This story is archived

Senate Passes Ethics Reform »

Posted by: TimALoftis 2 years, 4 months ago

Archived 68 0 drops

The Senate voted Thursday to make lawmakers disclose more about their efforts to fund pet projects and raise money from lobbyists, a move some called the biggest advance in congressional ethics in decades.

Read Full Story at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com »

Submitted By:

TimALoftis

Happy Holidays!

Who Also Submitted:

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 19

JohnQPublicComment has been removed: Retracted by user
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
simonsez
Aug. 2, 2007, 9:32 p.m.
Me too.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
NelsonR
Aug. 2, 2007, 9:33 p.m.
Anything is better than what we endured. Just possibly our elected representatives are becoming in tune with their electorate, I hope so. Usually I berate our elected officials, will continue with Bush and company, but I sincerely hope change is in the air and if a success, congratulations are in order. Bush notwithstanding.
We must never become apathetic to the actions of our servants in power, they serve us not themselves.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
NelsonR
Aug. 2, 2007, 9:36 p.m.
Forgot, just who are the 14 representatives who voted against this bill. Their constituents should be told so they can eject them the minute the opportunity arises.
lovermanComment has been removed: Retracted by user
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
KYRed
Aug. 2, 2007, 11:15 p.m.
I agree. I am skeptic. These things never seem to work. No, NelsonR, they are SUPPOSED to serve us but they serve themselves.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Rhialto
Aug. 2, 2007, 11:35 p.m.
congressional ethics. Oxymoron? Before they make these rules, you can bet they know how to get around them. Both sides are scum.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
nostalgia
Aug. 3, 2007, 6:39 a.m.
There is a reason to be skeptical
From a CNN report:
Lawmakers seeking targeted spending projects, or earmarks, would have to publicize their plans in advance - critics said the requirements are hardly airtight.
The bill "has completely gutted the earmark reform provisions we overwhelmingly passed in January," said Sen. McCain R-AZ - (if this is true, they have already weakened requirements they passed in January. Looks like they needed more wiggle room)
Lawmakers seeking earmarks would have to publicize their plans 48 hours before a Senate vote. They would have to certify they have no direct financial interest in the items.
McCain and others, however, said senators could circumvent the requirements by stating that prompt disclosure was not technically feasible, or by having the majority leader declare a bill earmark-free.
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/08/02/se...
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
jaern
Aug. 3, 2007, 7:40 a.m.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said it was ludicrous to suggest someone in his position would "cheat and lie" to hide earmarks.
LOL
JohnQPublicComment has been removed: Retracted by user
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
joeblowe
Aug. 3, 2007, 10:57 a.m.
It's kind of sad that the people we send to Washington to represent us have to have LAWS to make themselves ethical. Very sad. Why do we keep electing people like that? I suppose it's because they LIE to us (often by OMISSION) and somehow convince us that they ARE ethical. We only find out the truth after it's too late. A bigger question: why do we KEEP electing them? For THAT I have no answer.
anioklyComment has been removed: Spammer
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
nostalgia
Aug. 4, 2007, 5:49 a.m.
Here is another opinion on the new and "improved" language:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-unveil...
removal of a ban on trading earmarks for votes
transferal of authority to certify compliance with earmark disclosure to chairmen or the majority leader rather than the Senate parliamentarian.
Senior Democratic aides asserted the new ethics bill merely brings the original Senate earmark language which DeMint often noted was identical to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) in line with what the House passed as a rules change in January.
Members retain the right to offer amendments to strike earmarks that they believe were not disclosed properly, although the new bill does not guarantee consideration.