Congressional Ethics Reform: Pathetic

I was going to link the NYTimes article, but it's just reporting of the name calling going on in Washington and doesn't really have any substance. I got this link from a piece at QandO.

Let's be honest here. The Democrats and Republicans have essentially proposed the same cosmetic standards chages that was to be expected. It's just an ethics version of the Assault Weaons Ban. Don't you think it's time for someone to be offended that the politicos think we are this stupid? (Well then, there are a lot of stupid citizens out there.)

The Democrats at least proposed one that is clearly worthwhile. The stand on Earmarks is at least an intelligent proposal. Julie Kesselman has a couple of articles on Earmarks at Townhall.com.

But back to the cosmetics. Here are the GOP proposals outlined.

GOP PROPOSAL

The House Republican lobbying proposal would:

• Ban privately financed travel for House members.

• Ban gifts worth more than $20, down from the current limit of $50.

• Bar former lawmakers who are lobbyists from the House gym and House floor.

• Cancel the pensions of House members who are convicted of felonies related to official duties.

• Double to two years the ban on former members of Congress or staffers lobbying their former offices.

Lame. Though I do like the one on canceling their pension. The only problem with that is that most of these politicians are already wealthy, so I doubt that would make much of a mark. I wonder why they think reform of multiple minor allowances would distract the public from noticing that they are hiding the real problems? I suppose it's because most of the time people take far too little notice of what those in power are doing.

Oddly enough, it really appears that this ethics thing should really come down to Campaign finance reform. (again)

Lawmakers are about to bombard the public with proposals that would crack down on lobbyists. Several prominent plans, including one outlined Tuesday by House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) would specifically ban meals and privately paid travel for lawmakers.

Or would they?

According to lobbyists and ethics experts, even if Hastert's proposal is enacted, members of Congress and their staffs could still travel the world at an interest group's expense and eat on a lobbyist's account at the priciest restaurants in Washington.

The only requirement would be that whenever a lobbyist pays the bill, he or she also must hand the lawmaker a campaign contribution. Then the transaction would be perfectly OK.

"That's a big hole if they don't address campaign finance," said Joel Jankowsky, the lobbying chief of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, one of the capital's largest lobbying outfits.

Oh and this one always makes me smile.

"Political contributions are specifically exempted from the definition of what a gift is in House and Senate gift rules," said Kenneth Gross, an ethics lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. "So, unless the campaign finance laws are changed, if a lobbyist wants to sponsor an event at the MCI arena or on the slopes of Colorado, as long as it's a fund-raiser it would still be fine."

So the lobbyist can pass on a bribe by paying a campaign contribution or by holding a fund raising event for the politician. I'm going to be that we never see these mentioned seriously anywhere at any time by either party.

Here's a solution. Let's go to the level of one rule. Politicians can take as much money (or gifts) from anyone at any time, BUT, they have to provide complete disclosure of the money (or gifts). They would then be required to follow the same requirements as Sarbanes-Oxley required of CEOs in reporting financial dealings of companies. They would be required to sign off, under penalty of law, that the reports of money (or gifts) are completely accurate.

Oh, wait, I think they should also have to have a website, funded by the politicians themselves that provides public access to the reports. The website would need to be accurate to within say a month of the most recent dealings.

Well, I can dream, can't I?

UPDATE:
Almost forgot about Common Cause. Here is a link to their comparison of the reforms being presented by all groups. Go to the Enforcement and Campaign Finance sections toward the bottom. Amazingly blank.