Skip to comments.Democrats want sweeping House ethics investigation
Posted on 01/07/2006 9:22:40 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Democrats want sweeping House ethics investigation
15 minutes ago
Democrats seized on a mushrooming scandal involving a disgraced lobbyist on Saturday to call for sweeping ethics probes in the Republican-led House of Representatives.
Rep. Louise Slaughter, a New York Democrat, said lobbyists had multiplied by the thousands in recent years to the point where there were now 63 of them for every lawmaker. She said they were using their campaign donations to influence policy and even write laws.
Slaughter called on the House ethics committee to investigate corruption cases involving lawmakers with links to Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who pleaded guilty this week in a U.S. corruption probe.
"The House ethics committee, after a year of inaction, must get to work immediately to investigate pending ethics and corruption cases in the House, including those involving members with ties to Jack Abramoff," she said in the Democrats' weekly radio address.
"This is a necessary first step to restore a high ethical standard to the Congress," Slaughter said.
There was no immediate comment from a spokesman for the ethics committee, chaired by Rep. Doc Hastings (news, bio, voting record), a Washington Republican.
But Republicans have sought to cast the Abramoff case as a bipartisan scandal, noting that some Democrats also received donations from Abramoff's clients and associates.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
BRING IT ON!!
Heck, Start with McDermott! Save Pelosi for dessert. ;-)
I'm willing to bet a dollar to a donut hole that the RATs really DON'T want that.
That being said, let's give 'em what they say they want.
Be careful of what you wish for.....
Lobbying definitely should be illegal. It's just about the biggest core problem we have.
lobbying = "I'll give you this in exchange for your vote"
What's happening with LA Rep William Jefferson..and don't forget Frank Ballance..the NC Dem congresscritter now on jail..
John Kerry $98K
This contributions chart has been updated as of 1/5/06. Everyone was eating at that trough...
Jack Abramoff Lobbying and Political Contributions, 1999 - 2006
"I think lobbying ought to be illegal."
Any communications with a politician can be viewed as lobbying. Not possible. Lobbyists are spokespeople for the constituents. For example: NRA, Right to Life organizations, small business lobbyists, etc.
Let's just make sure that corrupt people in both parties who get caught red handed get the boot, suffer our contempt, etc. I'd like to start with the guy who pardoned a crack dealer for cash to his brother-in-law: Bill Clinton. I doubt anything Abramoff was involved in rates anything close to Chinagate, either.
No argument here. Agree with you completely. We employ the government and quite frankly I'm getting a little sick of our employees conduct. They need a little wake up call.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Money is not a form of free speech.
When the system is corrupt only the rich get to playball.
Have spending limits? Maybe. If we can limit the amount spent on each candiate we can tell which one's are bought by how much they take from an individual donor. There are plenty of honest people that can fund a run for office.
I think the run for office should be by the voters.. the real men and women of this country that want to see their poltician elected. Putting boots on the ground. Going door to door. That's real freedom of speech. Having conversations with people in that district. Not letting people vote by the smeer ad's run by "friends" of the particular candiate.
I know some people are going to run all over me calling me a free speech hater. But the fact is we HAVE to change our system. Our country is bought and sold everyday by people of wealth. I can influence by peers through motiviation and discuss but that influence doesn't carry the weight of the all important American Dollar.
Make lobbying illegal?
Lobbying is just how people affected by laws -- including 'corporate' people and groups -- can make their needs and views known. There should never be a law the purports to limit how people may speak their minds, or whether they can be paid to speak on behalf of someone else.
It is sensible and rational to contribute to an elected person who will work your will. Making those contributions illegal is the problem, not the solution.
The right to give money to someone is every bit as sacrosanct as the right to speak.
This is all prelude to the already promised campaign finance reform, just one more act in what has become a lengthy tragedy.
That way, congressmen would have to vote simply based on their constituents desires,
You realize that these two ideas are mutually exclusive?
The lobbyists represent the very same constituents. Legitimately...and with good reason.
If you're a small businessman, for example, you not only have a lobbyist in Washington -- you need one to represent your interests. Same if you're an insurance agent, a farmer, or any occupation or profession.
Would you prefer that the Chambers of Commerce and the unions, for example, NOT have a voice in Washington?
The problem isn't "lobbyists", per se. The problem is too much regulatory power concentrated at the federal level, which creates the need for lobbyists.