Posted by: McQ on Monday, March 12, 2007 John Fund reports in today's WSJ that a type of "March Madness" has descended on Washington DC and it has nothing to do with basketball. March is traditionally the month lobbyists - and their gifts - attempt to influence Congress into including their pet project in next year's budget. As Fund notes, we've undergone a supposed change in ethics which would preclude the sort of gifting previously seen in Congress. Congress has passed rules that "cap most individual gifts at $50 per elected official or staffer, with an annual limit of $100 per recipient from any single source." Well, except: But local governments, public universities and Indian tribes are exempt from the limit, so they are able to shower members and their staffs with such goodies as luxury skybox tickets to basketball games and front-row concert tickets.Yes, local governments, public universities and Indian tribes (can you say Jack Abramoff?) have no limits nor are members of Congress or their staffers held to any limits in accepting gifts from these three entities. Now you don't have to be the sharpest knife in the drawer to see the possibilities these exemptions present to other lobbying groups who aren't exempt. The term "strategic alliance" seems apt. Teaming up with those that can indeed shower Congress members and staffers with gifts seems a no-brainer, doesn't it? Defenders of the exemptions say: Defenders of the public-sector lobbying loophole call it a necessary part of communication with Congress on important public-policy issues. But then why have the gift bans on all other lobbyists, including those from nonprofit organizations? The same lobbying rules that apply to private-sector lobbyists should also apply to taxpayer-funded government lobbyists.Said another way, despite all the hullabaloo over the Abramoff scandal and the corruption it brought to Congress, the very same possibility for a repeat exists today as when that story broke. Why does "communication with Congress on important public-policy issues" necessarily mean one must show up laden with gifts? Why can't those discussions simply be made and argued on their merits? How does one deny being influenced by expensive gifts, especially when, for the most part, any opposition lobbyists to those three exempt entities and their agendas would very likely be precluded from providing gifts under the new rules? This is a loophole which should be closed and closed immediately. And if Democrats were really serious about the "culture of corruption" and as upset about Abramoff as they claimed, it should be something they do quickly and unhesitatingly. |
||||||||||
| TrackBacks | ||||||||||
| Return to Main Blog Page | ||||||||||
| Comments For This Post | ||||||||||
Previous Comments to this Post |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| Add Your Comment | ||||||||||
|
|
| Vicious Capitalism |
Buy Dale's Book!
|
