Senate GOP blocks ethics reform

[JPriller]

The Senate GOP is blocking the ethics reform bill both sides' leadership had already agreed on, insisting that language giving the president a line-item veto be inserted (or at least voted on).

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-ethics18jan18,1,1843385.story?coll=la-news-politics-national
WASHINGTON ? Senate Democrats' goal of passing strict new ethics rules as their first order of business as the majority party was stymied, perhaps only temporarily, by a partisan dispute on Wednesday.

The flap came just weeks after leaders of both parties pledged to start the new session with a new spirit of bipartisanship.

An effort to move toward approval of the bill was blocked by Republican senators angry with Democrats for refusing to allow a vote on a GOP amendment, a modified version of the line-item veto. Sixty-five votes were needed to advance the legislation, and the vote was 51 to 46.

...The holdup on having a line-item amendment veto vote is Robert Byrd, who is said to object to ceding any such legislative/budget power to the president.

[aindik]

I think Byrd (notorious earmarker that he is) is right on the procedural issue. Under our Constitution, Congress has the legislative power. The President is merely permitted to accept the proposed legislation or reject it.

As the Supreme Court put it, the Constitution requires "bicameralism" and "presentment." IOW, to be law, a statute must be a) voted on and passed by both houses, and b) presented to, and signed by, the President. A statute with a Presidential line through part of it has not passed both Houses (in that form), and therefore cannot be law.

Though, this works both ways. For an earmark that's in a committee report, and not actually in legislation enacted via bicameralism and presentment, the President has constitutional authority to simply not spend the money (since it was not validly allocated by law). With all Bush's expansionist interpretations of the Executive power, he hasn't once brought up the power to not spend money allocated by Congress in something other than a piece of legislation.

As for ethics reform, Reid and Pelosi have both had their issues with that already. Reid with his opposition to a prohibition on earmarks that benefit family members of Senators, and Pelosi exempting American Samoa (and only American Samoa, among the territories of the United States) from the new minimum wage, apparently because two California companies have factories there.

[RegBarc]

Though, this works both ways. For an earmark that's in a committee report, and not actually in legislation enacted via bicameralism and presentment, the President has constitutional authority to simply not spend the money (since it was not validly allocated by law). With all Bush's expansionist interpretations of the Executive power, he hasn't once brought up the power to not spend money allocated by Congress in something other than a piece of legislation.
Just so I'm clear on this, the ability to earmark monies in committee reports is actually a rule of the given house of Congress, not an actual piece of lawful legislation, correct?

[pgogborn]

I do not know enough constitutional law to give Byrd a thumbs up or a thumbs down when he objected to the amendment while waving his copy of the Constitution, but I can see that he has an arguable case.

However, I reckon that the Democrats who say a line-item veto is not relevant to the ethics bill are being unduly optimistic - I doubt measures such as outlawing lobbyists from paying for lunch and travel are enough to stop Senators tucking dodgy special projects into spending bills.

[aindik]

There are generally two types of earmarks - earmarks for lobbyists and earmarks for vote buying. This reform will do absolutely nothing about the second type. In fact, it might make it worse - (i.e. "sorry, but I just had to put my name next to that new museum we're building in our district. It's the law.").

Remember the Bridges to Nowhere? One of them was called Don Young's Way (after Don Young, Congressman from Alaska). He blatantly named it after himself so he'd get the credit. He'll have absolutely no problem putting his name next to the earmark he sponsors in the future.

As far as earmarks in committee reports, I have absolutely no idea how the Executive branch is ever legally given authority (much less required) to spend that money. Bush should issue an immediate Executive Order that no Department of the Executive Branch may henceforth spend even $1 of money if such expenditure is not required or authorized by actual passed legislation.

[smak]

Passed today 96-2.

-smak-

[Turtleboy]

Ethics reform is stupid.

You don't need a law to be ethical. Just be ethical.

[bigpuma]

Ethics reform is stupid.

You don't need a law to be ethical. Just be ethical.

Why be ethical when you can just pass stupid laws that try to make it look like you're ethical.

[smak]

Murder laws are stupid.

You don't need a law to tell you not to murder somebody, just don't murder. :)

-smak-

[JPriller]

Ethics reform is stupid.

You don't need a law to be ethical. Just be ethical.How was that working out prior to this wave of ethics reform? None too good. The incentives to be unethical were too great and the disincentives almost non-existent.

This is hardly going to make Washington corruption-free, but doing nothing is not the solution.

And however it turns out, it was nice to see lawmakers starting out a session trying to out-do each other for the most restrictive ethics reforms instead of changing the rules to protect their leaders and packing the ethics committees with see-no-evil loyalists.

Some of it's just for show, sure. But after all that talk about reform it'll now be much easier to hold their feet to the political fire. If the public doesn't do it for the Dems the GOP sure will, and how can that be bad?

[TreborPugly]

Ethics reform is stupid.

You don't need a law to be ethical. Just be ethical.


Tee hee hee hee. You know we are talking about politicians here, right?


You are right about the principle, and the concept of ethics "reform" is silly. Ethics have always been there. Most people know what is ethical and what isn't, and there's no room to "reform" those concepts. However, politicians have been violating those concepts for decades in the amount and sources of funding for campaigning. And since "everyone does it," there's no chance of that changing, without laws.

True reform would be a complete change in how we run elections. Only give the candidates a month to campaign before an election. Put tight limits on spending. Don't let third parties advertise for them. Get rid of TV advertisements altogether, and instead do mandated debates on Public TV and maybe a 15 minute speech by each candidate on their opinions and policy statements. Nothing like this is going to happen of course, because the politicians love their unethical ways. They like twisting the truth and deceiving the public to get their votes. And given the trends in TV "news", we are moving further and further from straight talk.

[JohnJr]

True reform would be a complete change in how we run elections. Only give the candidates a month to campaign before an election. Put tight limits on spending. Don't let third parties advertise for them. Get rid of TV advertisements altogether, and instead do mandated debates on Public TV and maybe a 15 minute speech by each candidate on their opinions and policy statements. Allow only hand-picked, vetted, Party Member candidates.Fixed your post. ;)

-John

[JPriller]

Only give the candidates a month to campaign before an election. Put tight limits on spending. Don't let third parties advertise for them. Get rid of TV advertisements altogether, and instead do mandated debates on Public TV and maybe a 15 minute speech by each candidate on their opinions and policy statements. I'm no fan of the money=speech argument, but even I have to find all of the above an abridgment of the right to free speech.

[aindik]

I'm no fan of the money=speech argument, but even I have to find all of the above an abridgment of the right to free speech.

:up: :up:

The way to stop politicians from giving out favors is to limit the power of government. There wouldn't be all this money with which to grant special favors if the government didn't spend 20% of GDP.