Lobbying Reform: GOP and Democratic Proposals, Compare and Contrast
By Thorley Winston Posted in User Blogs — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Tuesday House Democrats lead by House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and Chairman of the House Rules Committee David Dreier (R-CA) outlined their principles for lobbying reform in the House of Representatives. Yesterday House Democrats lead by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) offered their own set of reforms.
From the House GOP:
A ban on privately-funded travel;
A significantly stronger gift ban, preventing members and staff from personally benefiting from gifts from lobbyists;
The elimination of floor and gym access for former members who are registered lobbyists;
Expanding the post-employment lobbying ban to two years for members and senior staff;
The forfeiture of a Congressional pension for any member convicted of a felony related to their official duties;
Stronger and more frequent disclosure on the part of lobbyists and third parties; and,
Make the ethics committee more user-friendly and require training for all members and staff.
From the House Democrats:
Ban all gifts and travel from lobbyists. Period.
Kill the K Street Project, the Republican plan that trades favors for lobbying jobs, and toughen public disclosure of lobbyist activity.
Remove the revolving door by doubling the amount of time Members and staff are prohibited from going from legislating to lobbying. Stop legislators from negotiating legislation, while also negotiating employment contracts for themselves with those who benefit from that legislation. Keep former Members who are lobbyists off the floor of Congress.
Next we would end the `dead of night' special interest provisions that turn bills into special-interest giveaways. Lawmakers must have the opportunity to read every bill before they vote on it. It's common sense.
Eliminate the practice of irresponsible no-bid contracts, bring criminal penalties against war profiteers, and ensure that the government contracting process is honest, open, competitive, and fair. No more Halliburtons.
Prohibit cronyism in key appointments by making sure any individual appointed to a position has proven credentials. Brownie certainly wasn't doing a `heck of a job' for the survivors of Hurricane Katrina.
My comments are below the fold, please vote in the accompanying poll.
Both proposals agree on at least two things - they would double from one to two years the length of time that House members and senior staff could become registered lobbyists and would ban privately-funded travel. It should be noted that the proposed ban on privately-funded travel would not change the practice of elected official traveling on private jets and reimbursing their hosts at charter rather than first class rates.
Arguably both agree on a gift ban although Hastert's comments indicated that he thought that there was a distinction between a House member getting a T-shirt or baseball cap from a group or students (okay) versus being taken to lunch by a lobbyist (not okay). Both proposals also called for "stronger" or "toughening" disclosures for lobbyists.
The House GOP proposal included a couple of specific provisions not included in the Democratic proposal, namely eliminating floor and gym access for former members that are registered lobbyists and the forfeiture of Congressional pensions for any member convicted of a felony related to their official duties. IMO the access restriction for former House members is probably one of the most significant proposals because that special access is what makes former Congressmen so sought after as lobbyists. Without being able approach their former colleagues on the floor at in private at the gym, their ability to exert any special influence would be curtailed especially while legislation is debated on the floor. This doesn't mean that the knowledge they've acquired during their service or the relationships they've built wouldn't give them an edge, but it would make them less appealing.
Neither set of proposals specifically addressed the issue of earmarks although Speaker Hastert said that was because it would be addressed in a separate set of proposals in February. The Democratic proposal did allude to "dead of night" provisions - presumably this means adding something into a bill before members have a chance to read it. It remains to be seen what if anything would be done about requiring that earmarks be listed in the main bill (as opposed to the record) so that members can see what the amounts are specifically being spent on or restricting the ability of the House to waive the House rules requiring that legislation be made available three days in advance (what you mean you didn't know that this was already the rule and that it's routinely waived?).
The remaining proposals by the House Democrats seem to be more about political posturing than any serious calls for reform. The gratuitous shot at former FEMA Director Michael Brown over Hurricane Katrina is particularly disgusting not only because the bulk of the political failure seems to belong at the State and local level but because the House isn't even involved in either the appointment (executive branch) or confirmation (Senate) process. The reference to Halliburton and conflating no-bid contracts and "war profiteering" for its whopping 2% profit margin suggests that the interest of Minority Leader Pelosi is in the issue of corruption rather than constructive reforms to fix it.
but I must say that I was impressed by the Dems even proposing a single item on their agenda beyond critizing their opponents.
Their new strategy must be to beat something with "almost nothing".
At least the GOP proposal reads like a press release about legislation. The democrat's really just reads like a press release. It's a shame since it started with such a clear and forceful statement - "Ban all gifts . . . .".
I'm surprised they didn't mention Richard Nixon or Credit Mobilier.
To make the ethics committee, "more user friendly'?
read it instead of Pelosi.
FREE TRAFFICANT!!!!!
You've seen and followed the hilarity here:
Would have liked a poll option that combines both lists. It didn't seem anything on either list was substantively objectionable in principle, so put them both together and then hope for actual enforcement.
