Why is Reid opposing an amendment to ban current congressional spouses from lobbying congress?

[magellan]

Oh, I guess I should qualify that since I heard it on the corporate media: Is it true that Reid is opposed to stopping spouses of current Congress members from lobbying Congress, and if so, why? Ban them all, just not in the future, but the ones doing it now. I didn't even realize such a thing was happening. Huge conflict of interest.

[AndyA]

1. Seems like a good idea to me.

Take for instance Joe Lieberman and his wife. Isn't she a big lobbyist? Or does she just work for one? I'm sure she doesn't snuggle up to him in bed at night and whisper sweet requests in his ear...

"Joe, Acme Corporation will donate $100,000 to blah blah blah if you will blah blah blah..."

Lobbying needs to be outlawed, done away with. It does not serve the needs of the people, only the needs of the big corporations.

[magellan]

4. Exactly

Which is why I don't understand why Reid would be opposed to a complete ban on Congressional spouses lobbying Congress. If this is his position then it's very disquieting and disappointing. It seems we aren't going to get anything with teeth from the Dems on ethics reform.

Is Reid a corporatist?

[John Q. Citizen]

19. There are lots of public interest lobbies and citizen lobbies. Think Common Cause,

for instance.

Or Green Peace, or the PIRGs (Public Interest Research Groups)

The problem isn't the lobbying, it's the payola that's the problem.

[magellan]

30. But they aren't all related to people in Congress, are they?

We need bans on certain types of lobbying where large amounts of $$$ and conflicts of interests are involved. There is no good reason to approve of banning Congressional spouses and family members from becoming Congressional lobbyists but NOT to make it retroactive.

[John Q. Citizen]

59. I was replying to this posted by Andy

"Lobbying needs to be outlawed, done away with. It does not serve the needs of the people, only the needs of the big corporations."

But to address your point;

If Chelsea Clinton went to work for WELAC (Welfare Action, a 501C3 (non-profit)group that organizes low income folks and lobbies for fairness for welfare recipients on many issues such as child care, healthcare, etc) then you believe she shouldn't be able to lobby congress on those issues because her mom happens to be a Senator?

I don't agree. I think the payola is the problem, not the lobbying, even by members of a family or a member of congress. If we get rid of the payola, then the merits of the lobbiests desires can be decided based on merit, not on contributions or payola.

[sandnsea]

25. People should lose their careers??

If their work came before the relationship, why should they be required to give up their career because public sentiment changed?? I don't have a problem with anti-nepotism type laws, but current lobbyists should be grandfathered, just like we always do in these situations.

People have really got to stop believing everything Cafferty or Dobbs says. They ARE NOT our friends.

[magellan]

31. Because it's part of badly needed ethics reform

And if they can't put ethics before their careers, they have no business anywhere near the Hill in the first place.

[sandnsea]

34. How do you know they don't??

What if a Congressman marries a PETA lobbyist? Should that lobbyist lose their job after investing their life into that career?

Anti-nepotism laws are fine. But it isn't right to harm the people who have done nothing wrong or illegal, we don't do that in this country. We grandfather people in and start the law from a particular date going forward. It's not right to destroy people's careers.

[magellan]

37. No one is destroying anyone's career

These are the decisions we make as adults when we enter into relationships with other adults. Just because a blind eye has been turned to this practice in the past doesn't make it right or even legal, and shame on all those in Congress who don't consider this a conflict of interest.

We object to cronyism because of its patently obvious dangers, we must object to this practice and abolish it on the same grounds. If it's right to do from now on it's right to do it across the board.

[sandnsea]

43. Of course it would

If it didn't end careers, there'd be no point in passing the law. There are ethical rules. Tom Daschle's wife couldn't lobby anybody in the Senate anyway, that's a rule. She didn't break it. So now they're transferring some of these rules into law. If he were still in the senate, why should she have to quit her job when she never did anything to violate the rules in the first place?

[AndyA]

60. The specifics would have to be worked out, of course,

but the big lobbying firms that push through anti-consumer things like the bankruptcy laws, laws that allow credit cards and payday loan companies to charge exorbitant rates, etc., are just making things more difficult for average Americans.

The non-profits and environmental groups should likely be excluded, but is it really necessary for Chase, Bank of America, Capital One and others to gang up and force through legislation that makes it harder for people to file for bankruptcy? It cost these companies millions and millions of dollars to get the legislation passed, and now they discover that - SURPRISE! - most of the people who file bankruptcy really don't have any money!

