[Mb-civic] A Nervous GOP Makes Its Choice - David S. Broder - Washington Post Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

A Nervous GOP Makes Its Choice

By David S. Broder
Friday, February 3, 2006; A19

The upset victory of Rep. John Boehner of Ohio in the contest for House 
majority leader reflects the nervousness of congressional Republicans 
about the lobbying scandal that has rocked Washington.

Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri was the favorite to be elevated from majority 
whip, the No. 3 job, and he led on the first ballot, falling seven votes 
short of a majority in the three-way contest. But the support of the 
eliminated third-place finisher, Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona, swung to 
Boehner, costing Blunt the job.

Blunt has been closely allied with Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas, who was 
forced to resign as majority leader, in part because of his criminal 
indictments on campaign finance charges in Texas and in part because of 
his office's intimate ties with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

As Tom Edsall documented in The Post, Blunt had built a network of 
relationships with the lobbying community on K Street almost as 
extensive as DeLay's. Boehner has his own lobbying ties, and with his 
elevation to majority leader, the Republicans still face a need to take 
strong action to clean up the lobbying-money scandals in Washington.

The ideas they have been discussing until now touch on only the most 
obvious outrages in the current system. If adopted, they would end 
privately financed junkets with lobbyists and put stricter limits on 
gifts. Even these modest reforms produced squawks in a closed-door 
Republican caucus this week.

But Republicans are playing with fire if they ignore the growing public 
disgust with the spectacle of special-interest government in Washington. 
Democrats -- who were anything but pure when they were in power -- have 
grabbed the corruption issue and come forward with a serious set of 
proposed rule changes. They would not only snip some of the lines 
linking lawmakers to lobbyists but end the abusive practices Republicans 
have used to steamroll the legislative process.

Two ideas have come from outside Congress that would go much farther in 
cleaning up the system. Neither is likely to be adopted, but they serve 
as benchmarks for the seriousness of so-called reform.

One has to do with the enforcement of congressional standards. That is 
now in the hands of the "ethics" committees of the House and Senate, 
made up of sitting members. The assignments are made by the 
congressional leadership, and most members avoid the duty because they 
do not want to sit in judgment of their colleagues.

At the moment, both committees are largely stymied by partisan disputes. 
But even if they could be reactivated, it's obvious that only in the 
most outrageous cases will these committees call straying lawmakers to 
account.

A number of outside groups have suggested, instead, a commission with 
former members of Congress to take on this onerous duty. Similar 
commissions have worked well in several states. This would signal 
serious enforcement by Congress.

The other idea comes from a former congressional and Labor Department 
staff member, Steve Hofman, and is as simple as it would be effective. 
To deal with the problem of "earmarks," the special-interest provisions 
often slipped into bills to finance local projects, Hofman suggests an 
amendment to House rules.

His rule would allow any House member to lodge a point of order against 
any provision of any bill on which there has not been a public hearing. 
The effect would be to remove that provision until its rationale had 
been tested in public.

The number of these special-interest earmarks has exploded in the past 
decade. Knocking them out would not only save billions but would 
eliminate opportunities for lobbyists to procure favors in return for 
the campaign funds they raise.

Scott Libby, a Democratic expert on Congress, told me he was 
"sympathetic with the idea," because it would put responsibility where 
it belongs -- on congressional committees. I also found interest among 
Democratic leadership aides.

The folks I contacted at the Republican-controlled House Rules Committee 
were more skeptical, noting that current rules specifically bar points 
of order based on the lack of a public hearing.

Requiring such a hearing would present practical problems, they said, 
when Congress wants to move quickly to pass such items as the resolution 
marking the death of Coretta Scott King.

But that does not strike me as a serious objection. I don't expect 
either idea to be adopted. But if the Republicans really wanted reform, 
these are steps they could endorse.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/02/AR2006020201542.html?nav=hcmodule
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060203/cfb6bff3/attachment.htm