|
Dems revive ’06 ethics bill |
|
By Alexander Bolton and Jonathan E. Kaplan
|
|
Posted: 05/15/07 08:00 PM [ET] |
House Democratic leaders have decided to use their Honest Leadership and Open Government legislation from the 109th Congress as the basis for the lobbying reform bill that the House Judiciary Committee is expected to mark up this week.
By doing so, the leaders are on a trajectory to meet key demands made by left-leaning advocacy groups favoring strong reform. But that course has sparked strong opposition from rank-and-file members of their caucus.
Many Democratic lawmakers raised concerns about the legislation at a closed-door meeting of the Democratic Caucus.
Some critics charged the bill was too strong, while others said it missed the mark altogether by cracking down on the favors lobbyists do for lawmakers and not addressing what they see as the main source of corruption: the ever-growing pressure on lawmakers to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to stay in power.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Democrats were using last year’s bill because they campaigned on it during the election.
“That’s what we said we were going to do,” he said.
The genius of using last year’s bill is that it will be difficult for Democratic lawmakers, even those with strong reservations, to vote against it. Democrats clearly made the bill a part of the agenda during the 2006 election. And nearly every Democrat in the 109th Congress voted for it as an alternative to a GOP-drafted ethics package. Reps. John Murtha (Pa.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), and Rick Boucher (Va.) are the only sitting Democrats who voted against it.
While Democrats are planning to reintroduce the lobbying reforms they unveiled last year, the legislation they will ultimately send to conference is likely to include two significant new reforms: a restriction on lobbying by congressional spouses and disclosure rules for lobbyist fundraising.
Democrats are adding restrictions on the lobbying activities of lawmakers’ spouses in the midst of FBI investigations of several current and former Republican members of the House. The wives of Republican Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John Doolittle (R-Calif.) have been the recent targets of FBI raids, and Christine DeLay, the wife of former Republican Majority Leader Tom Delay (Texas), is also under FBI investigation.
Democrats may also add language to the bill that would force lobbyists to disclose the amount of political contributions they raise or “bundle” for lawmakers. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.), a leading proponent of the bundling provision, said that it is likely to be offered as a floor amendment to the bill. Given the support of Democratic leaders for this proposal, it has a very good chance of passage.
Another reform Democrats are likely to add to last year’s reform bill would require members to disclose contributions to charities, retreats, and other entities.
Lawmakers and aides cautioned, however, that the legislation’s details are not yet final and could change.
Borrowing from last year’s bill, Democratic leaders have proposed extending the cooling-off period during which retiring lawmakers and aides would be prohibited from lobbying their former colleagues. But this so-called revolving door ban would only cover direct contacts that newly minted lobbyists make with lawmakers and staff on the Hill. It would not cover activities such as directing strategy, which government watchdog groups wanted included in the ban.
Watchdog groups are also likely to be disappointed that the Democratic bill will not include Senate-passed language prohibiting lobbyist-funded parties honoring lawmakers at national party conventions.
Furthermore, Democratic leaders have kept language requiring organizations that conduct public communications campaigns to disclose their funding sources if they receive or spend more than $50,000 over a three-month period.
Grassroots advocacy groups such as the National Right to Life Committee and the National Rifle Association (NRA) have vowed a fierce fight against the proposal.
“This is very similar to what the Senate rejected,” said Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, referring to a grassroots disclosure measure that failed in the Senate earlier this year. “We would vehemently oppose this langue. It will be a scorecard vote. We’ll do everything we can to prevent this from becoming law.”
Chris W. Cox, the chief lobbyist for the NRA, also promised opposition.
“We’re going to oppose any piece of legislation that regulates speech among average citizens discussing public policy positions,” he said. “To regulate citizens as lobbyists is a misguided approach.”
The combined efforts of the nation’s leading anti-abortion and gun rights groups could put heavy pressure on conservative Democrats from rural districts to oppose the bill, or at least support an amendment stripping the controversial proposal.
Several freshman Democrats, such as Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), come from conservative-leaning rural districts.
And at least one advocate of stricter ethics rules slammed Democrats for embracing last year’s House bill instead of comprehensive legislation passed by the Senate in January.
Many rank-and-file Democrats voiced strong objections to the reform package leaders presented at yesterday’s meeting.
“I do know that members are very, very concerned about whether this deal will get us to where we would like to go,” said House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.). “We know we have to address this issue and everybody wants to but the only question is whether or not it gets us to where we want to be.
“There’s a difference of opinion with some members saying this is exactly what we need and others saying how about this and how about that,” he added.
One of the most vocal opponents was Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), an 18-year veteran of the chamber.
“Virtually everyone who had something to say had some reservations,” Abercrombie said of his colleagues’ private discussions about lobbying reform yesterday.
“I don’t think it’s efficacious, this doesn’t get at any of the core issues, which is how elections are financed,” he said of Democratic leaders’ proposal. “Suppose your mom belongs to Mothers Against Drunk Driving. That’s lobbying. Now is she entitled to come to ask for a redress of grievances but somebody thinking about keeping the factory going in your own hometown is less well-thought of or legitimate? You have to be real careful of that.”
Reps. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) and Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) also voiced concerns, according to a Democratic source.
Meeks argued that passing campaign finance reform is the best way to fix the public perception that Congress is corrupt.
Kaptur also argued for new election laws.
But Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) said his fellow Democrats all recognized the need to reform Washington’s culture of influence.
“The basic concept is that we know we have to do reform, we know we have to do something that is right and changes the culture,” he said. “Members had a chance, given this is the first time they heard of the bill, to speak about it.”
|
