Lobbying Reform Passes Big

Classy acknowledgment of error, Karen. Perhaps you could teach your colleague Joe a thing or two.

Does the bill contain the requirement for the funding database? I think "Internet Tubes" Stevens of Alaska objected to that provision.

I don't think you were the only one to get that wrong, Karen.

That said, wrong is wrong, and good for you fo 'fessing up.

Looks like the House passed some hiatus requirements, but not as long a timeframe as did the Senate. That sounds like sound policy; it'll be interesting to see how that all shakes out.

Although they did the right thing in the end, the whole thing seems too calculated and cynical for me to be very hopeful that things are changing much in the Beltway. The Iraq vote being another large piece of evidence to that effect.

Karen,

Was your original post something you just dreamed up or was it a tip somebody gave?

I ask because your post was very similar to the politico and washington times and several gop talking points outlets.

So what was it, were ya just thinking or did rove, I mean somebody feed you that lie?

Karen, just for fun: What would you ask Karl Rove if you did have him on speed dial? Maybe all of you posters could just post these questions that you want to ask people, but don't get the chance to.

I'm really interested in that, thanks.

Karen -- Many thanks for this. I'd like to make a suggestion re best practices on sources going forward, though. You write:

"My original post was based on two things: 1. Anxious comments I was hearing from the interest groups that had been working to get this passed. They were keeping very close tabs on how many commitments they had, and how many they still needed. 2. House Democratic leaders and their aides who were "whipping" it and keeping the same lists."

The point is that including this information in the original post would have made that original post much better. Generally, giving readers information about the actual sources and data points upon which you base factual claims helps readers to assess those claims, and generally adds value to the work product.

If I had Karl Rove on speed dial, I would ask him how he gets those blood stains off the alter after he sacrifices the goat to Satan.

But, I am interested in process questions.

Karen,

I guess my question is what is in the bill and how many loopholes does it have. Disclosure is one thing, but to expect members of congress to adhere to the letter of the law? Come on, you know better. Also, its amazing what a little sun does to people that like to hide under rocks isn't it!

its counter-intuitive that Rahm would be a strong advocate of (effective)lobbying reform.

And given Rahm's demonstrated tendency to claim personal credit for the efforts of other people, can you confirm that Rahm was instrumental in its passage and that this isn't just some watered-down "reform" bill? (if the Democrats had followed Rahm's advice and strategy, they'd still be a minority in the House, but that hasn't stopped him from hogging the credit for the 2006 election -- and it sure hasn't stopped journalists from reporting that he was responsible for it, despite the massive amount of evidence to the contrary. So color me unconvinced at this point.)

thanks Karen--tell Klein to update this way too in response to questions, will you?

Karen, thanks for acknowledging your previous claim turned out not to be true.

I am disappointed that the House did NOT vote to have a two-year lapse before Representatives could become lobbyists.

"A bill the Senate overwhelming passed in January would bar any type of lobbying activity, not just contacting lawmakers, for two years. The “cooling off” periods in both versions also apply to senior congressional aides who become lobbyists and seek to influence former colleagues in Congress."

I watched, last year I believe, a hearing on lobby reform, and I was impressed with some of the testimony and recommendations. Some who testified represented lobbyists, and of course, they thought their rights were being trampled on.
I recall discussions about lobbyists being prohibited from going to the gym and being prohibited from buying meals and gifts over a certain dollar amount. Also, there was talk about having a website where all calls and meetings between Congress members and lobbyists were to be entered into a database of some sort.
I would bet that last part didn't make the bill.

If what both houses ultimately pass does NOT go far enough to prevent the kinds of corruption we saw during the GOPer-led Congress and apparently with this administration's full blessings, then shame on the Democrats again.
*******
paul,
I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding Rahm. He is a glory hog for sure.

Re your latest update, I don't think that the rise of 527's is a bad thing. I think it gives ordinary people the chance to collectively reach inside the insular environment of DC previously inhabited only by deep pocketed lobbyists. I attribute the "bad" stuff blamed on the 527's to the media, which is happy to take their faxes and emails and paste them wholesale into their campaign stories, in the fashion of right-wing news purveyors like Politico and Drudge, and notorious persons at Time.com, NYT and WaPo.

"But in the end, the only real answer is electing honest people who will write bills and cast votes on the basis of the best interests of their constituents."

The real answer would be public financing of elections. And it's far from impossible. Groups of people fed up with government policy have done much, much more difficult things. The abolition of slavery in Europe and the Civil Rights movement in the US come to mind. In contrast with that, we can definitely do something as small as force our government to move to public financing.

If I recall correctly, Obama has voiced support for public financing.

Obama is a big supporter of public financing and meaningful campaign and voting reforms. He's also the first Presidential candidate to challenge the campaign finance rules, officially, that his peers and predecessors have used to justify not using public financing in the final election if they didn't use public financing in the primary. Hillary quickly cast off pubic financing limits as soon as she declared, expecting she'd far outspend any contenders, especially the new man, Obama. Before he matched her fundraising so soundly, Obama filed to get a ruling that candidates can go back to public financing in the final election even if they didn't use it in the primary, and McCain quickly jumped on the bandwagon too. This would make a McCain and Obama match-up very interesting, as the first wholly public-financed presidential campaign in decades. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/19/AR2007021900991.html Note that Obama still does not take any donations from national/fed level lobbyists or PACs, though he does take donations from his state lobbyist/PACs. Note also his donations come mainly from individuals' small contributions. Hillary has at least a quarter million from lobbyists alone. See opensecrets.org to see where the money comes from.