Watchdog Blog

Insider Trading: How Congress Can Make Big Bucks at Our Expense

It has been a difficult start for the financial services sector thus far in 2009 - yet it may be even more difficult to excuse the multitude of bad decisions made by Wall Street already (refusing to release information about bailout spending, Bank of America's $10 million super bowl ads, obscenely large bonuses for AIG executives...the list goes on).  Thankfully, it looks like Congress and the federal government are finally getting more serious about oversight of Wall Street and the financial sector.

Now also would be a good time to put an end to secret spending and insider trading immunity for government officials. 

A recent piece of legislation proposes to do just that.  Introduced by Reps. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-NY) and Tim Walz (D-Minn.), the “Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act” (H.R. 682) would ensure that those with access to privileged "non-public information" gathered through oversight proceedings would not be able to use that information for personal benefit in securities and commodities trading.

Specifically, H.R. 682 would negate a little-known loophole in the law which could allow members of Congress as well as executive staffers and government officials to practice insider trading in order to enrich themselves as well as their associates.  Of course,  this type of insider trading would be wholly illegal for citizens like you and me.

The act would also be effective in combating corrupt lobbying practices, since lobbyists and stock traders ("political intelligence consultants") who haunt the halls of Congress precisely in order to glean insider tips from staff would also be banned from insider trading.

The legislation would require members of Congress and their staff to disclose stock transactions of $1,000 or more within 90 days, and require “political intelligence consultants” to register under the Lobbying Disclosure Act and disclose their financial activities.

The time to pass this legislation is now, before our tax dollars pay for any more lucrative insider investments.

Posted by Craig Holman

Victory! Lobbyist No Longer Up for DOJ Nod

The news is in:  Mark Gitenstein is no longer being considered as a candidate to head the DOJ's Office of Legal Policy, according to the Huffington Post, Roll Call, and several other sources.  The concerns about this longtime corporate lobbyist that we first raised on February 2 and reported in yesterday's post apparently have been heeded. 

According to Roll Call, this decision has been confirmed by an administration official.

It's encouraging to see the Obama Administration standing by its ethics policy.

Ian Millhiser deftly captured the significance of this decision in his Huffington Post article:

Hopefully, this decision will serve as a cautionary tale to other ambitious and talented individuals who, despite a long career of progressive accomplishments, are tempted to work in support of practices as abusive as binding mandatory arbitration.

Our sentiments exactly.

Obama’s Swift Actions Will Hold Government Accountable

Today, Public Citizen president Joan Claybrook lauded President Obama for swift actions to hold the government accountable. The statement follows:

President Obama campaigned with the promise of change, a commitment to government openness and a pledge to uphold high ethical standards. On his first full day in office, the new president showed a willingness to turn rhetoric into action.

After eight years of government in the shadows and preferential treatment of corporate lobbyists under his predecessor, President Obama’s directives and executive orders on presidential records, the Freedom of Information Act, transparency and open government, and ethics are not only important in restoring public access to critical information and holding government accountable, but they serve to reaffirm the hope our nation has in his presidency. By issuing strict rules on the future lobbying activities of his administration, President Obama slowed the revolving door that has allowed so many high-ranking government officials to enrich themselves at the public’s expense. And by emphasizing the openness of government records, the orders help to ensure that abuses of power will not go unnoticed and uncorrected.

Lobbyists Trying to Hide in Plain Sight at the DNC

by Eric Encarnacion

Over the last month, we've talked about the pervasive corporate presence at the national conventions and the ways that big-money special interests will try to influence politicians through their stomachs and their general taste for the good life. Now, with the Democratic National Convention in Denver this week, the evidence is in: Corporations and their lobbyists are throwing lavish parties for lawmakers. They're hard to miss, as the mainstream media has started covering them.

Crashing the Convention Parties

The Democratic Party Convention is now in full swing. As you might imagine, it's quite the jet-set party scene, with well-heeled lobbyists and corporate CEOs schmoozing with our members of Congress and other luminaries.

Like you, we're sick of special interests coming before voters - just look at the mess we're in thanks to this pay-to-play system. Big Oil, Big Pharma and other corporate titans have had their way with our government for too long.

That's why we're crashing their parties!

Lobbyists gone wild!

By Joe Newman, originally posted on Citizen Vox.

How much would you need to throw a great party for several thousand friends? Imagine what you could do with $1 miilion. The possibilities boggle the mind.

I’m thinking little meatballs served with 14-carat gold toothpicks. Now, imagine if you had $112 million at your disposal. That’s how much money corporate sponsors and lobbyists are contributing to this year’s Democratic and Republican conventions, events that have become less about the American political process and more about seeing who can throw the most lavish soirees.

A report released today by Public Citizen shows how corporations and lobbyists are exploiting loopholes in election law and congressional ethics rules to turn the conventions into a place where they can wine and dine lawmakers and lobby them away from Capitol Hill.

Some of these parties appear to cross the line and put lawmakers who attend in violation of their ethics rules, the report says. You can learn more and read the Public Citizen report at www.SayNoToLobbyists.org.

Big Corporate Influence is in the Bag

When the welcome bags for the 2008 DNC national party convention were revealed earlier this month, bloggers took notice. Why? Because the bags are covered in corporate logos.

As blogger and New York Times Bestselling author Glenn Greenwald points out, the national party is making little effort to conceal which companies are financing the convention, instead placing their logos unabashedly on the bag that every delegate and member of the media will receive when they arrive at the conventions [Salon.com, July 20, 2008].

But the benefits of corporate sponsorship go well beyond prominent advertising on welcome bags. A quick look at the sponsorship packets that the host committees give to possible sponsors betrays the true purpose of corporate sponsorship - a guarantee that big-money contributors will have special access to elected officials attending the conventions. The fact that corporate donors have been so reluctant to disclose the exact amount of their contributions further suggests that their interest in sponsorship is far from benevolent.

The Denver host committee packet promises donors who give more than $500,000, "Platinum" and "Presidential" sponsors, access to premier Denver venues for corporate hospitality events and receptions. The Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) has reported that the original Minneapolis St. Paul host committee packet offered top sponsors a golfing outing with Republican leadership, in addition to a reception with local party officials and US Senator Norm Coleman.   

Though these perks were removed from the packet following a number of critical articles in local and national media, the fact remains that the primary benefit that host committees offer to corporate sponsors is exclusive access to decision makers. To ensure that ordinary voters have a voice at the conventions, Congress must act to close the conventions soft-money loophole.

Learn more about corporate sponsorship of the conventions and take action today!

Big Money Influence at the Conventions

Written by Zoe Bridges-Curry and Angela Canterbury.

"I look forward to the day, by 2008, when Americans can turn on their TVs and watch the Nokia Democratic Convention, or the AT&T Republican National Convention."

