers expense, the Dems have hit the ground running."
It's nice to be right, but on this one I'd rather be wrong.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. If the bill passes, wait for the veto.
Webster Hubble Telescope at 10:02PM on May 11th 2007
2. Mr. Mirengoof -
You also wrote your BS "heckling" story last month. Were you right on that one too ? I suppose you think DeLay, Ney, Cunningham, Abramoff, and the rest represent the good old honest days of Congress. Didn't hear a peep from you while these guys robbed the country blind while running the national debt up to 9 TRILLION DOLLARS and got us into the mess we now call Iraq. But thanks for playing watchdog for the public - too bad you were asleep the past few years when they really could have used you.
max at 11:31PM on May 11th 2007
3. Oh please, Mirengoff!
When (R)'s were in control of Congress you were blind to not just corruption and indictments, but actual Republicans being actually found guilty and/or imprisoned. Now, you tell us, "...the subtext apparently was (the Democrats) desire to gain control of the institution in order to take maximum advantage of that culture (of corruption)." Okay, so you say there is a "culture of corruption" NOW even though there apparently wasn't one BEFORE even though the Democrats wanted to "gain control of the ..."?
So, how about in the White House? Are the "Libs" just going to take it over so they can take advantage of its "culture of corruption" even though it's not currently corrupt because even when Republicans are corrupt, they aren't?
Cheers,
lil_turk at 11:53PM on May 11th 2007
4. Paul - I guess you really did practice law at some point. I saw FOUR litigator "tricks" in just this short blog.
FIRST: you cite ABC about a purported FUTURE danger and act like its a past and present tense Democratic reality.
SECOND: selective quotation from ABC. Why don't you emulate Jeff Hoard's honesty and SHOW the entire clip of the report so we don't have to rely on your editing. If you're not internet saavy, I'm sure he'll be happy to show you how to do it. Without full disclosure, and considering your tactics, we can only assume this is selective quotation thats totally out of sync with the entire ABC clip.
THIRD: an entire focus on ONE selective purportedly dead Democratic weed while ignoring the HUGE dead Republican forest right beside it. Good advocacy, poor honesty. Along with your GUESS about future legislation and ethics rules based on your selective quotation of a report that in total could say something totally opposite to what you purport it says, why don't you compare your speculation based on selective quotations with a full itemization of the PILE of PROVEN Republican rot, corruption and greed of Congress from 2000 to 2006. I didn't end the last sentence with a question mark because it was a rhetorical question. Of course you'd never do this - it would ruin the attempted result of the blog.
FOURTH: Putting your own past totally slanted ADVOCACY in quotes and treating it as quotation of FACTS from a neutral expert. Litigators only do this when they are absolutely DESPERATE; and good litigators never do it because it always gets laughed out of court and is always used as a basis to show how weak the case is for the lawyer who does use this tactic. "His case is so weak he had to quote his own hyperbole and treat it like an expert opinion, because that's all he has."
Paul, the reason you've been such a dud in the blogosphere is because you have never been able to make the transition from lawyer (governed by professional rules of conduct that few non-lawyers understand) to persuasive blogger (which requires a little more honesty than the professional rules of conduct). For example, a lawyer breaches professional ethics when he admits the fault of his client unless its indisputable (in which case, for example, not admitting it in response to requests for admissions is a breach of ethics and has other punishments), or unless its absolutely necessary to pass the "straight face" test with the full informed consent of the client backed up by a lengthy attorney-client written CYA letter (written by the lawyer that is) to insulate the lawyer from a later state bar complaint for ethical breach and a malpractice suit.
But, unless you want to continue your seemingly non-stop losing career in the blogosphere because your an old dog that can't learn new tricks, you'll have to supplement your lawyer mind set with a few new tricks. One reason for that is now I'M HEEEEERE. I know every litigation trick in the book and then some - and I'll be happy to share them with your readers.
Phil at 8:36AM on May 12th 2007
5. Hmmm...these guys ain't Dems
New charges have been filed alleging that the CIA's former No. 3 official used his influence in that role to support a proposed $100 million government contract for his best friend, a defense contractor, in return for lavish vacations, private jet flights and a lucrative job offer.
The indictment, returned Thursday by a federal grand jury in San Diego, supersedes charges brought in February against career CIA man Kyle "Dusty" Foggo and Poway-based contractor Brent Wilkes. The charges grew from the bribery scandal that landed former U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham in prison..
http://www.fresnobee.com/384/story/47208.html
Even Rove and Gonzales firing US Attorney Carol Lam couldn't stop this one.
Monica Goodling was put in charge of firing US Attorneys. What are her credentials? Oh yeah,she's a Bushite and a grad of Pat Robertson's law school atRegent U...
taters at 3:22PM on May 12th 2007
6. After all that wingnut bed wetting about media bias, suddenly Bush's bobbysoxers consider ABC News an impeccable source. Paulie, if the media are unbiased when you like what they say, but biased when you DON'T like what they say, than the "bias" is all yours.
As for your clownish post above, which equates speculation about future actions by the Democrats with actual Republicans in actual jail cells, I note with interest your de facto
after-the-fact acknowledgement that the GOP congress was corrupt. Somehow, you managed to keep this insight to yourself when the GOP was in power.
By the way, if the Democrats in Congress DO pass these reforms, I am sure you will praise them for it and acknowledge that the above post was wrong. I mean, anything else would be rank hypocrisy, right?
richter at 10:36AM on May 12th 2007
7. Rosie, Peanut & Babs are BIG FAT PIGS!
robert at 10:39PM on May 12th 2007