What a waste of time, and who do you think pays for those millions that go to the lobbyist firms? Card holders, that's who. We're paying for legislation that is actually doing us harm in the long run.

Of course, if we actually had elected officials who gave a cr@p about their jobs, this tripe would never be considered.

[AndyA]

61. Sorry, duplicate. DU froze up on me. n/m

(Duplicate post)

[hwmnbn]

2. I agree. If they're going to be "reformers".......

don't get cute about it with these loopholes. You are either squeaky clean or suspect. The temptation to circumvent the law for personal financial gain must be enormous on these guys.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Isn't his son a lobbyist?

[David Zephyr]

5. Tom Daschle's wife was a big time lobbyist for American Airlines

And guess what?

Days after 9/11/01, Daschle pushed through the billion dollar grease to the Airlines of our tax dollars. And then the Airline CEO's promptly layed off tens of thousands of workers, reduced their flights to rural areas, passed all the security screening and costs back to the taxpayers...

AND GAVE THEMSELVES TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN EXECUTIVE BONUSES with our tax dollars...

AND THEN BEGAN FLIRTING WITH BANKRUPTCY PROTECTIONS...

BAN ALL SPOUSE AND CHILDREN LOBBYISTS.

Reid is very guilty on this issue as the Los Angeles Times pointed out recently along with Orin Hatch and Trent Lott.

[magellan]

8. This was the information I was looking for, thank you

So Reid has a reason to want to continue allowing his family to lobby Congress. God damn it all, this is why I won't join the Democratic Party. Many of them really are only Repug Lite.

[Gloria]

6. To curry favor with Jomentum, whose wife is a lobbyist??

I remember Daschle's wife was an airline lobbyist....

Apparently, this is a "perk" they don't want to give up.....

[magellan]

10. Well then it's not real reform, is it?

I wish they wouldn't waste our time and get our hopes up with this stuff only to crap on us.

[Beaverhausen]

7. Link? or RW lie?

[magellan]

9. As I said, I saw it on the corporate media, about half an hour ago

...and was wondering if it's true and if so why.

[Robbien]

18. Not truie. Link provided

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called Vitter and said he would support the proposal with one caveat: It should exempt spouses who are already lobbyists.

"As long as it is not retroactive, Sen. Reid supports efforts to ban spouses of sitting members from lobbying in the future," spokesman Jim Manley said.

http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/533093.html

[magellan]

24. Um, thank you, then it means it IS true

Please read my original post including the subject line: Why is Reid opposing an amendment to ban current congressional spouses from lobbying congress?

[Robbien]

44. Well how about that. So it is.

:blush:

[Robbien]

11. WaPo identifies 6 lawmakers married to registered lobbyists

Sen. Byron Dorgan..........Kimberly Olson Dorgan here and here
Sen. Elizabeth Dole............Robert J. Dole
Sen. Ted Stevens................Catherine A. Stevens
Sen. Kent Conrad...............Lucy Calautti
Rep. Roy Blunt...................Abigail Blunt
Rep. Steven LaTourette......Jennifer LaTourette

[magellan]

14. I think the amendment may extend to family members

...making it a potentially wider net, but I'm not sure about that.

[RB TexLa]

12. Someone should not be barred from employment based on who their spouse is

[MonkeyFunk]

16. Correct

Also the constitution gives all americans the right to petition the government for redress of their grievances. Further, the Supreme Court has held that the first amendment protects the right of Freedom of Association for expressive purposes.

In other words, all americans are free to band together and petition the government. Even congressional spouses.

[BuyingThyme]

20. Yeah, and lawyers should be able to argue before spouse judges.

Not.

[magellan]

26. Thanks, BuyingThyme

Listening to some here, it's no wonder our government is in the fucking mess it is. And we expect Congress to impeach Bush**!!! I'm only just realizing what a pipedream that is. They won't even reform the conflicts of interest out of lobbying because they're benefiting from it.

[MonkeyFunk]

29. Our government is a fucking mess

because some of us understand the constitution?

[magellan]

33. Where in the Constitution does it guarantee the right

...of Congressional family members to work as Congressional lobbyists?

[MonkeyFunk]

35. The first amendment

applies to ALL americans.

Where in the constitution do you see an exemption for congressional family members?

[magellan]

39. Where in the Constitution does it say anything about conflict of interest?

And yet there are such laws in force which apply to other areas of the government and the private sector.