                                                        - Bradley Smith, former Republican member of the FEC

What happened to putting voters first?  Well, yesterday, our own Craig Holman threw down the gauntlet and told CQ [$] that campaign finance and ethics watchdogs will be out in force, keeping tabs on the events and making noise over rules violations.

Campaign finance laws like the Fair Elections Campaign Act (FECA) were created in part to end the undo influence of corporate donors.  Contradicting the spirit of these laws, political parties continue to use the national party conventions to secure millions of dollars in corporate contributions, funneling contributions through the supposedly nonpartisan host committees.  The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) has even approved this maneuver, thereby allowing wealthy corporations privileged access to elected officials at the conventions.

For the political parties, the conventions are the perfect opportunity to circumvent existing restrictions on soft-money donations, because donors can make lavish contributions to the conventions’ host committees. A report recently released by the Campaign Finance Institute (CFI), estimated that approximately 80% of the estimated $112 million needed to hold the conventions will come from private donors, primarily large corporations.

As both the report and a quick visit to the DNC convention website make clear, in return for sizeable donations, host committees for both parties offer corporations and other big donors exclusive access to elected officials at the conventions.  The greater the donation, the greater the access to advertising opportunities and influential convention attendees. In his talking points for meeting with potential corporate donors, Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty from Minnesota offered corporations the chance to “connect with influential government officials (Cabinet, President, next President)” [New York Times, June 7, 2008]. An added bonus for donors: corporate donations to the host committee are tax deductible, meaning that, ultimately, it is taxpayers who subsidize corporate privilege at the conventions.

The CFI report documents that “Presidential” donors who give $1 million to the DNC Convention receive VIP access to the Pepsi Center convention hall and all Host Committee-sponsored events, numerous advertising opportunities, and the opportunity to attend private events with Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, U.S. Senator Ken Salazar, and other party officials. As advertised in brochures given to potential donors, corporate donors to the GOP Convention receive similar perks for a $5 million donation.

To ensure that voters’ voices are not drowned out by big-money interests, it is crucial that Congress act to prevent unlimited soft-money donations to convention host committees and to ensure public financing for elections.

Take Action! Tell your members of Congress to comply with existing ethics laws at the conventions.

House Report Re-Confirms Abramoff-Bush Connection

For the second time, an investigation by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, led by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), confirmed extensive communications between disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is now serving a prison sentence, the White House and President George Bush. A September 2006 report by the same committee identified 485 contacts between Abramoff and the Bush Administration over the brief career of the scandal-tainted lobbyist; the new report identifies 70 additional contacts.

Despite vociferous denials by White House officials of knowing Jack Abramoff, including denials by President Bush, even the earliest of records demonstrated that Abramoff did indeed visit White House officials. Convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff made at least two visits to the White House during the Bush administration, according to Secret Service logs released in 2006 under a court order. The logs did  not say with whom Abramoff met or what they discussed and "appear to be incomplete," said Tom Fitton, president of the watchdog group Judicial Watch, which requested the records.

The Department of Justice investigation of Abramoff, originally led by DOJ Public Integrity Section chief Noel Hillman, slowly but surely climbed the ladder from an investigation of Abramoff’s wire fraud to Sun Cruz investors in Florida to corruption in Washington, D.C. Most observers thought Hillman would stop the investigation with a conviction against Abramoff. But in January 2006, Washington was stunned by news that Hillman worked out a plea bargain with Abramoff, easing his sentence in exchange for information about bribery and corruption with lawmakers.

As the investigation by the Department of Justice showed signs of uncovering more of the Abramoff-Bush connection, Bush appointed Hillman to a judgeship in federal district court in Baltimore on January 27, 2006.

Campaign Finance Reformers Open the Floodgates

By David Arkush and Craig Holman. Originally published in Roll Call ($).

The presumptive presidential nominees, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), are exploiting a major loophole in the campaign finance law. Both Senators are setting up joint fundraising committees that allow the wealthy to donate $70,000 or more on behalf of their campaigns.

You might wonder how this squares with the $2,300 limit on contributions from individuals - contribution limits that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 sought to protect by banning large soft-money contributions.

Heres how McCain Victory 2008, one of the candidates new joint fundraising committees, is accepting $70,100 from donors: The first $2,300 is treated as a contribution to the McCain campaign. Then, $2,300 goes to McCains compliance fund. The next $28,500 is earmarked for the Republican National Committee. And the remainder - up to $37,000 - is split between the Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico and Wisconsin Republican parties.

McCain set up at least six joint fundraising committees. Obama announced on April 25 that he, too, will set up a joint fundraising committee with the Democratic National Committee.

Another Abramoff-related Conviction

The conviction of John Albaugh, staffer for "Representative #4" (Rep. Istook), for corruption in accepting gifts from Abramoff (meals, hotel suites, travel, sports tickets) represents the 14th conviction related to the Abramoff probe.

Following one fundraising dinner held at no charge at Abramoff's restarurant (Signatures), Istook called Abramoff at Albaugh's suggestion asking Abramoff "which particular projects [Abramoff's] clients want in the transportation bill," according to court documents ($).

And these lawmakers insist they cannot be bought for a dinner. [This one was an undisclosed fundraising dinner to boot.]

Abramoff continues to cooperate with authorities.

Manufacturers Lose Bid to Evade New Lobbying Law

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) lost round one of their attempt to overturn the part of last year's landmark lobbying reform law which requires it to reveal the businesses funding the goliath lobbying organization.  Public Citizen, the Campaign Legal Center, and Democracy 21 filed an amicus brief [pdf] explaining how the disclosure requirement is constitutional, and should be kept intact.  U.S. District Judge Kollar-Kotelly agreed with us.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly dismissed NAM’s constitutional challenge, stating in her opinion:

The Court has conducted a searching review of the NAM’s opening brief, the Opposition filed by Defendant Taylor and the Opposition filed by the Legislative Defendants, the two amici briefs filed in this case by Citizens for Reform and Ethics in Washington (''CREW'') and Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21, and Public Citizen (jointly the ''CLC Amici''), and the NAM’s Reply brief, as well as the relevant statutes and case law.

Bundlers in Limbo

Yesterday, Roll Call ($) pointed out that a hard-won ethics reform is languishing because the Federal Election Commission (FEC) remains without a quorum.  The political wrangling over the Commission – and downright stubbornness of the Republicans in their insistence on the appointment of Hans von Spakovsky has left candidates and lobbyists in limbo.

Public Citizen worked to pass the landmark lobbying and ethics reform bill last year in the wake of continual congressional scandals.  One of the benefits of this new law is that it requires federal candidates – running for Congress or the presidency – to disclose if lobbyists are “bundling” campaign contributions of their behalf.  The FEC is supposed to implement and enforce this new law, and they are out-of-commission (so to speak).

