19)This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
Here is another opinion on the new and "improved" language:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-unveil...
removal of a ban on trading earmarks for votes
transferal of authority to certify compliance with earmark disclosure to chairmen or the majority leader rather than the Senate parliamentarian.
Senior Democratic aides asserted the new ethics bill merely brings the original Senate earmark language which DeMint often noted was identical to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) in line with what the House passed as a rules change in January.
Members retain the right to offer amendments to strike earmarks that they believe were not disclosed properly, although the new bill does not guarantee consideration.
Prohibiting only earmarks that exclusively benefit lawmakers and their families, as opposed to benefits that include business partners or neighbors, is "obscene," Coburn said.
"The new language mirrors existing Senate rules which have done nothing to prevent these serious conflicts of interest," Coburn said.
Looks like they have indeed weakened the legislation passed in January
We need to find out who wanted the legislation weakened - there are 83 of them