[MonkeyFunk]

41. Because

those cases don't involve constitutionally-guaranteed rights. For instance, if a state says its Governor can't appoint his wife to to a paid position, or that he can't serve on a corporate board while governor, those are fine laws, because there is no constutitional right to be appointed to a commission or to work on a corporate board.

Instead of this silly question and answer game, you tell me how you get around the constitutional objections raised in post 16.

I have already proposed a much more drastic measure that I believe would be constitutional.

But in the end, this is all a lot of sound and fury about nothing, really. The problem is not with lobbyists - the problem is with congresspeople who are corrupted by them. I'd rather address the problem of congresspeople doing the wrong thing, rather than the lobbyists.

Would it be so bad for a congressional spouse to lobby for a cause close to their heart? Say the couple had a kid with cancer, and a congressman's wife wanted to lobby for more research funds? Should we outlaw that on general principle?

No. The problem is when congresspeople do the wrong thing. Let's address THAT problem.

[magellan]

57. You're distorting this

Banning current Congressional lobbyists who also happen to be related to a Congress member would NOT deny them their rights to lobby for redress under the First Amendment. If it did, the amendment to ban such practice from now on would also be unconstitutional. The Congresswoman in your hypothetical who wants to lobby for more cancer research funds would still be free to do so. She just wouldn't be able to make an income doing it.

If banning people from such practice in future is constitutional, so is banning those currently engaged in the practice.

[MonkeyFunk]

28. There is no constitutional right

to be an attorney, or to argue before a particular judge.

This is unconsitutional.

Now, it's also unethical, and I would have no objection to both houses of congress establishing rules that would expel a member if their spouse lobbies.

[BuyingThyme]

46. What's unconstitutional?

[MonkeyFunk]

47. Read post 16

The first amendment directly gives ALL americans the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that free speech includes freedom of association.

So that means that all Americans have the right to band together with others to petition the government. That's what lobbyists do.

[BuyingThyme]

50. So, lawyers don't petition the government?

[MonkeyFunk]

53. I'm not sure what you're talking about

But instead of asking question after question like the other poster, why not just address the consitutional issues I've raised?

[magellan]

21. Yet we complain about cronyism

[RB TexLa]

55. Who is "we"?

I believe in the Edwin Edwards school of political appointees. Being there are four groups from which to appoint, 1) qualified friends and family 2) unqualified friends and family 3) qualified enemies 4) unqualified enemies, and there is never a reason to exhaust the first group.

[magellan]

58. Split hairs as you will

The cronyism I'm talking about is the kind that has corrupted our government and its agencies. If you haven't complained about it, maybe there's something wrong with you.

[magellan]

17. Erm, so conflict of interests involving taxpayer dollars should be allowed

...just to avoid these poor Congressional family members being out of a job?

[me b zola]

42. Have you ever served in the military?

The word fraternization comes to mind.

[BuyingThyme]

13. Umm, because Reid rarely stands up for what is right?

[David Zephyr]

15. More for you on this subject, magellan

This should put to rest any "rationale" for allowing family members of elected congressional representatives or U.S.Senators to lobby as some sort of "right". Here's two stories of many more I could provide, but this is more than enough:


http://www.sptimes.com/2003/07/09/news_pf/Opinion/All_in_the_family.shtml

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0305-11.htm

[Robbien]

22. Reid is not objecting to the ban,

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called Vitter and said he would support the proposal with one caveat: It should exempt spouses who are already lobbyists.

"As long as it is not retroactive, Sen. Reid supports efforts to ban spouses of sitting members from lobbying in the future," spokesman Jim Manley said.

http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/533093.html

[magellan]

27. Thank you, David

A total ban is the right thing to do. It's a shame the Senate Majority leader only wants it to apply from now on, not retroactively to stop those family members who are currently Congressional lobbyists.

Very telling.

[sandnsea]

23. We don't pass retroactive laws

Which Jack Cafferty full well knows but prefers the right wing fax flurry to his fucking brain.

[magellan]

32. We don't? What about Bush**'s tax cut?

"The tax bill the president is signing immediately creates a bottom income tax bracket of 10 percent, effective retroactively to the beginning of this year. That means the first $6,000 of a single's income or the first $12,000 of a couple's income is suddenly going to be taxed at 10 percent (instead of the old 15 percent rate).