Roll Call quoted Taylor Lincoln, research director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division:

The delay in implementing the rule is depriving the public of important information. It’s best the public knows as much as it can.  We’d rather have disclosure of all the bundlers, but lobbyists are the best place to start. By definition, they’re in business to ask the government for favors, so their contributions should be looked at the most skeptically.

Congress Agrees to Disagree on Gift Rules

In what no longer comes as a surprise, the House ethics committee — contradicted by their colleagues at the Senate ethics committee — have poked another gaping hole in the new ethics rules.  The new ethics rules ban gifts of any value from lobbying organizations to lawmakers.  Both the House and Senate ethics committees were asked by a lobbying organization to rule on whether that organization may buy tables of seats at a charity event, and then suggest to the sponsors of the event to hand them over as gifts to lawmakers.

The House ethics committee said "yes."  The Senate ethics committee said "no."

Following the House committee's ruling on parties at the national conventions — in which the House ethics committee said that the new ban on lobbyists throwing lavish parties for a lawmaker at the national conventions does not apply if two or more lawmakers are honored at the party — it is becoming clear that we have a rogue House ethics committee that has not changed much since Tom DeLay.

The House Ethics Committee Parties On

The notorious House ethics committee – the one that in the previous Congress presided over the wave of Abramoff-related lobbying scandals without conducting a single investigation into any of them – recently issued absurd new guidelines to keep the “party” in the 2008 national party conventions.

The new lobbying and ethics law bans lobbyists and lobbying organizations from hosting or paying for lavish parties for lawmakers at the national party conventions. The new congressional ethics rule is worded very simply and the meaning obvious on its face. House Rule 25 reads as follows:

"During the dates on which the national political party to which a Member (including a Delegate or Resident Commissioner) belongs holds its convention to nominate a candidate for the office of President or Vice President, the Member may not participate in an event honoring that Member, other than in his or her capacity as a candidate for such office, if such event is directly paid for by a registered lobbyist under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 or a private entity that retains or employs such a registered lobbyist."

As it reads, it would seem this would be the end of lavish soirées sponsored by lobbyists to wine and dine lawmakers at the party conventions.

But wait! Lobbyists, lobbying organizations, party officials, everybody understood this would be the end of especially lavish access – and they all grumbled.  As for lawmakers, perhaps they simply could not bear to part with the lobbyist bashes. Quite frankly, they must have reasoned, what else is there to do at the conventions?

So the House ethics committee interpreted the new rule to prohibit lobbyists from sponsoring a party for a single lawmaker – but if the lobbyist wants to host a party for two or more lawmakers without honoring any specific lawmaker – such as a caucus or delegation of lawmakers – that would be just fine as far as the ethics committee is concerned.

Shame on them.

Ah, the House ethics committee continues to live up to its reputation of enforcing lobbyist access over ethics. This self-created and self-serving loophole must be closed now.  If it’s not, we will be glad to dog any lawmaker – or group of lawmakers who choose to flout the intent of the new lobbying and ethics law and party on at the conventions. 

I hope we don’t have to crash the party.  But if we do, I’ll see ya in St. Paul and Denver.

Laura MacCleery on WVOX

Last week, Laura MacCleery, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch division, spoke to New Yorkers about the recently passed Lobbying and Ethics bill, the role of lobbyists in campaign fundraising, Fair Elections, and presidential bundlers.

Listen to her interview on WVOX.

Congress Delivers on Lobbying and Ethics Reform!

Finally – real ethics reform passed in Congress!  Yesterday the Senate approved S. 1 – the “Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007” – with a veto-proof majority of 83 to 14. On Tuesday, the House also passed the bill with flying colors by 411 to 8.

This terrific legislation will give the public important new information about the cozy relationships between industry lobbyists and members of Congress, and limit the outrageous gifts and travel junkets that laid the groundwork for the culture of corruption on Capitol Hill.   

Today marks the final chapter of a long struggle. We first kicked off the drive to fix Capitol Hill over three years ago. Back then, our “wish list” of reforms was largely ignored by members of Congress and the media – even laughed at as a political impossibility. Then Jack Abramoff’s world – and that of many prominent members of Congress – started to unravel. 

As the investigations into kickbacks and bribes became indictments, our call for reform – and the increased public disgust with Washington – became more and more difficult to ignore. When Abramoff worked out a plea deal in January 2006 to name those whom he bribed to the FBI, you’d have thought the gig was up. But the leadership of the 109th Congress burrowed into the warm sand like ostriches and ignored the need for reform.  In return for their indifference, the voters changed up the Congress in 2006, citing corruption as a top concern.

But institutional change is hard even for a Congress elected on a promise to “end the culture of corruption.” As the bill moved forward, the “K Street” crowd lobbied hard, warning members not to bite the hands that keep lawmakers fat and happy. Public Citizen’s activists did not back down, sending thousands of faxes, emails and making hundreds of call to the Hill to tell Congress it must see this through. 

House Overwhelmingly Approves Ethics Bill - Next: The Senate

It always amazes me what a roll-call vote can do. Behind the scenes, in back-room negotiations, many members of Congress have been laboring away trying to water down – if not kill – lobbying and ethics reform legislation.

Yet when the same bill was submitted to a roll-call vote, where members go on record voting “yea” or “nay,” the bill on ethics sailed through. The House passed a landmark lobbying and ethics bill today by a vote of 411-to-8. Looking at the floor vote, most of the public would not know that many members of Congress had wished this bill would die a quiet death.

About two weeks ago, the bill had one foot in the grave.

Sen. DeMint – Remove Your Hold Against Congressional Ethics Reform

For the second time in two weeks, Senate Republicans have blocked the lobbying and ethics reform legislation. First it was Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) who obstructed final consideration of the legislation; now it is Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).

Both senators claim that they are not opposed to ethics, or even the new reform legislation, for that matter. They just want assurances that favored legislative proposals will be addressed. For DeMint, he wants the Senate to guarantee passage of earmarking reform, before he will allow the lobbying and ethics bill – which contains DeMint’s exact earmarking reform language – proceed to conference committee to iron out the differences with the House bill.

Don’t buy these excuses for a second.

Last year, when the Republicans controlled Congress and had a golden opportunity to clean up its act and pass lobbying and ethics reform legislation, the Republicans chose instead to let the legislation quietly die in conference. How convenient: they went on record voting for reform, but did not actually have to stomach any reform.

This year, the reform legislation rolled through both the Senate and the House, but must again be reconciled in conference before final passage. If DeMint and McConnell succeed at blocking conference proceedings, they will have succeeded at killing the legislation – all the while avoiding a public vote against reform.

Enough already! Americans are demanding lobbying and ethics reform. DeMint – end your filibuster against ethics.

Read Public Citizen’s letter to DeMint and our press release touting the tough letter.

UPDATE: Read the letter and press release by Public Citizen and its coalition partners.

