Senate approves ethics bill 83-14, sends measure to President Bush

[Vintij]

Senate approves ethics bill 83-14, sends measure to President Bush.

This is a great day in history, finally some class on capitol hill. I cant wait to see how much money christian and gun lobbyist's try to give to republican candidates. No more secrets.

Why would 14 republicans vote against this? Do they have something to hide? Do they not want ethics in congress?

 

[Annie]

Senate approves ethics bill 83-14, sends measure to President Bush.

This is a great day in history, finally some class on capitol hill. I cant wait to see how much money christian and gun lobbyist's try to give to republican candidates. No more secrets.

Why would 14 republicans vote against this? Do they have something to hide? Do they not want ethics in congress?

Scroll down a bit to find the 'not so fine print':

http://www.examiner.com/blogs/tapsc...30/Reid-and-Pelosi-are-gutting-earmark-reform

Reid and Pelosi are gutting earmark reform
July 30, 2:17 PM
Some of my Senate sources have gotten a copy of the 107 page "ethics and earmark reform" bill crafted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

What they are finding in it confirms what I've suspected for months - Reid and Pelosi are for the most gutting concrete earmark and ethics reform while preserving just enough of the appearance of reform to be able to claim to have fulfilled their 2006 campaign promises.

Put another way - it's all a charade. Here's an initial list of changes found thus far in the text (and I expect much more to come later today):

* The Senate-passed bill required committee and conference reports to list all earmarks, and required the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction to prepare and distribute the list of earmarks. However, the new bill allows the Majority Leader, not the Senate parliamentarian, to unilaterally decide whether or not a bill or conference report complies with the earmark disclosure requirements.
* The Senate-passed bill prohibited the consideration of any bills, joint resolutions, etc. prior to the disclosure of earmarks. The new bill only prohibits a vote on a motion to proceed to these bills. Thus, under the language in the new bill, the Senate could merely proceed to a bill by consent in the middle of the night without being required to disclose all earmarks.
* The Senate-passed bill prohibited the consideration of a conference report if it did not disclose all earmarks. The new bill only prohibits a vote on the adoption of the conference report if it does not list earmarks as required.
* The Senate-passed bill prohibited the inclusion of an earmark based on a Member's vote on a matter. The new bill eliminates that prohibition .
* The Senate-passed bill prohibited Members from promoting earmarks that benefited them, their family, their staff, or their staff's family. The new bill only prohibits earmarks that would "only" affect those parties. Under this new language, you would be able to earmark a new mansion for me as long as that mansion also increased the property value of my neighbors.​

If you want to examiner the text yourself, N.Z. Bear has posted it here. Let me know if you find anything of interest.

UPDATE: Here's why Reid, Pelosi did this deal in seret

 

[hjmick]

Senate approves ethics bill 83-14, sends measure to President Bush.

This is a great day in history, finally some class on capitol hill. I cant wait to see how much money christian and gun lobbyist's try to give to republican candidates. No more secrets.

Why would 14 republicans vote against this? Do they have something to hide? Do they not want ethics in congress?

Because it falls short of requiring full disclosure of earmarks. Basically, they wanted a tougher bill. Why didn't the Democrats want to require full disclosure of all earmarks? Do they have something to hide? Do they not want tougher ethics in Congress?

 

[DeadCanDance]

this ain't perfect, but its far more than any ethics reforms from the previous republican congress's.

 

[Vintij]

Maybe they didnt think it would muster up enough bipartisan support? Its a baby step in the right direction.

Im not sure if republilcans would have even drafted an ethics bill, but who knows.

 

[Annie]

this ain't perfect, but its far more than any ethics reforms from the previous republican congress's.

Because the Dems kept the tougher bill from passing. You're proud of that?

 

[DeadCanDance]

Because the Dems kept the tougher bill from passing. You're proud of that?

I duly noted your highly partisan opinion link, while at the same time noting that your always claming to be some sort of free-thinking non-partisan poster.

This ain't perfect. But, its more that republicans ever did. Can more be done? Yes. But, who were the ones mostly standing in the way of stronger ethics reforms for the past 7 years? republicans.

 

[Annie]

I duly noted your highly partisan opinion link, while at the same time noting that your always claming to be some sort of free-thinking non-partisan poster.

This ain't perfect. But, its more that republicans ever did. Can more be done? Yes. But, who were the ones mostly standing in the way of stronger ethics reforms for the past 7 years? republicans.

The democrats and a handful of republicans, including Ted Stevens. Funny thing, many republicans have been more critical of Stevens and such than your party. Tells you something or it should.

 

[DeadCanDance]

The democrats and a handful of republicans, including Ted Stevens. Funny thing, many republicans have been more critical of Stevens and such than your party. Tells you something or it should.

"The democrats and a handful of republicans, including Ted Stevens"

I have no idea what your talking about. The bill passed 84-14. What do you mean "a handfull of republicans"? Can you write in complete sentences please? Did you mean only a handful of republicans voted for the bill? My math suggests that a large majority of republicans voted for it.

As for the republicans crying that the bill doesn't go far enough, or is not strong enough...this is the classic case of crocodile tears. They had 6 years to pass ethics reforms, and did nothing. Its laughable for them to suggest the bill isn't strong enough, or go far enough.

Its not a perfect bill. But its better than anything the republicans ever offered.

 

[manu1959]

I duly noted your highly partisan opinion link, while at the same time noting that your always claming to be some sort of free-thinking non-partisan poster.

This ain't perfect. But, its more that republicans ever did. Can more be done? Yes. But, who were the ones mostly standing in the way of stronger ethics reforms for the past 7 years? republicans.

what is your excuse for why previously democrat controlled congresses did not pass an ethics bill?

any particular reason the dems did not wipe all eramarks?

and lastly you should really question a group that has to pass an ethics bill to make them be ethical ....