Republicans Pushing Weak Ethics Bill
Also see below:
E-Mail Trail From Abramoff Included GSA Bargain-Hunting [
Watchdogs Say House Ethics Reform Is a "Scam" [
No Outcry About Lobby Scandal, Lawmakers Say
Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Thomas B. Edsall
The Washington Post
Thursday 27 April 2006
Republicans see little risk in pushing modest ethics bill.
The scandal surrounding disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff has been a Washington obsession for months, but Republican lawmakers who returned from a two-week recess this week said they felt free to pass a relatively tepid ethics bill because their constituents rarely mention the issue.
The House is scheduled to vote today on ethics legislation to increase lobbyists' disclosures and require lawmakers to own up to the earmarks, or narrow projects, that they insert into appropriations bills. But the measure would not restrict the gifts or meals provided by lobbyists as House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) had proposed in January, nor would it expand the number of enforcers of lobbying rules and laws.
Lawmakers acknowledge that the bill is more limited in its scope and impact than the provisions promised by congressional leaders immediately after Abramoff's guilty plea to federal charges of bribery, conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud nearly four months ago. But they say they do not feel compelled to push more stringent measures partly because voters do not appear to be demanding them. "We're all being rushed into a bill," said Rep. David L. Hobson (R-Ohio). "We panicked, and we let the media get us panicked."
Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.), a former ethics committee chairwoman, said passage of the bill will have no political consequences because "people are quite convinced that the rhetoric of reform is just political."
Some Republican leaders assert that lawmakers are hearing little from constituents about the congressional corruption scandal, even though it has received considerable media attention. Jo Maney, spokeswoman for Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), a chief architect of the House ethics bill, said: "Many members have told him [Dreier] that they are not hearing about corruption and lobbying reform at home. They hear more about immigration, gas prices." Still, Dreier and Hastert "feel strongly" that the ethics bill "is the right thing to do" and that it will "improve the public's perception of the integrity of the House of Representatives," Maney added.
A Washington Post-ABC News poll this month showed that 63 percent of Americans called "corruption in Washington" important to their vote. Democrats are eager to use the lobbying controversy as part of their campaign to win back control of Congress this year, and they contend that the corruption issue can be a powerful Election Day weapon.
A poll this month by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press showed the public giving Democrats an edge on the ethics issue. Twenty-eight percent of Americans said they think the Republican Party governs in an honest and ethical way, compared with 36 percent who said the Democrats are more ethical, according to the survey. By a ratio of 45 percent to 28 percent, respondents said that Republicans are influenced more by lobbyists and special interests than are Democrats.
Democratic strategists say that the ethics issue does not carry a lot of weight by itself. They say that, to win over voters, they must link Republicans' alleged coziness with lobbyists to failures in Washington to address specific public needs, such as health-care coverage and economic security. "It is up to us to show the public what this means to them," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). For example, she said: "If [we] want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and therefore improve our national security situation, you can't do it if you are a Republican because you are too wedded to the oil companies."
Republicans won back control of the House and the Senate in 1994 after making Democratic political corruption part of the larger issue of arrogance of power and poor performance in government, according to Michael J. Malbin, executive director of the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute. The Democrats' burden now, he said, is to make that larger connection to voters.
Republicans counter that Democrats have ethical problems of their own that blunt their effort to portray the GOP as the party of corruption. Two Democratic congressmen are facing separate, official inquiries about their connections to private pleaders: Reps. Alan B. Mollohan (W.Va.) and William J. Jefferson (La.). Both say they have done nothing wrong.
"The Democrat party runs a real risk here of being the pot that calls the kettle black," said Tracey Schmitt, press secretary of the Republican National Committee.
Some lawmakers and political analysts believe that voters could punish incumbents during the November elections if Congress passes a minimalist ethics bill. The chances of such a backlash could rise, these critics say, if there are more indictments or guilty pleas later this year. Abramoff and two former aides to Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) are cooperating with federal authorities in a wide-ranging investigation of political favors done in return for gifts, trips, payments and campaign contributions. DeLay, a once-powerful House majority leader, is fighting a criminal indictment in Texas on charges of political money laundering.
Some congressional historians assert that GOP leaders would be taking a risk in assuming that the lobbying bill is of such low voter priority that they could push through a modest plan without paying a political cost. "When you combine [the ethics issue] with the general dissatisfaction with the way in which we are governed," said L. Sandy Maisel, a professor of government at Colby College, "I think the breaking point might be near."
Today, the House plans to vote on a bill that would require lobbyists to file quarterly instead of semiannual disclosures and to include in those reports the donations they give to federal candidates and political action committees. Lobbyists would also have to make public the amount of any gift that they give to lawmakers or congressional aides. In addition, appropriations bills would have to list any earmarks that they contain, as well as the sponsors of those projects. Ethics training would become mandatory in the House under the legislation.
Government watchdog groups have complained that the legislation would not change much about how lawmakers and lobbyists interact. "It's a reform bill in name only, and they're hoping no one will notice," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest organization, said one reason for the bill's weakness is that the public is not riled up about lobbying abuses. "The American people take the view that both parties are involved and there's not much surprising about it," he said.