Reform-minded Senators Call for Strong Bill

Eleven senators, led by Senators Russ Feingold (D.-Wisc.) and Barack Obama (D.-Ill.), and all of the freshman Senate Democrats — Senators Brown, Cardin, Casey, Klobuchar, McCaskill, Tester, Webb and Whitehouse — as well as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I.- Vt.), sent a letter to leadership asking them to preserve the strong medicine for corrupt government in S.1, the Senate's landmark lobbying and ethics reform bill. The bill is on its way to conference.

The senators called on the leaders to maintain support in conference for all of the significant achievements of the bill, including:

• A strong gift ban;
• Restrictions on corporate jet flights;
• Disclosure of bundling by lobbyists; 
• The revolving door language that is in the Senate's version of the bill;
• Limits on privately funded travel;
• Restrictions on lavish convention parties; and
• Improvements in legislative transparency.

We applaud these senators for their leadership and vision.

Colbert on Revolving Door

The much touted lobbying & ethics bill is heading to committee to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House versions and one of the key provisions we have been fighting for may not survive.  Is it too much to ask for slightly stricter revolving door provisions?  Can't members of Congress wait one more year before they cash-in on K Street and turn around to lobby their former colleagues?

Apparently not.

Stephen Colbert finds this debate ridiculous.  Let's demand this reasonable and necessary reform.

Claybrook Conversation on Moyer's Blog

Joan Claybrook's post on the Bill Moyers Journal Blog is generating a lively conversation about the need for lobbying and ethics reform in Congress.  Not surprisingly, there are many reflections on the impact of corporate interests, and public funding of elections came up quickly as the ultimate antidote. 

You can check it out and join in, or pick up the thread here. 

If you haven't yet had a chance to see the "Cleaning House" segment of the Bill Moyers Journal that we announced here on the Watchdog Blog, you can watch it below:

Joan Claybrook and Bill Moyers on What’s at Stake

Tune in tonight when award-winning journalist Bill Moyers sits down with Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook for an in-depth examination of what makes the lobbying and ethics reform bill the single most important piece of legislation Congress can enact. Bill Moyers Journal airs on PBS. Check your local listings for the exact time of the broadcast or watch online afterwards and learn what is at stake.

Here’s a preview of the Moyers show.  Here’s what you can do.

What opposition?

This past week the House finally passed the long-awaited lobbying reform bill.  After months of wrangling, significant reforms in the relationship between lobbyists and Congress passed overwhelmingly. 

Check out Craig Holman's excellent piece in The Politico.  Here's what Craig has to say about those who fought the reforms:

The curmudgeons were those in the middle layer of the caucus – folks who have been around Capitol Hill for 10 or 20 years. Members such as Reps. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) and Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla.) railed against the reforms. These lawmakers have close fundraising relationships with the lobbying corps and perhaps also are eyeing million-dollar lobbying jobs in the near future. Hastings, now serving his eighth term, scoffed at the reformers, who “want Congress to be in sackcloth and ashes.”

The old bulls’ opposition was so vocal that Democratic leaders continued to water down the bill to buy their votes. In the most tragic cut of all, a back-room deal was worked out to strip the reform bill of its revolving door restrictions in exchange for a vote to send the measure to the floor. But Abercrombie et al. still continued to decry other provisions, such as the bundling disclosure, threatening to kill the measure on the floor.

Though these guys still voted against the reform bill, they were about the only ones. The measure passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 396-22.

This is a hard-won victory that we share with our allies in the House, our coalition partners, the voices of reason in the media and blogosphere, and most of all, with our very committed activists. 

Now let's make sure the members of the conference committee don't shred these reforms when joining the Senate and House versions of the bills.

So Much for the Cleanest Congress in History

Those screwy Democrats - not much good news on the lobbying reform front.

While the Democratic leadership and freshmen Dems clearly want some substantial lobbying and ethics reform legislation, the "old bulls" in the Democratic caucus do not want business-as-usual to change much. These are the members who have been around Congress for 10 or 20 years and now dominate chairs on various committees.

The old bulls made it clear earlier that they would join Republicans and defeat the entire bill. So, leadership worked out a deal this morning: that all the revolving door provisions, including the simple extending the cooling off period from one year to two years, would be removed from the bill, if they would support an amendment to disclose campaign bundling by lobbyists along with the base disclosure bill. That deal went though. It means that the floor rule will be designed to prohibit introduction of the revolving door amendment I had been working on.

Following that deal, Democrats overwhelming defeated amendments to disclose grassroots lobbying, and to prohibit lobbyists from organizing and paying for convention parties and other events honoring Members.

The Republican caucus is quite happy with the bill so far, with Lamar Smith (R-Texas) pointing out that it resembles the lobbying reform bill the Republicans approved in the 109th Congress (but which perished in conference) - and which we denounced as "warm spit."

Not a very impressive performance by a Democratic caucus that promised to make this Congress "the cleanest in history."

Who’s the Best at Growing the Grassroots?

Check it out! The Hill newspaper recently published its list of the greatest growers of the grassroots and Public Citizen is featured three times; more than any other organization!

First, The Hill names Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook and suggests we “could have a lot more clout in a Congress that is aggressively targeting federal agencies and corporate America.”  We’ll keep the pressure up to ensure we accomplish as much as possible.

Second is Congress Watch Lobbyist, Craig Holman.  The Hill calls him “the go-to guy on campaign finance.”  Lean more about the span of his work from election reform and lobbying & ethics reform.

Last but not least, Global Trade Watch Director Lori Wallach rounds out the list of those who are mobilizing the grassroots.  "Since early in the Clinton administration, Wallach has been a key player," leading the fight for fairness and justice in global trade policy.

We must thank all of our dedicated activists who make our work effective and helping to create change.

Want to join our activist network?  Sign up here.

The Business Community Joins in the Call for Lobbying and Ethics Reform

The Committee for Economic Development (CED), a national association of 250 business and education leaders, signed on to a letter sent to Congress today calling for House members to carry through on their promise of passing meaningful, new lobbying and ethics reforms.

    The letter, also signed by Public Citizen, U.S. PIRG, the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center, urged the House to approve a lobbying and ethics reform package at least as strong as the legislation approved earlier by the Senate. The Senate bill (S. 1) would severely curtail gifts and travel provided by lobbying organizations; establish electronic reporting of all lobbyist financial reports; and slow the revolving door in which officials freely move from the public sector into lucrative lobbying positions.

    CED and the reform community also called upon the House not to weaken some key provisions of the Senate bill. Most notably, the House must not strike the provisions that:

• Require lobbyists to disclose bundling of campaign contributions; and
• Ban “paid lobbying activity” (rather than just “lobbying contacts”) during the 2-year cooling off period of the revolving door restriction.

The groups also called upon the House to reinstate into the reform legislation a requirement that for-profit businesses disclose their so-called “grassroots lobbying” expenditures in excess of $100,000.

