This Story is Archived
Ethics Overhaul Tops the Agenda in New Congress »
Posted by: Beau7890 1 year, 8 months agoOn the brink of regaining power after 12 years, House Democrats said Wednesday that they would move immediately to try to sever ties between lawmakers and lobbyists who figured into scandals that helped Democrats win control of Congress.
Read Full Story at nytimes.com »
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 187
-
Donnaich
Jan. 4, 2007, 3:11 a.m.I think both parties should sever ties with lobbyists and quit "earmarking".
Some say "But lobbying is free speech!". They even try to equate money to a "vote". Considering that every person's vote is supposedly equal, then why is it that we're allowing some "votes" to be worth more than others? No, its not needed! If these groups want to fund people being there for political staffers' reference on their views, fine. But no money, wining, dining, or favors to politicians.
-
Spadecaller
Jan. 4, 2007, 3:24 a.m.Agreed! Let's stop playing games with our democracy; lobbying has done enough damage to it. It must go or any hopes of restoring democracy will fall by the wayside.
-
jeffery1
Jan. 4, 2007, 2:03 p.m.Your concerns are why we need to publically finance our elections and minimize the affect of private money. A lot of people seem to dislike public financin but look what privatizing it has done.
At least with public financing those elected would owe those that brung 'em, the public.
-
protoham
Jan. 4, 2007, 2:12 p.m.You can bad mouth Corporations all you want, but the bottom line is: without them we would all be out of work. We seem to be doing our best to chase these companies out of this country then complain that the only jobs we can find is behind the counter at Mickey D's or as greeter at Wallmart. It is only natural that companies have an interest in politics, and I don't see this changing anytime soon.
-
RyderMunz
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:20 a.m.I totally agree. Lobbyism is not free speech. It belittles the one voice-one vote foundation of a democracy and replaces it with money. The more money you have, the more influence you can buy. This is undemocractic. I think all Lobbyism should end, and anyone caught taking lobbyism money should be forced to resign, no question asked. It should be a super court admendment to ban lobbyism.
-
-
Star_Poet
Jan. 4, 2007, 6:32 a.m.You've got to be joking??? Politicians actually discussing "ethics?" in the U.S.?
I'll believe it when I see it.
If it happens, I'll be first in line to applaud a great respresentational job well done.
My scepticism prevents me from believing that if politicians are actually discussing ethics, that they will have any clue what the concept of ethics is about.
-
-
betruthful
Jan. 4, 2007, 11:43 a.m.starpoet - I think they discuss ethics, over a cocktail, and then laugh and reject them.
-
-
jay61
Jan. 4, 2007, 7:14 a.m.Nice concept, good luck. Republican business interests outweigh the Democrats business interests by far. The Dems have to go along for the ride. Republicans would never give up major business control in this country.
-
-
m-simon
Jan. 4, 2007, 2:34 p.m.It would be much better if polititians ran the country.
Then we could do away with business alltogether.
Following that we would be rich beyond belief.
-
LeftTurn
Jan. 4, 2007, 10:17 p.m.Maybe because the majority of republicans, seem to be the ones in "the program", and their are a few Democrats as well? It took a little while before America knew what the hell it got itself into, and who was behind it, and we will never know or prove any of it. But it doesn't take allot of research to know where this good ol' boy came from and who his daddy is today, who was Prescott's boy don't foget, very powerful and wealthy these guys are. To me, "they" totally exploited the system the way it is now, and used their boy Bushy jr. as the goat for all this. Not only for "their" own wealth and personal gain, but they did it illegally and will probably get away with it at this point.
We need to make it so someone is not influenced by money to vote on laws, period!
We need to make it so having more money doesn't do you any good running for President.
Laws makes things so, just ask Bush Jr.
-
-
Bobcat6
Jan. 4, 2007, 8:12 a.m.Well discussing ethics is one thing. To actually practice it will be another ball game. Nancy Pelosi is on the verge of doing great things or putting great embarrassment on the dems. After all, it was 12 years that they were the minority. What does that tell U? We shall see.
