Did Dems Cut a Hole in Their Own Ethics Law?

September 25, 2007 8:57 AM

Justin Rood Reports:

Diddemscuta_mn When no one was looking, someone cut a hole out of the Democrats' much-hyped ethics bill. A watchdog group which caught it suspects the Democrats of undermining their own effort to clean up Capitol Hill.

Dubbed "the biggest reform effort in a generation" by its sponsor, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 represented the Democrats' plan "to change the way Washington works."

Some aspects were tough, like language ending lawmakers' free trips on corporate jets, or a section curbing gifts from lobbyists to lawmakers and staff.

But one provision was all but neutered with a subtle edit, committed sometime between the Senate's overwhelming vote to approve the bill and the application of the president's signature.

Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.

The victim of the edit: a section that would boost public disclosure of earmarking. As it was approved by the Senate, the 2007 ethics bill required senators to disclose not only which earmarks they've requested, but also the name and location of each intended recipient.

For instance, a $1 million earmark for an Army purchase may in fact be directed at a manufacturer in a senator's home state. The bill also required senators to detail the purpose of the earmark.

But the law as Bush signed it requires senators to publicly swear that neither they nor their family will personally benefit from any of the earmarks they have inserted. House members must still disclose the companies who stand to gain from their action.

"This is like Lucy and the football. The Senate leadership yanked [the provision] away from us," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, which discovered it.

When asked for comment on the change, a spokesman for Reid told the Blotter on ABCNews.com, "In the course of finalizing the ethics law, we refined various provisions to make them rational, workable and cohesive." Of the final version, he said it "provides ample public disclosure of earmarks in a workable fashion."

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a longtime antagonist of the earmarking system, disagreed.

"Voters who expected greater transparency and openness in Washington won't be pleased to learn about another round of secrecy and deception," he said.

The disclosure provision was meant to cut down on earmark abuse -- instances where lawmakers use earmarks to funnel taxpayer money to pet projects or businesses belonging to major campaign donors.

An extreme version of earmark abuse brought down former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who wrote tens of millions of dollars in earmarks for companies which bribed him with boats, a Rolls-Royce, antiques, prostitutes and cash. He pleaded guilty to corruption charges and is serving an eight-year, four-month prison sentence.

Do you have a tip for Brian Ross and the Investigative Team?

To Blotter Homepage

September 25, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (19)

User Comments

where are the liberals for this Blog? This is just another example that the democrats are just the other wing of the same republican bird!

Posted by: brian | Sep 25, 2007 9:51:41 AM

This is an insult to "We the People". The issue is not Democrat or Republican it is the process used to elect our representatives. Why not require all campaign finances to be provided by the tax payers. When our politicians are no longer beholding to big benefactors they may actualy begin to do the job we hired them to do. In the end it will cost us, the tax payers a lot less. How much of our money is spent on needless pork and earmarks as pay back for campaign contributions. The only people hurt by a campaign system funded by the tax payers are the wealthy and special interests who buy access to politicians with campaign contributions. I applaud all candidates who are trying to buck this system.

Posted by: BooMan | Sep 25, 2007 11:08:10 AM

After reading this I have to wonder: How does the Congress still manage to get a staggeringly high 11% approval? The current two party system has, again, failed America.

Posted by: ALEX H. | Sep 25, 2007 11:28:45 AM

OK Reid have it your "workable" way but let's give private parties the right to enforce the so-called "disclosure" and warranty. Any benefit to a member of congress or family member would generate a personal liability of triple the benefit obtained and neither the penalty nor the defense could be financed with campaign funds or a legal defense fund. A benefit could include future employment as much as ten years later.

Posted by: Stan R | Sep 25, 2007 4:34:44 PM

A great man once mentioned something about a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

I wonder what that would be like?

Posted by: Curtis | Sep 25, 2007 8:36:07 PM

LET'S TALK TOUGH TO GET ELECTED, BUT THEN WE CAN THINK MORE ABOUT IT ONCE WE GET THERE.