You can read the letter here [pdf].

Unbundle the Abramoffs

Public Citizen activists have been encouraging members of Congress to provide more information about lobbyists who bundle campaign contributions.  Check out today's editorial in The Washington Post:

THE HOUSE Democratic leadership is to meet this week to determine the content of the lobbying reform package it says is one of its top priorities. The key test of the leadership's seriousness on this issue will be whether the proposal includes a provision to require lobbyists to disclose the bundles of cash they collect for lawmakers' campaigns.

Such a requirement was contained in the Senate lobbying bill passed in January. The head of the House Democrats' campaign committee, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), sponsored a similar requirement last year and is pushing it again this time around -- despite the crimp it could put in his ability to raise money for his troops. But other influential House members are said to be balking, worried that merely requiring lobbyists to reveal the bundles could reduce the number and size of such donations.

This is, of course, precisely why disclosure is essential. The influence that lobbyists wield can't be gauged by looking at their individual contributions. Their power comes in their capacity to deliver a stack of checks to grateful lawmakers. A lawmaker knows how much he or she is indebted to a lobbyist. So, you can be sure, does the lobbyist. The only ones in the dark are the public.

This provision wouldn't ban bundling, just shine some sunlight on it. It wouldn't apply to all big fundraisers, just ones who make their livings lobbying the legislators for whom they're bringing in the bundles. House Democrats must keep this in mind: They're in power in large part because of the cozy, and in some cases corrupt, relationships their predecessors had with lobbyists. If they want to stay in power, they need to demonstrate that they are willing, finally, to do something about this.

We couldn't agree more.

The Dizzying Spin of the Revolving Door

On Tuesday, a former congressional staffer on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mark Zachares, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the public by accepting gifts and promises of a high-paying lobbying job on K Street in exchange for official favors for disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his clients.

Zachares's conviction stems from one of the most powerful tools for buying influence on Capitol Hill: the revolving door, in which lucrative lobbying jobs in the private sector are offered to public officials, oftentimes to win legislative favors for clients.

Zachares joins a growing list of congressional and executive branch officials who have been convicted for revolving door corruption such as Tony Rudy and Neil Volz, former senior staffers to retired Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and imprisoned Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), respectively and an even larger list of former officials shrouded in scandal such as former Rep. Bill Tauzin (R.-Louis.) for immediately spinning through the revolving door after leaving public service.

Despite the fact that there is a one-year cooling-off period in which former officials are not supposed to make lobbying contacts with the former colleagues, the current revolving door restriction is an abysmal failure. Of members of Congress who left office between 1998 and 2004, 43 percent went on to become lobbyists 42 percent of ex-House members and 50 percent of ex-Senators. By July 2005, only six months after the end of the 108th Congress, 18 departed members from that Congress had announced accepting jobs with lobbying firms. Four actually registered as federal lobbyists within their first year of leaving Congress. After the last Administration, about a quarter of senior cabinet officials moved into private employment as lobbyists.

The heart and soul of the problem is that former officials are currently prohibited only from making lobbying contacts picking up the telephone and calling their former colleagues during the cooling off period. All other paid lobbying activity during this period-- the planning, strategizing and supervising lobbying campaigns-- is unrestricted immediately after leaving public office.

Never before have we seen the revolving door spin so wildly out of control. It permeates the culture on Capitol Hill, vastly increasing the opportunities for corruption, and sharply diminishing the publics confidence in the federal government.

Resonable reforms must be put into place. Otherwise the revolving door, which raises so much public suspicion about conflicts of interest, will remain in spin mode.

Deliver on the Promise to Clean Up Washington

Today, Public Citizen submitted testimony [pdf] to the House Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement. The Task Force is conducting hearings on whether the current congressional ethics enforcement system is broken – YES, IT IS – and, if so, how to fix it.

The Special Task Force, chaired by Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Mass.), is the creation of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. If the Task Force delivers on its promise, its recommendations will serve as the basis for separate reform legislation to restructure the congressional ethics enforcement process.

On Day One of the 110th Congress, Speaker Pelosi introduced, and the House nearly unanimously approved, a sweeping set of ethics rules changes that has been widely praised inside and outside the beltway. A legislative package with additional lobbying and ethics reforms will soon follow.

But one essential reform to prove to the public that Congress is serious about cleaning up Washington is still up in the air:  Will Congress establish an effective, independent enforcement agency to monitor compliance to the new laws?

Perhaps the single most important reason that scandal after scandal has rocked Congress is that no single agency is responsible for, nor has the resources to ensure, compliance to the lobbying and ethics rules. Lobbyists file their financial reports with the Clerk of the House, who does not have the authority or the means to guarantee that these reports are filed accurately. Congressional ethics are the responsibility of the House ethics committee, which does not have the staff to monitor and advise Congress on compliance to the rules.

If Congress is serious about lobbying and ethics reforms, these duties must be the responsibility of one agency, professionally staffed and reasonably independent from partisan politics.

Public Citizen in the strongest terms possible urges the Task Force to fulfill its promise and deliver a proposal to fundamentally restructure the ethics process into a monitoring and enforcement system that actually works.

Funny Money Hits the Hill

If members of Congress think that the fight to clean up Washington ended on Nov. 7, they are sorely mistaken.

Yet there are still plenty of politicians here who DO NOT want to change a thing.  Others who ran on cleaning up Washington still have not delivered.  It's easy for politicians to get a little too comfortable with the way things work in DC…

The truth is you gotta keep on bugging them.

Public Citizen and other reform groups have been prodding Congress to put their lobbying and ethics reform bill back on the front burner.   We don’t want the political momentum for bold reform to lose steam and are asking folks to pull out all the stops to keep it going until it gets passed.

That is why we are delivering "funny money" lobbyist cash to reps. on behalf of their constituents.  Our activists are demanding to know who how much bundled campaign contributions are coming from lobbyists and what for-profit grassroots lobbying firms are spending big bucks to influence Congress on controversial legislation.

We figured -- money talks in Washington.  Take a second to send your own and say it's time for real change, and not chump change.

The New Dog on the Blog

Welcome to our new and improved Watchdog Blog.

This dog covers all Congress Watch issues and campaigns, not just money and politics.  We aren’t going to let up on exposing political corruption, but now we will cover all of the juicy stuff in our bailiwick – critical issues like civil justice, including access to courts and consumer advocacy.  If government or corporate accountability is in question, or when other vital reforms are needed, you will read about it here.

In addition to the freshly groomed appearance of the Watchdog, it also now has syndication by both RSS feed and email.  You can subscribe to receive all Watchdog Blog posts, or if you prefer, you can choose to receive only posts on Money & Politics or Civil Justice issues.

It’s also MUCH easier to participate.  If you can’t remember your comment login and password, don’t worry.  Now all you need to join the discussion is a name, an email, and an opinion.

