2006/03/30

Weak-ass Reform Gets The Big Thumbs Up in the Senate

A day after Jack Abramoff got 6 years, in what will no doubt be a series of sentences for the disgraced lobbyist, the Senate proved that it has little interest in serious lobbying reform. Though the legislation does include some reporting requirements--largely placing the spotlight on lobbyists rather than on members of Congress--the most stringent provision, curbing fundraising by lobbyists, was left out as was the creation of an independent Ethics Office.

But even more interesting than what was left out of the bill, was the broad margin by which this piece of subterfuge was passed. Only 8 Senators, 3 Democrats and 5 Republicans, voted no: Coburn (R-OK), DeMint (R-SC), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (R-SC), Inhofe (R-OK), Kerry (D-MA), McCain (R-AZ), Obama (D-IL).

Now it's on to the House, where an even weaker bill is already under discussion.

7 Comments:

Sometimes I just wish the Senate cafeteria would be stricken by a nasty strain of botulin and we'd have to elect all 100 senators for scratch...

Who was it that said "a new broom sweeps clean?"
I'm all for a new broom myself. I have totally given up on this batch of spoiled brats.
The only thing more pointless than Senators putting a check on their own bad behavior is them being a check on this administration. I'm with -epm and peacechick mary, we'd be better off if we tossed the whole lot of them out and started over (okay, Feingold can stay, maybe Boxer but that's it).
Hey Boxer voted in favor of this piece-o-sh*t. No points for her or for Feinstein. The whole CA delegation deserves a big phhhhpppppttt!
Yeah, no surprise here. Consider what might have happened had they actually voted for reform that was in the people's best interest instead of their interest.
Gosh, you mean the fox isn't going to limit his access to the henhouse?
This is a very interesting group who voted no. I wonder what their reasons were. Other than the law was weak.

Add a comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link