from the Washington Post... I do not wish to point fingers (I really don't, seriously). But what on earth is the rational for doing this when we need moral leadership in congress? ----------------------------------------------- By Juliet Eilperin Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, January 8, 2003; Page A17 House Republicans weakened their own ethics rules yesterday, pushing through language that would allow lobbyists to cater meals to members' offices and let charities pay for lawmakers to travel and stay at golf resorts and other locales. House leaders tucked the changes into a broader rules package that Congress approves at the outset of each term. The move sparked a protest from Democrats, the House ethics committee chairman and officials from public watchdog groups, all of whom argued that the changes would undermine efforts to eliminate influence-peddling on Capitol Hill. "It's just an erosion of the gift rule that is not justifiable," said Don Simon, acting president of the public interest group Common Cause. "It's a major retreat. It was done in a stealth fashion without any public scrutiny." Lawmakers approved the rules change on a party-line vote of 221 to 203, after rejecting a Democratic attempt to scuttle it. "Republicans believe they have such a safe and secure majority they want to undo some of the significant strides," said Rep. Martin Frost (D-Tex.). Described as the "pizza rule" by both Republicans and Democrats, the measure would allow outside interests to pay for "perishable food or refreshments offered to members of an office." Last year, for example, a lobbying firm representing pharmaceutical interests sent in dinner for House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's (R-Ill.) staff while they were working late on a prescription drug bill. When Republicans took control of the House in 1995 they severely limited what members could accept from lobbyists and other outside groups. Under current rules, members and staff cannot accept a meal or gift exceeding $50, with a limit of $100 each year from any source. The new rule modified these restrictions by divvying up the value of any given meal by the number of people who eat it. The change contradicts an advisory the ethics committee sent out in November, saying the $50 limit "cannot be evaded by . . . averaging the expense of gifts given to more than one member or staff person." Ethics committee chairman Joel Hefley (R-Colo.) said he had objected to the change, but was overruled by GOP leaders. "We had trouble getting our messages returned out of the speaker's office," he said. "They should come to the ethics committee and ask what we think." Hastert spokesman John Feehery defended the new rules by saying that congressional aides, not lawmakers, would benefit from them. "What this is aimed at is the interns or the low-paid staff who doesn't make any money, and if someone wants to send some food in to them, they should be allowed to eat it," Feehery said. But Hefley said he hopes to revisit the issue. "I don't think anyone can be bought for a piece of pizza, but I think it looks bad," he said. "Part of our job is to avoid the appearance of evil, as well as evil." A separate change would allow any charity certified by the Internal Revenue Service to reimburse members for "travel and lodging expenses" for events where the net proceeds go toward the charity. Common Cause's Simon said this would return Congress to an era where lawmakers traveled to lavish resorts, often to play golf for free. Hefley said he, too, has concerns about the measure. "It does open the gates to abuse," he said.
Wasn't this bundled with the Contract With America reforms? I heard on the radio that Congress also did away with the term limit on the House speakership, which I think was another CWA reform.
"Hastert spokesman John Feehery defended the new rules by saying that congressional aides, not lawmakers, would benefit from them. "What this is aimed at is the interns or the low-paid staff who doesn't make any money, and if someone wants to send some food in to them, they should be allowed to eat it," Feehery said. " These are not the people taking trips to resorts.
Gotta love the business as usual. If it isn't soft money, it's soft food. Another interesting thing was a story I heard yesterday on the radio about how some lobbyists are beginning to complain that the GOP is openly telling them that, if they give money to even a signle Democrat, they won't be welcome at any of the key meetings that help determine policy. One GOP member told the reporter that they wanted to ensure that Democrats received no money from anyone for anything. What always cracks me up about when Dems or Republicans do this sort of thing is how narrow-minded and short-sighted they must be to do it. I mean, the control of Congress and the White House won't last forever. It is inevitable that things will change. Dems did similar crap when they had a stronghold and it's just bizarre. It's like one of the parties gets in power and suddenly forgets that they will eventually be back on the bottom. They don't seem to remember that installing rulles and laws that favor the party in power backfires when they are no longer the party in power. Suddenly, then, it seems like a terrible idea. DUH! I would think this would be particulary clear to the GOP this year with Bush winning by the slimmest of margins and less than 20 percent of the American population turning out to vote in mid-term elections. Given those numbers, it should be painfully obvious that it wouldn't take much to swing everything back the other way. Oh, well.