Just hit comments and let’s begin the conversation.   

The Tax Man Cometh - for Members of Congress

After being disregarded by Congress last year regarding our request that it move to address rampant congressional travel abuses -- including free trips all over the globe with family members, paid for by special interest groups seeking legislative favors -- Public Citizen pursued another tack.

Last fall, we filed a complaint with the IRS regarding probable travel abuses by many members of Congress who are joined by relatives on travel junkets paid for by special interests, but fail to declare the amount of money paid for the relatives' travel as income subject to tax. Public Citizen asked the IRS to investigate, collect back taxes where appropriate, and provide Congress with guidance on the tax implications of future travel benefits and gifts.

Congressional ethics rules permit members and congressional staff to accept free travel paid for by special interest groups so long as it is for “officially-connected purposes.” The ethics rules were amended by the House this year to reduce many of the excesses that Public Citizen has been highlighting.

The Solution to the Money Problem Introduced

Today Public Citizen joined with congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle and a broad coalition of civic groups to uproot the problem of money in politics. Senators Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) announced the introduction of the Fair Elections Now Act [listen] to establish public funds for senatorial elections.  This bold and important bill would transform federal elections for the U.S. Senate from a business enterprise into a contest of ideas focused on our nation's challenges. 

It’s plain that the cost of campaigns for Senate (and all other offices) is out-of-sight.  Over the last past three election cycles, the average cost of the 10 most expensive Senate races has more than doubled, from $16.9 million in 2002 to $34.9 million in 2006.  This escalation in costs continues today, and candidates will have to spend more and more time trying to raise enough money to compete.  Enough is enough.  We cannot allow our government to keep spiraling out of the hands of ordinary Americans.

The Fair Elections Now Act would create a voluntary system through which participating candidates - those who establish their credibility by collecting enough qualifying contributions and who then pledge not to accept private contributions - would receive public funds for the primary and general elections.  Participants would also be eligible for free media vouchers and discounted commercial advertising rates.  The bill is patterned on successful efforts to reduce the impact of money on the election process in Arizona, Maine, and elsewhere.

Public funding of congressional elections is a huge break for the American taxpayer. It would cost just a fraction of one percent of the annual federal budget. But it would produce lawmakers who would not feel obligated to repay donors with costly tax loopholes, special earmarks and other boondoggles that drain billions of taxpayer dollars from the Treasury.

Last year, we fought to clean up the corruption in Washington. The public took notice, and then took action, culminating on November 7, when voters chose to put an end to the culture of corruption.  The new Congress is responding to the call for change by debating a variety of worthwhile ethics and lobbying reforms. 

Some of these first-line improvements are expected to pass in the coming weeks - but none of these will lower our gas prices, the cost of prescription drugs or student loans  - all inflated by tax-breaks and special corporate giveaways served up by lobbyists and well-heeled contributors. 

The only lasting antidote to the corrupting influence that comes with privately funded elections is to publicly fund them with a system of fair and clean elections.  Thanks to Senators Durbin and Specter, we are on our way to a brighter future.

Lobbying Reform in the House's Hands

Today the House picks back up with its work to end the “culture of corruption” in Washington.  The House Judiciary’s subcommittee on the constitution, civil rights and civil liberties is discussing the bill of comprehensive reforms passed by the Senate, S.1, in a hearing today.  This is an excellent place to begin. But will the panel and House leadership make their bill match their promises to be the most "ethical Congress" in history? 

Public Citizen submitted a letter today to the subcommittee and the other members of Congress, urging them to take a tough stand in some key areas.  First, they need to shine sunlight on the secret fundraising done by lobbyists.  As noted in a piece by Congress Watch Director Laura MacCleery posted on Commondreams.org, the public has a right to know who is involved in the practice of “bundling” gobs of campaign cash at lavish fundraisers or through lobbyist networks.  These bundled contributions add up to influence and access for lobbyist bundlers and their clients.

The House also must slow the revolving door between K Street and Capitol Hill.  Lobbying restrictions are supposed to prevent government employees from stepping through the revolving door between the Capitol and “K Street” and selling out the public by exploiting the contacts they made while in office.  Developments in recent years have shown these laws need MUCH improvement. Check out our post on this blog on Zell Miller’s turn through the revolving door.

The public also needs to know who is funding “Astroturf” lobbying. Business journalist Gary Weiss lays it all out in “Astroturfing Congress” in Forbes.

Perhaps the biggest opportunity for the new House to put their stamp on real reform is to create an independent monitoring and enforcement entity.  The House can best the Senate by making sure all of these new laws and rules actually get enforced.

Let’s hope the members of the people’s House fulfill their promise. This is their moment to make Congress more accountable and inspire confidence in a government for and by the people.

'Dusty' Ethics

Some of you may have heard that Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, former CIA Administrator, was indicted on February 13 for allegedly accepting bribes of meals and lavish vacations in exchange for doling out government contracts to California businessman and Republican campaign contributor Brent Wilkes.

In my testimony [pdf] before the House Government Reform Committee, also on February 13, I cited one of the major problems contributing to ethics abuses in the executive branch is the lack of ethics oversight. Responsibility for monitoring and enforcing ethics rules are left to some 6,000 individual ethics officers scattered among all the various executive agencies. Many of these ethics officers are poorly trained, if trained at all.

What is less known is that "Dusty" was one of those ethics officers.

Public Citizen testifies this morning

Today, Public Citizen advocate Craig Holman is testifying today before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about ways to improve the Executive Branch Reform Act of 2007, a bill that is currently separate from the House lobbying reform legislation, but would slow the revolving door between the executive branch and industry.

You can read his testimony here: http://www.citizen.org/documents/craigtestimony.pdf

Too ethical for Coburn?

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) thinks the lobbying and ethics reforms passed in January are too strong.  He was one of only two senators who voted against it.  And if the House passes it, he claims he won't run for re-election in 2010:

"If this becomes law, I will guarantee you I won't run again....I will promise you, very few people in the future will run for Senate or Congress because every campaign will be about somebody making a complaint."

Sen. Coburn expressed concern that if a senator committed an "accidental mistake" it could cost up to $500,000 in legal fees. While we are not sure where this figure comes from, we are more curious what type of "accidental mistakes" Sen. Coburn is afraid he may make. Is he afraid he might be an accidental tourist in Scotland, perhaps?

Clinton puts 'Rangers' to shame - Clinton Should 'Tell All' About Bundlers

Today, the Washington Post editorialized about Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-N.Y.) one-million-dollar ask of supporters for her presidential bid. This dwarfs the $200,000 which Bush asked prospective Rangers to raise. Every four years, the bar for presidential fundraising shoots skywards - 2008 will surely take us to new stomach-turning heights.