Posted by: DJ | Sep 26, 2007 10:45:06 AM

Two parties, one corporate trough.

Posted by: Brendan | Sep 26, 2007 11:16:37 AM

after read this news, i wonder how the govement use to improve money

Posted by: tien | Sep 26, 2007 2:49:19 PM

24 hours later I read the same blog and not one liberal making a comment. No comment means you must live a double standard. And you wonder why being a "liberal" is considered a bad word and why you get scoffed at

Posted by: brian | Sep 27, 2007 8:13:18 AM

Using the term "ethics" in connection with Democratic politicians is an oxymoron. Earmarks are the lifeblood of Pelosi, Murtha and many others.

Posted by: TheOldTrooper | Sep 27, 2007 2:29:45 PM

This is why we need to kick these bums out of office. We need term limits no longer then 6 years and your out, ends lobby money and only lobbist from your states that have a busness in it.

Posted by: pops | Sep 28, 2007 10:28:32 AM

Earmarks increased 500% under repubs, corruption increased 1000%. Before you call the kettle black lets see if that bridge to nowhere gets built under these reforms. Perhaps the compromise was to avoid a veto by the president of vice. After all the repubs had complete control and look what reforms they made! How many bills were sponsered by Ney, Cunningham, Stevens or Frist to cleanup DC? They made sure there were plenty of loopholes before they passed McCain/Feingold it was ineffective. Yes, I'm a liberal and while I'm disappointed by the compromise, I see it as far more reform than anything coming from the other side.

Posted by: born_7-4 | Sep 28, 2007 3:55:45 PM

Dear born_7-4, earmarks didn't increase under repubs, just got more news coverage 'cause they were in charge. Corruption hasn't increased 1000 percent, just got reported more 'cause repubs were in charge and being charged.

We need to start a Federalist party, whose core beliefs is the Constitution and ONLY the Constitution. No more NEA or anything else. No bizarre mobius strip contortion of the Speech and Debate clause, Commerce clause or the fact that Congress is allowed to create any law that doesn't cover their sorry %$&#% of either party. Give us all the same retirement and health coverage that you get to vote for yourselves and we won't need so-called Social Security.

Hamish
US Navy 1985-1989

Posted by: Hamish | Oct 1, 2007 12:38:28 AM

See, the Democrats are greedier than anyone but they count on secrecy to keep their own wrong doing hidden. They are such HYPOCRITS!!!!!!

Posted by: Mary | Oct 1, 2007 12:27:05 PM

Hey Hamish! turn off Rush and check the facts - earmarks have increased as Republicans have gained control of the government:
After all the 'Spend and spend' republican red ink no wonder they cry over 'pay as you go' democrat rules. Adult supervision has returned to DC!

Posted by: born_7-4 | Oct 1, 2007 1:20:04 PM

Just another example of talking out of both sides of their mouths.. Reid and the group should be ashamed of themselves... and the republicans that let this go should resign..
Were are the honest people???? They sure aren't anywhere on capital hill..

Posted by: bill4b | Oct 1, 2007 4:50:03 PM

Democrats? Ethics?
An oxymoron if there ever was one!

Posted by: ToddonCapeCod | Oct 1, 2007 11:51:34 PM

Hamish... I argree with you... Both parties are just as corrupt. The difference is that the press is pro left. We need a new party... the Federalist party with term limits. Get all those bumms out of office NOW! Cheers everyone!

Posted by: carl_1970 | Oct 2, 2007 12:38:59 AM

There was a time in this country's history when we needed representatives to listen to us and then go to the Capitol and represent our needs/concerns/wishes. We no longer need this outdated system that was so necessary when horses, paper and word of mouth were the only ways to communicate with people in other states and territories. Why not try actual democracy instead of continuing to be a corrupt republic?

Posted by: Firehorse | Oct 11, 2007 9:05:31 AM

Post a comment