"Because this change is retroactive, the government will owe everybody who already paid some of those taxes (through withholdings from their paychecks from January until now) some money back. The Treasury Department points out that this is not officially a "rebate" ... it's an "advance payment" to taxpayers of money they would have gotten back from the government as a rebate when they filed their tax returns next April (for 2001)."

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/tax.primer/index.html

[sandnsea]

36. That was a benefit to everybody

AND it was the Democratic part of the tax cut anyway. Giving people tax money back isn't the same as taking careers away.

[magellan]

40. A benefit to everybody? Have you seen our deficit?

Or do you really believe Bush**'s tax cut hasn't harmed this country?

Taking careers away is silly. It's a career they shouldn't have if they're related to members of Congress. You get into a conflict of interest, somebody has to step aside no matter what the price.

[sandnsea]

45. That wasn't a Bush tax cut

That was a Democratic tax cut, specifically. At the time, it was one of the few that made sense. If they rewrote tax laws, I would support keeping that one. Wouldn't you?

I don't have a problem with an anti-nepotism law. I do have a problem with detroying people's careers. In fact, I'd much rather have laws that prevent former members of Congress from becoming lobbyists and wonder why we aren't focusing on what's been done there. Ooooh, Cafferty is carrying right wing water again. Yeah, I see.

[magellan]

49. Yeah, I see too

Apparently if people disagree with you on principle then you feel free to accuse them of swallowing RW talking points. I can't possibly have an opinion of my own.

That was the Bush tax cut. And the point is made that the government does indeed pass laws retroactively. Whether they're of benefit or not was not a condition.

I don't agree with you on this and won't. There's much more that can be done, I haven't denied that. But this smarmy wishy-washy half-measure crap isn't going to get us there. If they can't be tough about conflicts of interest among their own then its very doubtful they're tough enough to do all that's necessary to correct the major dilemmas and constitutional crises Bush** has introduced over the last six years.

[sandnsea]

51. Oh please

When every single Repubican gets on the television set and repeats the exact same thing, then what the hell else would you call it? Cafferty is selling this swill today, I just heard him. Maybe you don't know it, but that's where this came from. It's a fact, has nothing to do with whether someone agrees with me or not.

The 10% tax bracket was one of the main things Olympia Snowe and Democrats held out for. Bush did not want it in the beginning, and would have said we didn't have the money for it later. That 10% bracket is NOT Bush's and we're flat out stupid for letting him claim it as his.

Eliminating lobbying by family members is a good step forward, it is not wishy-washy, it is done the exact way we implement all of these sorts of laws, with a grandfather clause. Democrats who join in the gang bang are playing right into the Republicans' hands, and I am so totally not surprised.

[magellan]

56. So whenever someone happens to agree with what Republicans say

...they're being played? Hm. I fail to see anything but a win-win in agreeing with Hagel when he reminded Bush** today that the presidency isn't a monarchy. That too has gotten a lot of play by the librul media. Perhaps it's a trick.

I'm not familiar with the inner workings of the tax cut so will bow to your greater knowledge here. Nevertheless, it is a law that was applied retroactively. The Superfund law was also retroactive, penalizing businesses for sending certain types of waste to dumps at a time when it was legal to do so. I'm sure there are other examples.

I did not say eliminating lobbying by family members was wishy-washy, I'm for that. I simply think it should apply immediately and to everyone instead of being phased out. That wouldn't deny anyone's right to a job except those who shouldn't be in that conflict of interest in the first place. Reid obviously agrees the practice is wrong since he supports the ban. Just not for current family members who also happen to be Congressional lobbyists, which is hypocritical IMO.

[BuyingThyme]

48. ...unless they're written by Arlen Specter.

[seabeyond]

38. if a person is a lobbyist, i dont know how you restrict them doing their job

and i dont know how you would restrict people getting married if that be the case insisting one quit their job. as much as we may not like it, it seems to be an infringement on basic rights. maybe there has to be oversight to make sure nothing illegal is going on.... oh... we have that. just has to be implemented

[sandnsea]

52. They already have rules

Family members cannot lobby the Senate or House, whichever applies. It looks as if they're making this a law, which is fine. They just aren't going to destroy the careers of current family members which I think is totally reasonable. This is just more crap concocted by the right that curmudgeons like Jack Cafferty buy into. It's sad so many can't see through the right wing partisan games, especially after we've seen it play out so many times.

[seabeyond]

54. ahhh thanks sandnsea.

i havent been following this. after posting thought i ought to have kept mouth shut, not following it and all. lol