One GOP member told the reporter that they wanted to ensure that Democrats received no money from anyone for anything. At least Republicans wouldn't be able to blast Democrats for their ties to special interests anymore.
I agree, Jeff. What's odd in this case is that I've really given the Repub. leadership more credit for intelligence than the Dem. leadership recently. If cards are played correctly, with the right public image, the Republicans might be able to keep the house for a long time. Strange choice here. And NW, I do think it overturns parts of the CWA.
If cards are played correctly, with the right public image, the Republicans might be able to keep the house for a long time. Power hungry people never play their cards correctly. See the Democrats, 1992 and Republicans, 1994. And now, Republicans 2002. Get control of all 3 bodies (Pres/House/Senate) and the party is guaranteed to do something truly stupid.
Just to put this in perspective, at a company I worked for, the CEO made a rule that no employee could give him a gift. Also, no doctor's offices (we managed healthcare for large companies) could send him gifts, nor any of the staff nurses. Our customers could, but not the vendors. This was purely for moral reason that we should not look like we are taking gifts from the doctors who care for our customer's employees. Not to say the rule does any harm, but imo, this pizza rule is unnecessary. The congressmen have their own budgets to pay for food when their staff working late hours. I mean, come on. What company doesn't pay for your food when the whole company or dept is ordered to work way past dinner? Cheapskate scumbag companies, that's who.
You guys are buying into the GOP spin already. The issue is not food for staffers, it's trips to resorts and hobnobbing with lobbyists and those currying favor. No lowly staffer is going on one of those trips, though maybe the top staffer might. On the food issue: Having been a lowly staffer on the Hill for about a year many moons ago, it is easy to find food. Every day Congress is in session there are at least 2-3 "receptions" put on by lobbyists. You sneak in, grab a plate of chicken wings, celery, ranch dip, and cookies for supper, then head back to the office to answer more constituent mail. If you can grab the food without being sucked into a conversation with one of the many grubby lobbyists patroling the reception room, you got kudos from your co-workers. This is a longstanding tradition among hill staffers. Other food shows up in the office. Every office from Georgia got Cokes and peanuts delivered each week. The Congressman I worked for had a chocolate factory in his district so every week, we got boxes of chocolates. The same applies for other offices who represented certain food groups. (I cannot remember ever getting catered meals in the office.) The food thing is a non-issue.
rimrocker, as you said, the "pizza rule" is a non-issue. So we agree, as does Hefley, that the pizza rule is more about appearance than anything else. The issue about charities paying for lodging/travel was "a separate change" that I wasn't talking about, but one Helfley said had more chance for abuse. btw: he is a Republican Ethics Committee Chairman. So, what Republican spin am I buying into. I'm sure Batman Jones would like to know too, so his can use it next time his Charity pays for congressmen to come see Tamalalia for free . . . I hear the next Tamalalia has a golf and strip club theme.
I think one side-effect of the golf-resort-rule (for lack of a better name) is that congressmen will participate in more charity events and thereby effect a small increase in the amount of money the sponsoring charities take in. This is a good thing. However, the means are just terrible.
We'll see a bunch of sham charities set up by people wanting something out of Congress specifically to take advantage of this change. Instead of trying to limit abuses, the new rules create loopholes so that the ethics rules can be used to create unethical situations under the guise of ethics. Make sense?
Repubicans, Demorats....they're both the same to me. Someday, maybe in my lifetime even, citizens of this country at some point will become so fed up with both parties' bs that they will revolt. Unfortunately they may be too powerful now.
Um, thx for stating the obvious just like the Republican Chairman said. However, my question was, what Republican spin were we buying into. I can't seem to make any sense out of your statement, "You guys are buying into the GOP spin already. " At that point in the thread, I don't see anyone here falling for GOP spin at all. I think you are looking waaaay too hard for it.
where are those liberal democrats who always talk about those conservative republicans who do something with regularity? oh, there you are!!!
With national level politicians you have to pick the lesser of two evils. Both parties have plenty of politicians that can be bought or rented for periods of time. Since I'm not rich and not religious I choose to be a democrat. I choose the party that occasionally introduces bills that benefit people of my income level and occasionally introduces bills that attempt to limit environmental damage. I'm also a big freedom of speech advocate so it's extremely hard for me to agree with pretty much anything John Ashcroft or the religious right are attempting to do.