-
-
-
Uttles
Jan. 4, 2007, 9:57 p.m.Yeah, that's what makes me laugh at all the democrats these days. They're claiming "for the common good" like a bunch of communists while telling us how they're going to "remove corruption" from the government. Well what in the hell but corruption would you call all the socialist programs the democrats push? Here's a good one for you: raising the minimum wage. Ah the democrats want to push a good ol handout from mama gubment, making you think they really care about poor people. Well aside from the fact that simple economics says minimum wage is a terrible idea, the real reason they want to raise it is because union workers are paid a multiple of minimum wage per hour. So they go around talking about helping the poor when in fact they're just trying to pat their union buddies on the back for all the "voluntary" votes they get.
-
-
m-simon
Jan. 4, 2007, 2:38 p.m.You will hardly ever get ethical people in government. They are not attracted to the job.
The answer is smaller government with limited powers.
-
jeffery1
Jan. 4, 2007, 5:45 p.m.What makes you think that lack of ethics has anything to do with government necessarily? It doesn't. It has everything to do with human nature and power. People in business are in no way less unethical than people in government. After all, who creates the unethical situation but private citizens wanting to improve their lot by corrupting politicians and politicians seeking benefit from private citizens looking to improve their lot. It takes two to tango, dude.
"Smaller government" means nothing.
-
-
Nowalive
Jan. 4, 2007, 8:50 a.m.I keep telling you that this is just posturing. These proposed reforms will be stalled until '08 and then fall by the wayside. This is the beginning of the run up to the '08 Presidential election and as such NO work will be done as they will all be campaigning.
I say we get back to basics. We need average Americans with common sense to be in government. The OVERLEGISLATION of this country makes it impossible to get anything done. There are far too many lawyers, and not enough mechanics running the country.
-
walden3
Jan. 4, 2007, 8:53 a.m.if the democrats stole money from orphaned blind cute little itsy bisty african babies with aids they wouldn't be any worse than what the lying republican thugs have perpetrated on the american people over the past six years.
-
-
flyrod
Jan. 4, 2007, 8:57 a.m.You have to remember that anytime one group takes over from the other group they have to say these things. When the Republicans came to power they were going to restore morality and family values. Until these politicians eliminate the lobbyist and do away campaign contributions ethics will take a back seat. Now, should we talk about the recent snowfall in Hell.......
-
Beau7890
Jan. 4, 2007, 9:06 a.m.I can understand the bitterness and cynicism that keeps us from trusting what many politicians say, but...jeez, give 'em a chance to take office first, to see if it can happen.
But there are other obstructions. We'll see if Bush vetoes any ethics legislation coming out of Congress. (The Dems don't have enough votes to override such a veto.) And as far as campaign contributions go, until the Supreme Court reverses itself about contributions being equivalent to speech, it will be hard to pass meaningful campaign finance reform and nullify the power of money in buying influence.
-
Nowalive
Jan. 4, 2007, 9:06 a.m.Then I say vote for me. Put up a common man to shame the "old boy network" into listening to their EMPLOYERS. Americans have forgotten that the government, the people elected to represent us, work for us. We, as an electorate, have become complacent. Because of this Americans no longer vote with conviction. We just show up at the polling stations and stand in line. America has stopped voting issues, and now strictly votes party. Sad...truly sad.
-
-
Beau7890
Jan. 4, 2007, 9 a.m.It's a step in the right direction. Bobcat, you're right that we'll see what happens with the ethics legislation. I'll be watching closely in the next month or so to see what the new Congress can do.
But what's been missing for far too long in Congress is oversight of the whole process of lobbying, junkets and gifts paid for by those who would buy access to legislators.
And clkbeus, it's precisely because we don't yet know what the legislators will do, that we need oversight from an ethics committee--you don't know for sure whether the people you elect are ethical until they start to act--and by that time, it's too late to set up such a committee. The Repubs who've controlled Congress since 1995 have dismantled oversight in the name of "saving taxpayer money"--then wasted more of money for pet projects and to reward contributors and lobbyists (or just to profit directly themselves), than they've saved. Let's look at how war money has been spent--Halliburton, anyone?
-
Nowalive
Jan. 4, 2007, 9:54 a.m.Funny you should mention that.
