- Blogroll Me!
-
Cognoscenti, Agents Provocateurs and Casual Acquaintances
- Ace of Spades
- Ambivablog
- Anchoress
- Ankle Biting Pundits
- Becker & Posner
- Betsy's Page
- Big Lizard
- Tim Blair
- Bullwinkle
- Crooked Timber
- Dean's World
- Drudge
- The Fourth Rail
- Hit & Run
- Instapundit
- Jot Sheet
- Lileks
- LittleGreenFootballs
- Michelle Malkin
- Megan McArdle
- Minority Report
- Myopic Zeal
- Outside the Beltway
- Patterico
- Powerline
- Rachel Lucas
- Real Clear Politics
- Shape of Days
- Straight White Guy
- TMH Bacon Bits
- Truth Laid Bear
- Velociworld
- Venomous Kate
- Vodkapundit
- WILLisms
- Wizbang
- Yippee-Ki-Yay!!
- Althouse
- Above the Law
- Anonymous Lawyer
- Beldar
- Legal Pad
- Lowering the Bar
- Orin Kerr
- Overlawyered
- Point of Law
- Prof. Ribstein
- Rule of Law
- Volokh
- Jim Morin's Cartoons
- Cape Cod Chowder
- DaleyBlog
- Hub Blog
- Hub Politics
- Left Wing Escapee
- mASSbackwards
- Mass Federalist
- The Modern American
- Pundit Review
- Squaring the Boston Globe
- Sudden Stop
- Toys in the Attic
- Universal Hub
- Weekend Pundit
- Weekly Dig
- Mark Coffey
- Polipundit
- Scurvy Wench (Arrrrgh)
- Strata-sphere
- Tiger Hawk
- Viking Pundit
- Modern Drunkard Magazine
- Phat Phree
- Point Five
- Totally Absurd Archives
- Utter Wonder
- Oronte Churm
Truly Different/Et Alia
- Museum of Left Wing Lunacy
- Post Secret
- Jargon Database
- Detail Cops
- My Landscaping Adventure
- Pick It Up
- Motor Scooters & Brooms
- Be Careful What You Wish For
- Scaling the Pinnacle of Lunacy
- Pervis the Great Fisherman
- Partisan Politics & Filibusters
- On Morality & Hard Cases
- Spending Republican STyle
- And So It Begins
- Politics of Roe Reversal
- One Collosal Fraud
- Crybabies In Texas
- Reflections on Alito Hearings
- Real Lobbying Reforms
- Gerrymander Rules
- Bare Knuckles In The Limelight
- Limelight Fades to Black
- Bar Business Boston-style
- Big Mess, Dig
- Another Kennedy Tragedy
- Joan Plays Ball
- World Class My Ass
- Hot Air
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
My BestWork
Humor
National Politics
Boston Politics
Archives
Law Blogs
Pulitzer Prize-winning Cartoonists
New England Bloggahs
Coalition of the Chillin
(Partial List)
Humor
THIS IS MY VIRTUAL LIVING ROOM. COME ON IN AND SAY HELLO. THE BAR IS OVER IN THE CORNER -- HELP YOURSELF, BUT MIND YOUR MANNERS.
Monday, January 09, 2006
Real Lobbying Reforms? Don't Hold Your Breath
Now that Jack Abrahamoff is warming up his vocal chords, the majority party coincidentally decides it's time for some real lobbying reforms?
Well, I can't say I'm totally skeptical -- after all, I've had more than one foxhole conversion myself. But you have to admit, it's hard to have faith in a bunch of politicians who (necessarily) survive on the contributions of special interests (both parties, please) to bite the hands that feed them.
Nonetheless, it appears that some action is in the offing. I'd like to offer a few suggestions myself. Here are a few items being pushed out of the box:
1. Lobbyists must disclose their contacts with members of Congress or their staffs.
Why the lobbyists? Why not the members of Congress and their staffs? I suggest that both branches of Congress implement a public-access Outlook Calendar of sorts, on which every meeting between a member or their legislative staff must be disclosed at least 24 hours prior thereto. What good does it do to have these meetings disclosed by lobbyists weeks or months after legislative action has taken place? It wastes too much time looking back, and by that time, the damage has already been done.
2. Prohibition on gifts and travel.
This is only twenty-five years overdue. What member of Congress needs a gift? They're plenty popular with their constituents. Another brass clock is really just tacky. And this whole nonsense about the invaluable "fact finding mission" is silly. If it's important enough for facts to be found, then increase the Congressional travel budget and have members justify the need to their own internal Comptroller of Travel. Speaking at a "conference?" If it's important enough for your prestige or position, pay for it out of your campaign account. And is it absolutely necessary to stay in the presidential suite at The Boulders?
And please, don't tell me that you "can't be bought for the price of a meal." I've been there. I've said the same thing. It's not true. Men of abiding ethics and principles are not immune from establishing loyalties to persons or causes. These loyalties are formed outside of the building, and all the more so when the solicitor of the loyalty is picking up the tab. It's only natural. Don't tempt human nature.
