Abramoff/Gingrich by munificent Blog entry

Blog: Leadership
by munificent

Abramoff/Gingrich

"The siren of lobbyists" does this mean singing destroys ethics..? Or that no one was taught better? Or because the "other kids" do it? Peer Pressure.

Date: 1/7/2006 11:09:05 AM ( 18 y ) ... viewed 1996 times

Newt as Diogenes in a Dark Capitol
Published: January 7, 2006
It was a measure of the failure of Congressional leadership on both sides of the aisle that Newt Gingrich, the disgraced former speaker, was the one to lecture the House Republican majority this week on the siren lure of lobbyists and the pitfalls of cronyism. But Mr. Gingrich, whose downfall included a $300,000 penalty for violating House ethics rules nine years ago, did speak truth. "You can't have a corrupt lobbyist without a corrupt member or a corrupt staffer on the other end," he warned fellow Republicans, who were stunned when Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist darling of legislative leaders, copped a plea and promised to help an investigation of influence peddling at the Capitol.

In the blink of a news cycle, lawmakers and President Bush were turning over tainted donations from the Abramoff money machine to charity, as if they were buying indulgences for a political inquisition to come. They gave no sign of heeding the real messages of the week.

One was that true redemption can come only from a full reform of Congress's porous to nonexistent rules governing members' dealings with lobbyists. And the other is that the Congressional leadership on both sides of the aisle seems incapable of rising to the occasion. Real change will require a ground-level alliance between true conservatives, some of them part of Mr. Gingrich's anticorruption revolution to gain majority power in 1994, and reformers on the Democratic side who are willing to make that bargain.

Right now, the rules are little more than velvet ropes at the Inner Sanctum club of lawmakers and their embedded lobbyists. Dozens of incumbents in both parties are close enough to potent lobbyists to have them run their political fund-raising committees. It's also been routine for lobbyists to pay for lawmakers' junketeering - an estimated $18 million worth for 600 of the people's elected choices across the past five years.

Indeed, the Abramoff scandal could become such a sensation that the more routine lobbying excesses could be overlooked. On a mundane level, these include lobbyists who regularly violate with impunity the existing limits on wining and dining lawmakers and their aides, and on giving them gifts, and the rule on fully reporting lobbying activities. Unfortunately, this Congress is just as likely to raise the $49.99 limit per meal that lobbyists find such an impediment. "In Washington, D.C., there's no such thing as a reasonable restaurant," griped one of the many lawmakers who so far just don't get it.

Anxious Republicans are scurrying to catch up with proposals submitted by such Democrats as Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin and Representatives Martin Meehan of Massachusetts and Rahm Emanuel of Illinois. Their plan is a good start. It would curb lobbyists from packaging campaign donations for incumbents; make lawmakers wait two years, not one, before crossing over to the lucrative world of K Street lobbying; and require more conscientious disclosures of lobbyists' spending.

Even more of a crackdown is needed, including an outright ban on lobbyists' junkets and a clear way of showing the public who the lobbyists are and what they are doing. While they're at it, G.O.P. leaders might find the courage to revive the House's moribund ethics committee.