Why I would make a decent President:
1. I am not an insider.
2. I am a mechanic, mechanics can fix anything.
3. I couldn't do any worse.
I have been trying since the 80's to form a grassroots movement to reform our "representation". 85% of elected officials are, or were attorneys, hence the OVERlegislation in America. Most passed laws are contradicted by several others.
-
-
Amazing1
Jan. 4, 2007, 9 a.m.Please note that they are not addressing the campaign contributions. Trips, meals, gifts, OK. But not their campaign contributions. This is not a substantive change until they put all lobbyists out of business.
The only lobbying they should receive is letters and communications from PEOPLE. They should be handwritten and signed by a CITIZEN. Corporations have no business trying to influence our legislators. They should tend to their knitting, pay their fair share of taxes and stay the hell out of government.
Campaign contributions should be the same. All these legislators already jockeying for position to get re-elected must stop.
-
Beau7890
Jan. 4, 2007, 9:08 a.m.I agree that campaign contributions are a larger issue, Amazing1. But see my post above in response to flyrod about that--Congress can't do it by itself because the Supreme Court has ruled that contributions can't be equalized--the Court has equated freedom to contribute with free speech.
-
Nowalive
Jan. 4, 2007, 9:16 a.m.Excellent points.
I became empassioned to work for change in the 80's, when I first got cable and found a channel called CSPAN. I could not believe my eyes. The sight of nearly empty chambers, and running suits nearly caused me to smash my TV. It hasn't gotten much better since.
Research some of the attendance records of our "representatives". I have seen attendance as low as 40%. If I only showed up to work 40% of the time, I would have been fired in a week.
I'll bet if they were only paid 40% of their salary, based on attendance, they would start showing up for work.
That is one of my reform initiatives.
-
-
bill2936
Jan. 4, 2007, 9:16 a.m.The best way to minimize the influence of lobbist in DC is to enact 'term limits' for both houses of Congress.
-
bigG
Jan. 4, 2007, 10:33 a.m.I am not sure just how effective that would be. I suspect the lobbyists will just "buddy up" to the new candidates with the aid of the candidate's respective party. Business as usual.
How does that song go? "Here's the new boss, the same as the old boss" (The Who)
-
-
evelyna
Jan. 4, 2007, 9:26 a.m.I hope the insurance and the pharmacutical lobbies are the first to go.
They have cost us too much already.
All they do is pass useless legislation that favors themselves.
When they cannot work they are protected for life.
That is where all of us should get a job. No work involved here. No wonder the arabs are beating us. They may actually spend time working and learning new things.
-
HomeGManComment has been removed: User banned.
-
samsara15
Jan. 4, 2007, 9:35 a.m.I tend to be very pessimistic about lawmakers and ethical issues. Ethics and government are not and never have been good partners. Corruption is normal, unfortunately.
-
Beau7890
Jan. 4, 2007, 12:25 p.m.I think you're right--corruption goes hand in hand with power. That's why I always think oversight, strong regulation, and a set of consistent and fair rules is the best answer. Unfortunately, the rules are often made by the abusers of power.
-
-
Sandokan
Jan. 4, 2007, 10:04 a.m.Lobbying started off to be the collective voice of the minority. With time the coat of the minority changed, albeit still the minority, they (it) became the elite or the corporations. There are many lobbyist groups on the Hill, not all are bad. We have a lobbyist group for Veterans Rights, there is the lobby group for AARP ...so you can't lump them all under one blanket and say they're bad.
But one can set a ethics standard to their practices. One like this one, which will be welcomed by the "legit" lobbyist groups. After all this will level the playing field giving the "little guys" a chance again.
-
bill2936
Jan. 4, 2007, 10:28 a.m.You make a point which shows why the Dems effort will all be for show. Namely that everyone thinks that their lobbying group is good while another is bad. While some think AARP (for medicare increases and more SS benefits) is good, some think it is bad (anti-self protection, anti-privitized retirement accounts for younger workers). And the list goes on for any lobbying group.
-
Donnaich
Jan. 5, 2007, 8:56 a.m.You have a point, Sando, there are some constructive groups out there... but do they have to use MONEY to get their points across? It should be the power of the ideas, not the pocketbook, that gets action.
I believe that's what you mean about the ethics standards, correct me if I'm wrong. Personally, I think ANY monetary contribution should be illegal, period. They can always contribute information and education. I have no problem with that.
