Senate begins ethics debate

[Ron Burgundy]

AP - The Senate debated Thursday whether to make lawmakers disclose more about their efforts to fund pet projects and raise money from lobbyists, a move that reform groups say is overdue.

Senate leaders said they hoped to win a showdown vote later in the day to end debate and ready the bill for final passage. A two-thirds majority is needed to end debate because the bill would change Senate rules, but a simple majority would suffice on final passage.

The measure "is the most sweeping reform bill since Watergate," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said as the debate began Thursday morning.

Some conservative Republicans said the bill doesn't go far enough, but they appeared uneasy about their hopes of blocking it. Senate approval would send the measure to President Bush for his signature, because the House overwhelmingly passed it Tuesday.

The Democratic-drafted legislation is a response to recent scandals that sent two GOP lawmakers and a prominent lobbyist to prison, and saw a House Democrat charged with bribery.

It would require lawmakers to disclose those lobbyists who raise $15,000 or more for them within a six-month period by "bundling" donations from many people. Lawmakers seeking targeted spending projects, known as "earmarks" on Capitol Hill, would have to publicize their plans in advance, although critics say the disclosure requirements are hardly airtight.

Gifts from lobbyists or their clients would be banned. Former senators would have to wait two years before lobbying Congress; ex-House members would have to wait one year.

Senators will vote three days after federal agents searched the Alaska home of longtime Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, as part of a probe into alleged influence-peddling.

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070802/ap_on_go_co/congress_ethics [link]

[Thorgrim]

So looks like the GOP could be blocking it...

[JaJae]

The major leaders who were blocking it already said yesterday they were going to stand down.. Ted Stevens and someone else. Apparently they recognize they aren't going to have enough votes because if they fight this bill on the grounds that it removes ethics reforms and isn't as strict as they want it the liberal media won't portray it that way and the headlines will read: "Republicans Fail to Prevent Ethics Reform Bill."

It's a shame this bill is a watered down version of real ethics reform and the Republicans don't have the balls to stand up to it. This bill is strong in areas where it is not as important and opens up loopholes where it matters, on top of it all Harry Reid has the magic deck to do whatever he wants in regards to earmarks. All of this is why some Republicans don't approve of this bill. But they're afraid of the headlines so they'll pass it.

[JaJae]

Senate Clears Path for Ethics Bill - Forbes.com

But several Republicans said it falls short of requiring full disclosure of "earmarks," or targeted spending items slipped into bills to fund pet projects sought by constituents, lobbyists or others.

"It has completely gutted the earmark reform provisions we overwhelmingly passed in January," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. He broke with several former allies on the open-government front. They included Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who embraced the bill as a major step forward.

One step forward, two steps back. In all honesty it's the earmarks that's killing us, not the $15,000 campaign donations. And basically this bill gives Harry Reid (one of the earmark Kings) the ability to bypass all earmark ethics rules which the Republicans aren't too happy with.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Senate Clears Path for Ethics Bill - Forbes.com


One step forward, two steps back. In all honesty it's the earmarks that's killing us, not the $15,000 campaign donations. And basically this bill gives Harry Reid (one of the earmark Kings) the ability to bypass all earmark ethics rules which the Republicans aren't too happy with.

Both of them kill us. Campaign donations and earmarks usually go hand in hand. But i do agree both need fixed. Spending bills need to be created with related programs (ex. not mixing military funding with child care) and passed on their own merits.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

The major leaders who were blocking it already said yesterday they were going to stand down.. Ted Stevens and someone else. Apparently they recognize they aren't going to have enough votes because if they fight this bill on the grounds that it removes ethics reforms and isn't as strict as they want it the liberal media won't portray it that way and the headlines will read: "Republicans Fail to Prevent Ethics Reform Bill."

It's a shame this bill is a watered down version of real ethics reform and the Republicans don't have the balls to stand up to it. This bill is strong in areas where it is not as important and opens up loopholes where it matters, on top of it all Harry Reid has the magic deck to do whatever he wants in regards to earmarks. All of this is why some Republicans don't approve of this bill. But they're afraid of the headlines so they'll pass it.

It's a mirror image of the house bill that was passed...what exactly did you find so terrible about the house list? please post a news article summarizing the house bill that was just passed and what is so depressing about it

bottom line: It's a huge ethics reform...if it doesn't do enough

guess what?

WE CAN GO BACK AND ADD MORE LATER!

There is nothing in this bill itself that I see "encouraging" corruption, all I see are moves to curb it...5 steps forward is better than saying "6 steps or zero"

[Thorgrim]

Lawmakers seeking earmarks would have to publicize their plans 48 hours before the Senate votes on them. They would have to certify the earmarks would not directly benefit them financially.

How is that not a MAJOR IMPROVEMENT over the GOP Congress? jees...

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

WE CAN GO BACK AND ADD MORE LATER!

We shouldn't have to go back and add stuff we already added because the Democrats in all their wisdom purposely removed very good ethics reform rules.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

We shouldn't have to go back and add stuff we already added because the Democrats in all their wisdom purposely removed very good ethics reform rules.

The only complaint I've heard from you is that Harry Reid may be a cheat and crook and then that would screw up the system

hey, there are tons of GOP watchdogs just waiting for that day to happen, if REAL PROBLEMS start showing up, then we can add more, but this is a HUGE step, and all this bitching and moaning that it isn't the most wonderful reform bill ever...when you realize it has to pass 2 houses of congress and a WH...which loathe each other

it's a big accomplishment, you start throwing in anymore, the whole thing could go under...lets not forget Ted Stevens vowed to block this, who knows what else is going to come up...every senator (except maybe Coburn) wants earmarks for their states, and their voters demand it...

All these reforms are causing major grumblings in DC (and not because its too weak)...which is a sure sign that its going to be hard hitting and effective

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The only complaint I've heard from you is that Harry Reid may be a cheat and crook and then that would screw up the system

You haven't been reading my posts then

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

You haven't been reading my posts then

again, point me to a news article of something thats different from an early draft to what the house just passed, and show me a difference you a truely concerned is a huge "step back" for reform

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

again, point me to a news article of something thats different from an early draft to what the house just passed

I don't understand this request. It sounds like a red herring?

show me a difference you a truely concerned is a huge "step back" for reform

Read the thread.

[Thorgrim]

All you have is two posts critical of harry reid's "power"...thats the only substantive attack you give