The Federal Election Commission sets contribution limits at $2,300 per person for the primary, and allows another $2,300 per person for the general election. Big donors get around these limits by driving truck loads of cash through a loophole known as bundling. It allows people (especially those of the lobbyist variety) to keep funneling money to candidates long after reaching their personal limit. Examples of bundling include lobbyist who host fundraisers or corporate CEO who ask employees to make donations.

If running for president means asking supporters to gather this obscene amount of money, the public deserves to know who the bundlers are, whose money they are bundling and how much they bundle. Both Bush and Kerry chose to tell the public this information in the 2004 election, but such disclosure of bundling is entirely voluntary. It should be mandatory.

Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Marty Meehan (D-Mass.) are co-sponsoring a bill (H.R. 633) that would require disclosure of bundling by lobbyists for all presidential and congressional candidates. The Senate already passed this measure in their lobbying and ethics reform bill (S. 1). You can take action here to ensure the House does the same.

New Man on the Hill Shows All

The AP reports, Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) has fulfilled a unique campaign promise.  At end of each day, his office posts a schedule of what he did and with whom he met.

Constituents can see how much time he is in the gym or who is joining him for lunch.  For instance, at 2:15pm on January 30, 2007, he met with with Lyndsey Layton of the Washington Post for an interview.

Such transparency is a remarkable step forward for government accountability and helps put pressure on other senators to open up about how they spend their time.  They are, after all, our public servants and unless they have something to hide, they ought to follow his lead.   

Wondering why your senator doesn't do the same?  Why not ask?

Click here to find your Senators' phone number, or call the Senate switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

Let us know what you hear by commenting to this blog below.

A Victory for Voters - the Senate Delivers Real Reform

(Listen to my podcast: click here [mp3])

Last night the Senate brought back its lobbying and ethics reform bill from the grave, finally approving a sweeping measure that contains more than I had expected.  It was looking grim yesterday, as a partisan fight had broken out the day before which threatened to kill the whole bill.

The stand-off was over a dispute between Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on whether the Senate would take a vote on a "line-item" veto proposal desired by President Bush.  Our activists and other concerned citizens then flooded the Capitol with calls demanding an immediate vote on real lobbying and ethics reform.

Throughout the afternoon and into the evening, the Senate leaders negotiated an agreement that eventually brought the bill back to life. McConnell got a promise on a later vote on a watered-down “line-item” veto bill – and we got a series of strengthening amendments. The bill:

Update: Grassroots Lobbying Debate Heats Up in Senate

The Senate's ethics and lobbying reform bill, S. 1 [pdf], will be debated on the floor this week and through the end of next week.  Contained in the bill is a strong provision that would shine new light on grassroots lobbying by large (and often for-profit) lobbying firms.

Frightened for their bottom line, and protective of the premium they earn for stealth efforts that conceal the real interests of industry, a small coalition of right-wing groups is trumping up a controversy over this simple new disclosure provision. We responded to their concerns in a letter sent yesterday [pdf].

We also released a report, Organizing Astroturf [pdf], which listed 12 examples of bogus grassroots efforts by phony industry-backed groups and the important public issues involved, which included everything from asbestos rules to the environment and the estate tax.

The provision in the Senate bill is very narrowly drawn. It requires disclosure only when an entity spends a large amount of money – more than $25,000 over a three-month period – to rally the public to urge Congress to act on a pending bill.  The measure does not in any way restrict lobbying activities by individuals or groups.

Citizens and lawmakers deserve to know who is influencing public policy. Please take a minute to call your Senators and let them know you agree with us that sunlight is the best disinfectant for politics.

The March Toward Meaningful Lobbying and Ethics Reform

Under the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the House in a single day approved some of the most critical new ethics rules changes seen in a decade. Lobbyists, and organizations that employ them, are now banned from giving gifts of any value to members of Congress and their staff; prohibited from arranging or paying for congressional travel, except for one-day trips to make a speech or attend a conference; and barred from flying on private corporate jets for campaign purposes, personal trips and travel connected to official duties. Further, the growing wave of earmarks in appropriations and tax bills must be identified with a specific congressional sponsor.

Nearly all of these reforms were rebuked by the House and the Senate last year. Following the November elections, the same reforms were adopted by a near-unanimous vote of 430-to-1, with Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) as the lone dissenting vote.

Next on the reform agenda for Pelosi is her legislative package, which regulates the conduct of persons outside the House (i.e., lobbyists and former members). This package is expected to contain an equally impressive set of legislative reforms, such as slowing the revolving door and enhancing disclosure of fundraising activity by lobbyists and Astroturf lobbying.

Lobbying and Ethics Reform: Déjà vu or Genuine Reform?

The 109th Republican leadership’s failure to enact meaningful lobbying and ethics reform played a decisive role in the 2006 general elections. Despite pronunciations by some during the lobbying reform debate that voters would not care about the plague of corruption scandals, both exit polls and the election results showed corruption was the top concern. The DCCC, in a post-election memo, observed the direct effects of corruption was the addition of 8 additional Democratic seats in districts tarred by the scandals.

The new Democratic leadership – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid – realize the centrality of lobbying and ethics reform to voters, and both pledged to introduce reform legislation as their first items of business in the 110th Congress.

Understanding the significance of this colossal sea change requires a quick review of recent events. Two years ago, there was no interest in addressing in lobbying and ethics abuses except from the most stalwart reformers like Rep. Marty Meehan and Sen. Russell Feingold. And their legislative proposals went nowhere, never getting a hearing.

Then Jack Abramoff hit the Capitol.

Free speech, but for whom?

Today, Public Citizen sent a response to the so-called "Free Speech" Coalition, which complained in a letter to us last week that the Pelosi bill will require more disclosure of lobbying campaigns.

These complaints were also taken up in a recent issue of the right-wing Washington Examiner, which comically aggrandized our role in the legislative effort by labeling the bill as "Pelosi-Claybrook."  While we are supportive and involved in the process, our President, Joan Claybrook, has never been elected as a member of Congress, and therefore cannot be a co-sponsor of the bill.

Far more importantly, the coalition is upset by the proposal because they would prefer to keep operating in the dark. The bill requires that sponsors of large and expensive grassroots lobbying campaigns disclose where the money came from and how it was spent.  We've seen far too often that wealthy special interests create front groups and run misleading TV ad campaigns (remember Harry and Louise?).

This bill would change all that, without infringing one bit on freedom of speech. Disclosure of the amount and source of money spent to sway the public in ad blitzes on pending legislation is the very essence of what citizens need to act in an informed way.

And it buttresses the First Amendment for the public to know the identity of a speaker in the marketplace of ideas, enabling citizens to draw their own conclusions about the motives and self-interest of the speaker. Instead, this coalition wants to hide in the shadows by concealing their shilling for corporate interests and playing high-stakes political games to deceive voters.