-
-
NoParty
Jan. 4, 2007, 10:53 a.m.So does all this mean that the socialist party will have to give all that money back to Soros? Or do you get to keep what you have, and start being ethical tomorrow? Or at least more careful not to get caught? They're all 'ethical' til they get caught.
-
HomeGManComment has been removed: User banned.
-
-
-
DoubleEdgedSword
Jan. 4, 2007, 10:54 a.m.What ethics? The Democrats are as ethical as the Republicans. And vice versa.
-
NoParty
Jan. 4, 2007, 10:58 a.m.bill2936: The best way to minimize the influence of lobbist in DC is to enact 'term limits' for both houses of Congress.
(applause and standing ovation)
-
HomeGManComment has been removed: User banned.
-
-
NoParty
Jan. 4, 2007, 11:08 a.m.It's a sad day when we let a p.o.s like Soros dictate who's elected in this country and how they perform.
-
betruthful
Jan. 4, 2007, 12:06 p.m.With Murcock ( an Aussie )and his Washington pimp station Fox leading the theft is is amazing you select Sorros to mention! Hmmm?
-
-
Twistoflex
Jan. 4, 2007, 11:13 a.m.Beyond the rhetorical flourishes, I kind of doubt that they're really going to cut ties with lobbyists. If you know how Washington works, your conclusion would be incontrovertible: it's a stinking cesspool of corruption and conflict of interest. In the end, only one party gets screwed: the American taxpayer - mainly, the Middle Class - which is viewed as nothing more than tax livestock.
Parasitical politicians go through a revolving door. They begin by conning voters to put them in office and end up working for the industries whose legislation was written for them and by them - including lobbying firms. It gets much worse than this. Today, foreign agents have more representation in the US Congress than American citizens and our taxpayer money subsidizes them.
Ever wonder why the world is so screwed up and we can never achieve peace or a lick of progress against drugs? It's because of the profiteering from bloodshed, narco-trafficking and money laundering. It starts here.
-
shahoo2
Jan. 4, 2007, 11:13 a.m.So decision came in hand that some one who close to USA a mean of governering on country"s intursion to lobbists, but alwell we say ethic did they want to neggotiate capturing seat in congress or we say the democracy party are intending for re-election. they undirectly steadly,make a new.
to adjust the new millitry scheem for that to suggest in building the the Iraq own security millitry,but if they try to oust republicans by the way of thier intention that they are commited something wrong as scandals we do not believe,
while every thing are up to date where as George w Bush can manage to do good thought reform for Americans nation believe it this a truth not remove him .....God great on all who participated the death of GERALd FORD.wish judgements for presidentials seats will approach with .
-
Helixbuilder
Jan. 4, 2007, 11:19 a.m.How generous of George to offer to cut 'earmarks' in half while he increases the war budget by a factor of 2 for the year.
-
ETproductions
Jan. 4, 2007, 11:31 a.m."The rules changes would also take aim at the so-called K Street Project, the effort associated with the hardball tactics of the former Republican leader Tom DeLay, to pressure trade groups and lobbying firms to hire Republicans or face the legislative consequences. The proposal would prohibit lawmakers and staff members from trying to exert partisan influence on hiring decisions."
Wow. The New Republicans really did plan to turn America into a ruling party de facto dictatorship, didn't they?
-
Beau7890
Jan. 4, 2007, 12:34 p.m.Good point, ET. When so many people out here say that the Dems are the same as the Repubs, I think that, yes, everyone in power has some tendency toward corruption. But holy crap--no legislators in this country have EVER dictated who the lobbyists and trade groups could hire in order to gain access. How BLATANT a misuse of power is that?
At least, not until the neo-cons took over Congress.
-
-
HomeGManComment has been removed: User banned.
The first 118 comments are shown. Show all 187 comments »
Submitted By:
Beau7890
I used to have a quote here from Andre Breton, author of several surrealist works.
I now think that if you're here on Propeller ...
Also submitted:
- 1.0 - Running Against Themselves
- 1.0 - Dave Barry: Poking around at Palin-Palooza
- 5.0 - Northern Underexposure
- 4.9 - John, Don't Go