The forfeiture of a Congressional pension for any member convicted of a felony related to their official duties;
I like this one a lot but will it make it through? Members of Congress are usually pretty reluctant to set up any scenario where they may actually have to face consequences. Where they do they usually figure out ways to skirt them anyway.
R: Stronger and more frequent disclosure on the part of lobbyists and third parties; and, and D: and toughen public disclosure of lobbyist activity.
Disappointed neither proposal would just come out and say "complete, accurate, and timely disclosure". Why are they scared to say "full" or "complete" disclosure? Stronger and tougher just mean there are still gaps to wiggle through. And it should be no issue at all to report necessary information within a week.
Ban all gifts and travel from lobbyists. Period.
Bravo, ban it all, with no qualifications like "privately-funded" and "significantly stronger". Don't even worry about t-shirts, these folks should have their mind on business, not photo-ops. Little Johnny wont cry if the Senator can't take his hat (oh ok, let him take it, an aide can can donate it to good will afterwards).
Keep former Members who are lobbyists off the floor of Congress.
It did appear this was part of both proposals, though the R list goes father by specifying a gym. I hadn't pictured a Congressional gym with sweaty elected officials and lobbyists co-mingling... how thoroughly appalling!
Why would ex-congressmen want to hang out in a gym with other sweaty congressmen?
Seriously... I think both lists are great. The Dem list did have a cheap shot at Brownie, but the rest of it made sense.
Breaking up Halliburton made sense? How will they do that - revoke their corporate charter, issue a letter of marque, make Arthur Anderson their auditor?
Like so much of recent democratic policy it started out clear and concise, and with unwavering consistency went surely and directly to illogically overreaching Talking Points - Brownie/FEMA and Halliburton.
Time to send that rerun to obscure late night cable.
There is good stuff and opportunity galore, but the left needs to focus and accomplish, rather than froth and spew. Anything, please just anything but more of this.
I didn't see that the Dems wanted to break up Halliburton. It seemed to me that they want to "Eliminate the practice of irresponsible no-bid contracts, bring criminal penalties against war profiteers, and ensure that the government contracting process is honest, open, competitive, and fair."
Granted, their "No more Halliburtons" suffix is blatantly political, but it gives their position context. Making the Pentagon use the free market for bids, and punishing companies who cheat the government out of our tax dollars, is a good thing.
If Halliburton actually had to compete for their bids, as well as be held liable for "profiteering", then everything is fine. They don't have to be broken up "anti-trust" style.
Both wish to double the waiting period. Both seek to stop personal profit from lobbyists. Both want more disclosure on lobbyist activities.
But where I really like the Dem plan is the dead of night part. Actually reading the bills, what a novel idea.
I also really like the idea of having appointments that are qualified and don't have a conflict of interest.
Dem plan is more comprehensive and has some common sense ideas.
How about blow them to smithereens, or obliterate them?
The mere inclusion of the word "Halliburton" deserves a Pavolvian response - whatever it accompanies is incredible!
This recalls Clinton's use of the "coddling China" issue against Bush 41. He wins, he continues Bush 41's china policy without variation (until you mention campaign fundraising and Buddhist temples, where he went one better), and nobody is the wiser.
Same deal here - what would Reid, Pelosi, et. al. do to Halliburton that's any different than current policy? Halliburton essentially has monopoly power on its sales of goods and services - who is going to win any bid (competitive, contractual, smokyroomed) against it? And you don't get to use foreign competition without foregoing the "outsourcing" political club. It's getting slapped a bit on some of its auditing snafus, and probably has some rogue division managers, but it has no serious competition, aside from the military itself.
THEN - they compound the inanity by mentioning Michael Brown - yeah - he's the archetype for lobbying abuse - isn't that what we're discussing?
Focus - they need to focus! Plenty of issues available - they don't all start, end, or even remotely include FEMA or Halliburton.
Now, if Jack Abramoff is holding options from Halliburton and retained to negotiate infrastructure reconstruction contracts in Louisiana - then they've gotta a helluva issue. That'd be fun.
that the inclusion of Halliburton and Brownie in the Dems list is "stick-in-the-eye" political.
I disagree that because they have no connection to Abramoff that they are off limit topics.
What does Halliburton have to do with lobbying? The fact that they've gotten no-bid contracts while having very powerful contacts in Washington. I'm not accusing anyone specifically of wrongdoing, but there is no "free market" here. So Halliburton has an effective monopoly over the goods and services they provide, making the use of anyone else unfeasible? That's not a free market, because there is no free market. Only the government and Halliburton.
As to the mentioning of Brownie, that issue can be seen as the reverse of "congressment becoming lobbyists". Any peripheral political people in Washington, i.e. lobbyists, donors, etc. shouldn't be appointed to positions they aren't qualified for. The mention of Brownie was an intended "pointed stick" by the Dems, but the issue of unqualified appointees is real.