Take a look at what they have actually done about "reform" in this area since they regained power in congress.
Key points:
"House Democrats are suddenly balking at the tough lobbying reforms they touted to voters last fall as a reason for putting them in charge of Congress.
Now that they are running things, many Democrats want to keep the big campaign donations and lavish parties that lobbyists put together for them. They're also having second thoughts about having to wait an extra year before they can become high-paid lobbyists themselves should they retire or be defeated at the polls."
"It's simple: they like lobbyist money. All that blathering about Jack Abramoff was a smoke screen, and considering how Reid and other Democrats like Tom Harkin and Robert Kennedy were knee-deep in cash from Abramoff clients, a rather obnoxious smoke screen at that. The Democrats have just as much culpability in pork and lobbyist love as the Republicans -- and to the extent that they are big-government expansionists, even more. Federal spending is what drives lobbyist cash to politicians, and the more government spending there is to exploit, the more money the lobbyists toss around."
Meet the New Boss.....Much worse than the Old Boss!
Of course it won't matter to you, but you might want to re-think this post considering the tough new lobbying reform the house AND senate passed. The new boss is NOT the same as the old boss no matter how much you preach that it is. Naturally I don't expect these actual facts to sway you, but I thought I'd try and set your readers straight at least.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/24/AR2007052400266.html?hpid=topnews
Ethics reform?
ReplyDeleteBy the Democrat Congress?
Don't make me laugh.
From the WaPo article link you obviously didn't read in its entirety:
"...it lost proposals such as disclosure of "grass-roots" communications campaigns orchestrated by lobbyists and an extension from one year to two of the time lawmakers must wait between leaving their jobs and lobbying former colleagues. Instead, the bill would require that lawmakers interviewing for private-sector jobs publicly recuse themselves from issues involving their prospective new industry."
And then we have this:
"'Frankly, I think these were reasonable," Meehan said of the leadership's compromises. 'In any fight for campaign finance reform, there's a lot of give-and-take.'"
"Reasonable"?
Wink wink, nod nod, nudge nudge......
Just business as usual, and the usual empty gesture of going through the motions without actually changing a thing.
And for God's sake, please learn how to use HTML when posting a link, OK?