3. Floor votes on pork barrel earmarks.
Wow. This is serious. Congressman Jeff Flake (heh) proposes to permit any single member to force a floor vote on any earmarked appropriation that comes to the floor. He says that it is too easy for a member to earmark special money at the behest of a lobbyist.
The problem here is that this would bring congressional action to a standstill. The minority party could simply bulk-challenge every amendment to an appropriation bill, and we'd be into November before a budget got passed. But is this a problem? Judge Gideon Tucker, a New York legislator in the 19th century, said that "no man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session," and his words may be truer now than in 1866 (the words have variously been attributed to Mark Twain and others, but my old colleague Royall Switzler sets us straight, as he has always been wont to do).
Nonetheless, I think there is a more efficient method to discourage lobbyist-induced earmarking. That would be simply to require that any member offering a legislative amendment (appropriation or not) at the behest of a special interest must disclose, on the face of the amendment, the identity of the special interest at whose behest it is offered.
I can hear the squealing now.
The great challenge to meaningful reform is that the relationship between Congress and lobbyists has become deeply institutionalized and balkanized. It's like a metastasized cancer. In order to effect a cure, you have to dig so deep you risk the life of the patient.
But there is no greater cure than sunshine. Roaches scatter when the lights go on. And lobbyists are not the only roaches infesting the institution. There are Congressmen seeking to perpetuate or enhance their power, ambitious staffers seeking promotions, petty rivalries and scores to settle, and idealogues of every stripe for whom any means is justifies by their sanctimonious ends. It is a mean and dirty business that puts no premium on statesmanship or intellectual honesty.
And it is driven by money. Lobbyists' money. Labor union money. And it is money that will drive this "reform process" as well.
Watch whose ox gets gored in this, and tell me I'm wrong in the end.
Well, I can't say I'm totally skeptical -- after all, I've had more than one foxhole conversion myself. But you have to admit, it's hard to have faith in a bunch of politicians who (necessarily) survive on the contributions of special interests (both parties, please) to bite the hands that feed them.
Nonetheless, it appears that some action is in the offing. I'd like to offer a few suggestions myself. Here are a few items being pushed out of the box:
1. Lobbyists must disclose their contacts with members of Congress or their staffs.
Why the lobbyists? Why not the members of Congress and their staffs? I suggest that both branches of Congress implement a public-access Outlook Calendar of sorts, on which every meeting between a member or their legislative staff must be disclosed at least 24 hours prior thereto. What good does it do to have these meetings disclosed by lobbyists weeks or months after legislative action has taken place? It wastes too much time looking back, and by that time, the damage has already been done.
2. Prohibition on gifts and travel.
This is only twenty-five years overdue. What member of Congress needs a gift? They're plenty popular with their constituents. Another brass clock is really just tacky. And this whole nonsense about the invaluable "fact finding mission" is silly. If it's important enough for facts to be found, then increase the Congressional travel budget and have members justify the need to their own internal Comptroller of Travel. Speaking at a "conference?" If it's important enough for your prestige or position, pay for it out of your campaign account. And is it absolutely necessary to stay in the presidential suite at The Boulders?
And please, don't tell me that you "can't be bought for the price of a meal." I've been there. I've said the same thing. It's not true. Men of abiding ethics and principles are not immune from establishing loyalties to persons or causes. These loyalties are formed outside of the building, and all the more so when the solicitor of the loyalty is picking up the tab. It's only natural. Don't tempt human nature.
3. Floor votes on pork barrel earmarks.
Wow. This is serious. Congressman Jeff Flake (heh) proposes to permit any single member to force a floor vote on any earmarked appropriation that comes to the floor. He says that it is too easy for a member to earmark special money at the behest of a lobbyist.
The problem here is that this would bring congressional action to a standstill. The minority party could simply bulk-challenge every amendment to an appropriation bill, and we'd be into November before a budget got passed. But is this a problem? Judge Gideon Tucker, a New York legislator in the 19th century, said that "no man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session," and his words may be truer now than in 1866 (the words have variously been attributed to Mark Twain and others, but my old colleague Royall Switzler sets us straight, as he has always been wont to do).
Nonetheless, I think there is a more efficient method to discourage lobbyist-induced earmarking. That would be simply to require that any member offering a legislative amendment (appropriation or not) at the behest of a special interest must disclose, on the face of the amendment, the identity of the special interest at whose behest it is offered.
I can hear the squealing now.
The great challenge to meaningful reform is that the relationship between Congress and lobbyists has become deeply institutionalized and balkanized. It's like a metastasized cancer. In order to effect a cure, you have to dig so deep you risk the life of the patient.
But there is no greater cure than sunshine. Roaches scatter when the lights go on. And lobbyists are not the only roaches infesting the institution. There are Congressmen seeking to perpetuate or enhance their power, ambitious staffers seeking promotions, petty rivalries and scores to settle, and idealogues of every stripe for whom any means is justifies by their sanctimonious ends. It is a mean and dirty business that puts no premium on statesmanship or intellectual honesty.
And it is driven by money. Lobbyists' money. Labor union money. And it is money that will drive this "reform process" as well.
Watch whose ox gets gored in this, and tell me I'm wrong in the end.