--------
Staff writer Jonathan Weisman contributed to this report.
E-Mail Trail From Abramoff Included GSA Bargain-Hunting
By Thomas B. Edsall
The Washington Post
Thursday 27 April 2006
Lobbyist Jack Abramoff gained renown in Washington for both his big fees and his big spending, but that didn't mean he couldn't look for a bargain.
On Aug. 21, 2002, he sent an e-mail to his friend David H. Safavian, chief of staff at the General Services Administration. "I have a need to buy a stretch limo for the restaurant," Abramoff wrote, referring to Signatures, the downtown establishment he owned. "Are there any coming up on any of the GSA drug property sales?"
Safavian, according to the documents recently filed by Justice Department prosecutors at U.S. District Court, wrote back that the GSA does not auction off seized cars. But he added that he was ready to help: "Let me call a friend at the Marshall's Service. They handle drug seizures."
Abramoff replied: "I was thinking of the druggies bounty. No problem. Thanks, see you Friday."
Safavian has been charged with lying to federal officials about Abramoff's interest in doing business with the GSA to gain approval from GSA ethics officials to take a week-long golfing trip to Scotland.
Prosecutors have been releasing hundreds of pages of e-mails between Safavian, Abramoff and other figures in their investigation. Safavian's attorney, Barbara Van Gelder, contends the documents amount to a "press release" with no legal purpose except to pressure her client to give up asserting his innocence. In addition to looking for bargains, a constant theme in the hundreds of e-mails filed with the court is Abramoff's request to play racquetball or golf. Abramoff, however, spent a large portion of his time at Signatures putting together real estate and lobbying deals involving such interests as the Mississippi Choctaw Indians, Unisys Corp. and Tyco International Ltd. Those meals took their toll.
On Dec. 23, 2002, Safavian e-mailed Abramoff to ask about a lunch date the next day. "Just lunch or lunch and rb [racquetball] or just rb? - You tell me. I can do either."
Abramoff wrote back: "Well. I am such a sweltering hog, that perhaps just lunch, though I will bring my stuff downtown and, if I feel I won't keel over with a heart attack, and you are still in the mood, we can do both. I am telling you, I have never been so fat. Never."
Abramoff has pleaded guilty to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials. He is cooperating with prosecutors and is expected to be a witness at Safavian's trial, which is scheduled to begin May 22.
Watchdogs Say House Ethics Reform Is a "Scam"
By Andy Sullivan
Reuters
Tuesday 25 April 2006
Congressional watchdogs blasted an ethics reform bill pending in the House of Representatives on Tuesday as a "scam" that would do little to curb the influence of money in politics.
"This legislation is so weak it's embarrassing," said Chellie Pingree, president of Common Cause, a group promoting accountability in government.
House Republican leaders hope to pass a bill this week that requires more disclosure of lobbyist activity and temporarily ban privately-funded travel until after the November congressional elections. The bill is a response to corruption scandals that have ensnared several lawmakers and staffers.
Watchdog groups said the bill would not change the intimate relationship between lawmakers and the lobbyists who shower them with campaign contributions and other perks.
"This bill is based on the premise that you can fool all of the people all of the time. This is an attempt at one of the greatest legislative scams that I have seen in 30 years of working on these issues," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the advocacy group Democracy 21.
House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier, the California Republican who sponsored the bill, said it represents the best compromise in a body still sharply divided on exactly what reforms are needed.
"Rostenkowski said if everybody's unhappy with a piece of legislation, it's probably a pretty good bill," Dreier said, citing Dan Rostenkowski, a former veteran Illinois Democratic lawmaker who pleaded guilty to mail fraud in 1996 and spent 15 months in prison.
Corruption scandals have prompted Congress to reexamine its relationship with the $2 billion a year lobbying industry.
Former California Republican Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham is serving an eight-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to taking $2.4 million in bribes.
Two former aides to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay have pleaded guilty to corruption charges and are cooperating with investigators in a separate scandal centered around former lobbyist Jack Abramoff. DeLay, a Texas Republican, has not been charged in the scandal but recently announced that he will resign from Congress.
Unlike a reform bill passed by the Senate last month, the House bill would allow lawmakers to continue to accept gifts and meals worth up to $50 from lobbyists, and does not lengthen the current one-year "cooling off" period before a former lawmaker can begin to lobby his former colleagues.
Other measures that would have required lobbyists to report details about fund-raising events and campaign work have been dropped from the bill.
The bill would make it easier to remove special projects that lawmakers often quietly slip into large spending bills, but not "earmarks" inserted in other bills.
House Majority Leader John Boehner said the temporary ban on lobbyist-funded travel would give the Ethics Committee time to set up a mechanism to check trips before they take place.
"I'm frankly very proud of the bill that we have, it's a very substantial bill. The critics will be the critics," Boehner said.
--------
Additional reporting by Richard Cowan.
Comments
This is a moderated forum. Â It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.