We invite everyone to write the Examiner to correct the record on the proposal and make the case that the Pelosi measure to require reporting of for-profit grassroots lobbying is well-reasoned and long overdue. Send your letters to editor@examiner.com.

Members fail to go public about their privately-funded travel

St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., is a beautiful Caribbean island adjacent to Puerto Rico. Its white beaches and cool tropical breezes are magnets for tourists, including Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY). But unlike most visitors, Rangel had the cost of his airfare and accommodations covered by the New York Carib News when he visited St. Thomas in November 2005. The trip was officially intended to allow Rangel to attend talks about U.S.-Caribbean business issues. Rangel’s acceptance of the trip was not illegal, but he failed to report the trip within the required 30-day-period.

Apparently, such tardy reporting is a problem for quite a few in Congress. In 2005, 28 Republicans and 25 Democrats failed to properly report privately funded trips, according to PoliticalMoneyLine.

Are these Members hiding something or are they just being lazy? Either way, the days of laissez faire travel enforcement may be drawing to a close. The reform proposal that Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) plans to introduce in January (summary.pdf) would ban lobbyists from privately funded trips and require the disclosure of privately funded trips’ itineraries, purposes and passenger lists. The poor compliance with the current travel rules presents just one more point in favor of establishing an independent Office of Public Integrity, for which Public Citizen has long advocated. Pelosi has expressed sympathy for the idea, but is more likely to study the issue than press for the new agency at once.

You can tell her yourself why the choice is a no-brainer here.    

Lobbyists shrug off lobbying reform efforts -- more fundamental solution needed

The new Congressional session has not yet begun, but this hasn't stopped members from holding out the donation cup to lobbyists. According to The New York Times, restaurants and bars across Capitol Hill have been booked so lobbyists can have the opportunity of paying anywhere from $250 to $5000 just for the chance to meet and greet politicians from the incoming 110th.

From veteran Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) to Sen.-elect Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), members are opening doors to special interest money to pay off their campaign debt and/or build up war chests for the next election cycle.

This is disappointing. After all we heard about ending Abramoff-esque corruption and changing the tide in Washington, you would think Congress might wait a little  before soliciting funds from wealthy special interests.

Some lobbyists are also disapponted. Former Republican Representative, Norman Lent (D-N.Y.), lamented the bad rap Abramoff gave to honest lobbyists like himself. Mr. Lent represents Big Oil and Big Pharma.

Not all lobbyists are concerned about lobbying and ethics reform pushed by Pelosi, et al. Erick Gustafson, who represents the Mortgage Bankers Association noted cynically that:

"There will some changes on the margin that will be relatively short-lived...It's like trying to keep water out of your basement. It's a structural problem. You may find a temporary solution, but the water will find a way in. Influence is like water. Money is just a means of influence."

We agree that candidates running for office have little choice but to take campaign contributions from special interests because the cost of running is exorbitant and rising each cycle. 

But there is an alternative already in place in several states and cities across the country: publicly funded elections. If that system was in place for federal campaigns, candidates running for Congress who opt in would not owe anyone favors because the money they use would come straight from the voters.

Instead of dialing-for-dollars and meeting with lobbyists, politicians could spend more time serving the public. I think we would really get our money's worth. 

Congress appears to take reform seriously

It's still hard to believe, but real ethics and lobbying reform could be on the way.  And not only in the House.  Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wants the Senate to get in on the action too - by passing a single comprehensive bill, as opposed to Rep. Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) dismemberment plan.

In a press conference earlier this week, members of Congress from both sides of the aisle and from both chambers came together to voice their support for passing comprehensive reform early next year.  Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Marty Meehan (D-Mass) called for new rules to break the link between legislation and lobbyists, including the creation of an independent Office of Public Integrity empowered to monitor and investigate ethics compliance.   

Public Citizen has been speaking up for such an agency. In addition to the new regulations that would ban gifts from lobbyists (including several other provisions - see more here), an Office of Public Integrity should serve to enforce the new rules for lobbyists and Congressmen alike.

However, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) indicated she had cold-feet, saying she "does not want to overtly politicize the investigative process, nor raise serious constitutional questions."

Looking at who the public voted out of office on Nov. 7th and results from exit polls provided by voters, John McCain hit the nail on the head saying, "The American public wants and demands change, and they will continue to send Congress that message until we improve the system."

Congress must heed the mandate to end corruption in Washington, even if only to avoid the chopping block in '08.

Democrats must lead

Big ideas win campaigns.

New Speaker-elect Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), has been vocal for weeks about her intentions should the Democrats become the majority in the House, and lobbying and ethics reforms are the first order-of-business on "day one" of the new session. She also promises to set a high bar, saying that "the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.'' There is now no excuse not to pass real reform.

Pelosi's bill, H.R. 4682, for the most part, is a very strong bill. It would:

• Increase transparency of lobbyists' activities - enabling searches online showing which lobbyists are talking to which Congressmen;
• Slow the revolving door - the time a Representative must wait before becoming a lobbyist is doubled;
• Prohibit privately-sponsored travel for members and require detailed itineraries on trips;
• Ban gifts from lobbyists to members or staff;
• Expose who is putting earmarks in our bills; and
• Create an Office of Public Integrity (OPI) to monitor and initiate investigations against lobbyists (but not members of Congress).

(Read the full summary here.)

The bill does lack two key items.

First, the ban on gifts from lobbyists is great but should be applied to everyone else as well.  Gift giving has an obviously corrosive effect and must be banned across the board.

Second, we need an OPI for monitoring members of Congress and not just lobbyists. As we have seen in the current Congress, the Ethics Committee is a joke because Congress doesn't, and probably can't, do a very good job of policing itself. (Congress: "I told myself to go to my room!") The OPI must be able to monitor and initiate investigations against Congress members and staff about ethics violations.

This Democratic sweep opens up a huge opportunity to change business-as-usual in Washington. These chances, and this momentum for change, must not be squandered on mere half-measures. The American people have said, loudly and clearly, that they want leadership. Democrats must now answer the call. 

True-Blue Reformers losing their color

In 1995, we awarded a "True-Blue Reformer" award to 143 House members (43 Republicans and 100 Democrats) who voted for bills banning gifts and improving lobbying disclosure while voting against five amendments that would weaken the measures.  Last week, we sent a letter to those still in Congress saying their status as “true-blue reformer” is not “evergreen” given all of the corruption scandals that have gone under the bridge since 1995 and that the Public Citizen credential must be renewed with their decision to sign the Voters First Pledge.

As of this morning, one of the class of True Blue Reformers has now signed on, but the rest, including Tom Davis who still boasts of his 1995 honor on his Web site, have not yet responded.  Members of the 1995 “Reformers” group who do not sign the pledge by Oct. 15 -- this Sunday -- will have their True Blue credentials revoked.

What gives?  Look up your members of Congress on the Voters First Web site and make sure they have signed -- if not, call their office and ask them to sign on!