San Diego Union Tribune: Ethics bill is woefully insufficient

[question everything]

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL
Marginal reforms

Ethics bill is woefully insufficient

April 3, 2006

Talk about a letdown. The Jack Abramoff-Randy “Duke” Cunningham scandals had emboldened ethics crusaders to believe lawmakers actually might tackle the all-but-open influence-peddling affecting legislation before Congress. Unfortunately, the plan approved 90-8 last week by the Senate amid an orgy of self-congratulation amounts to a few small improvements to a system in need of a vast overhaul. Call Sen. Trent Lott's bill what it is: a nine-page fig leaf.

Consider what the measure would continue to allow:

Lawmakers could keep taking lobbyist-paid junkets around the world, albeit with more paperwork.

Earmarks – the slipping of millions of dollars for specific causes or programs into unrelated bills – would still be allowed, although those inserted in negotiations to reconcile House and Senate versions of bills would face more scrutiny. This is less significant than it may sound. Much more pork enters bills before conference committee meetings than during those meetings.

(snip)

No wonder the eight senators who voted against the plan included the most dedicated reformers: John McCain, R-Ariz., Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla. “What ethics bill?” was Coburn's snarky response when asked about Lott's measure.

(snip)

The only good news here is the likelihood of more bad news on the congressional scandal front, which will revive public pressure on Congress to clean up its act. A few more indictments and a bribery conviction or two, and we just might finally see lawmakers deny themselves the golf trips, private jets and $300 meals they so enjoy.

(snip)


Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060403/news_mz1ed03top.html