Ethics Fencing in the
Senate
EDITORIAL, NYTimes on
the Web, January 15, 2007
The Senate’s promising start in
reforming its ethical shortcomings is showing signs of slippage. Senators
ducked a worthy amendment that would bar members from putting family members on
campaign payrolls, or see kin become lobbyists. The proposal was ruled
unrelated to the debate over lobbyist and ethics reforms, which is hardly the
case.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, insisted that there’s no such
problem in the Senate. Critics instantly noted that her fellow
Californian, Senator Barbara Boxer, paid $130,000 from her campaign funds to her
son’s political consultant firm. In the House, the campaign kitty of
Representative John Doolittle, Republican of California, paid $200,000 to his
wife as a designated campaign consultant working at home. Congress’s
reputation cannot afford more such embarrassments.
As the Senate debate continues, there are key proposals that will test how real
all the talk is about reform. Some lawmakers are already trying to water
down the proposal of majority leader Harry Reid, which would stop senators from
accepting the nearly free use of corporate jets. Opponents on both sides
of the aisle are also intent on blocking a measure from Senators Barack Obama
and Russell Feingold, which would force lobbyists to disclose the vast campaign
funds they routinely raise from corporate donors eager to grease access to
lawmakers. The money would still flow, but special-interest bagmen would
have to list the take on public record.
Equally vital is the proposal to make lobbyists and their employers regularly
disclose their “earmarking” rounds, where lawmakers are induced to pepper money
bills with small fortunes in favors without debate or public notice.
Lobbyists would have to list the specific earmark they sought, their client and
the lawmakers they approached.
Another important measure would force disclosure of who is paying for media
campaigns in the name of fake grass-roots politicking. Such shell games
could still go on as free speech, but the public could find out who’s paying the
bill. These measures give senators a much-needed opportunity to prove they
are on the side of the voter, not the lobbyist.
|
