Will congress pass meaningful ethics legislation?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democrats in Congress divided on ethics rules

By David D. Kirkpatrick / The New York TimesPublished: November 19, 2006

WASHINGTON: : After railing for months against congressional corruption under Republican rule, Democrats in Congress are divided on how far their proposed ethics overhaul should go.

Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate, mindful that voters in the midterm election cited corruption as a major concern as they handed control of Congress to the Democrats, say they are moving quickly to complete a package of proposed changes. The changes could be ready for consideration as soon as the new Congress convenes in January.

The initial proposals, laid out earlier this year, would prohibit members from accepting meals, gifts or travel from lobbyists, require lobbyists to disclose all contacts with lawmakers, and bar former lawmakers-turned-lobbyists from entering the floor of the chambers or congressional gymnasiums.

None of those measures would overhaul campaign financing or create an independent ethics watchdog to enforce the rules.

Nor would they significantly restrict earmarks, the pet projects lawmakers can insert anonymously into spending bills, which have figured in several recent corruption scandals and attracted criticism from both parties. The proposals would require disclosure of the sponsors of some earmarks, but not all.
But some Democrats say their election is a mandate for more sweeping changes. Many newly elected candidates, citing scandals involving several Republican lawmakers last year, made congressional ethics a major issue during the campaign.

After the Democrats won a majority, Nancy Pelosi, the California representative who will be the new speaker of the House, promised "the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/19/news/dems.php

They talk the talk. But will they walk the walk? Do you believe that the best congress that money can buy will do what is needed?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 483 • Replies: 10

No top replies

I thought most of those had been voted on before. They will not change as long as the old barracudas are there, they like the perks too much.

0 Replies

That depends on what you mean by meaningful.

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

That depends on what you mean by meaningful.[/quote

Legislation that closes the loopholes that allow congress people to accept gifts from lobbyists and special interests. And adequate punishment for wrong doers. I would also hope that a separate commission be established to investigate alleged ethics abuses by congress people rather than by the political animals known as congress people themselves.

0 Replies

U.S. Congress: Desperately seeking ethics

Published: December 11, 2006

Watching their elected leaders in action, it's not surprising that Americans wonder if there is any limit to the crass misbehavior that members of Congress are willing to tolerate from their colleagues to protect their privileges and hold on to their own jobs. The House ethics committee answered that question Friday with a resounding "No."

Sixty-four days after it promised to find out who knew about Representative Mark Foley's wildly inappropriate, sexually predatory behavior with teenage House pages, and why they failed to stop it, the bipartisan committee produced a report Friday that was a 91-page exercise in cowardice.

The report's authors were clearly more concerned about protecting the members of the House than the young men and women under their charge in the page program. And they made absolutely no effort to define the high standard of behavior that should be required of all members of Congress and their staffs.

The committee, which never heard from Foley, did not call for disciplinary action against current members of the House or their staffs. The committee said those who have already left, like Foley, were no longer its problem.

The panel's justification for inaction is a breathtaking exercise in sophistry: "the requirement that House members and staff act at all times in a manner that reflects creditably on the House does not mean that every error in judgment or failure to exercise greater oversight or diligence" is a violation.

0 Replies

With people like Alcee Hastings, William Jefferson, John Murtha, & Barney Franks in office....

0 Replies

LSM
Why restrict it to democrats?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

LSM
Why restrict it to democrats?

Because the dems are in the catbirds seat, they control. However, if you wish to name others, go for it.

0 Replies

LoneStarMadam wrote:

au1929 wrote:
LSM
Why restrict it to democrats?

Because the dems are in the catbirds seat, they control. However, if you wish to name others, go for it.

Not yet. However, no matter who is in the catbird seat. I doubt that much will change. Congress people are elected by the people but are in business for themselves. We have the best congress money can buy.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:
au1929 wrote:
LSM
Why restrict it to democrats?

Because the dems are in the catbirds seat, they control. However, if you wish to name others, go for it.

Not yet. However, no matter who is in the catbird seat. I doubt that much will change. Congress people are elected by the people but are in business for themselves. We have the best congress money can buy.

Now that we're in total agreement on.

0 Replies

LoneStarMadam wrote:

au1929 wrote:
LSM
Why restrict it to democrats?

Because the dems are in the catbirds seat, they control. However, if you wish to name others, go for it.

Live in the real world: their Congress hasn't been sworn in yet. There is nothing like a conservative male for corruption and more.

0 Replies

Will congress pass meaningful ethics legislation?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know