| Daniel Kemmis and Bob Brown
offer readers an insightful history of Western lawmakers'
contribution to both political scandal and political
reform, a timely column given what's happening in Washington
D.C. these days.
The recent report of excesses uncovered
by the U.S. Justice Department's investigation of lobbyist
Jack Abramoff, and his subsequent plea agreement to
offer testimony on dealings with members of Congress,
has set off again another round of pledges to clean
up Congress.
And once again, Western lawmakers are players
on both sides of the issue.
Both
U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., and U.S. Sen. Harry
Reid, D-Nev., have been criticized for taking campaign
contributions from lobbyist Jack Abramoff or his American
Indian tribe clients. Burns has denied being part of
the Department of Justice investigation of Abramoff,
but a report today indicated that two of Burns' staffers
were on a trip to the Super Bowl paid for by Abramoff,
which is under scrutiny by the Justice Department.
Senate
Minority Leader Reid denied receiving any contributions
directly from Abramoff but did acknowledge that he did
take contributions from some American Indian tribes,
donations he said were appropriate given his work to
champion tribes' causes.
On the other side of the Abramoff investigation
is U.S.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., chairman of the Senate
Indian Affairs Committee, who has led the Senate's investigation
into claims that Abramoff had defrauded his American
Indian clients.
The Republican House leadership has also
been thrown into a state of flux by the lobbyist scandal,
and U.S.
Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., is challenging acting
House Majority Leader Roy Blunt from Missouri and Ohio's
John A. Boehner for the House Majority Leader position.
Shadegg championed tighter ethical rules
and a return of the Republican Party to its smaller-government
roots, should he be elected over his more-established
opponents.
U.S.
Sen. Harry Reid embarked earlier this month on a
swing through red states to campaign against corruption
and to tout the Democrats' as yet unreleased ethics
reform measure that Reid said would help restore voters'
faith in government and lure voters to the Democratic
Party.
In a move to perhaps steal the Democrats' thunder,
Republican House members released their ethics
reform plan Tuesday that focuses on a "no gifts"
rule and would cut back on allowing lawmakers trips
to be taken on lobbyists' dimes. But the GOP plan doesn't
address campaign finance, an omission the Washington
Post said amounts to a gaping loophole in the effort
to distance lobbyists from the people they are paid
to influence.
The Democrats'
reform package announced Wednesday goes further
than the Republican plan in that it not only bans all
gifts from lobbyists, it also addresses some of the
questionable legislative practices that have developed
over the past decade. Their plan would require that
legislation be posted publicly 24 hours before congressional
consideration and would require House and Senate negotiators
working out final versions of legislation to meet in
open session, with all members of the conference committee
-- not just Republicans -- having the opportunity to
vote on amendments.
A guest
column in The New York Times suggested that the
problems with Congress isn't lobbyists, but an ingrained
indifference to the rules and norms that govern congressional
deliberation, debate and voting that has erupted over
the past five years.
Others say the problem with Congress begins
with campaign-finance rules.
Arizona's Sen. John McCain has long been
at the forefront of campaign-finance reform. He co-authored
the Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act of 2001, with Wisconsin Sen.
Russ Feingold, D-Wis.
Interestingly enough, an appeal of legal
restrictions imposed on political ads by outside groups
by the so-called McCain-Feingold
law is currently being heard by the U.S. Supreme
Court.
And both Kemmis and Brown believe that the
U.S. Supreme Court should once again review the 1976
case of Buckley
v. Valeo which found that campaign expenditure limitations
constituted an abridgment of free speech. They argue
that the Buckley decision guarantees candidates as much
free speech as they can buy.
Since Buckley was decided, there have been
U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals rulings that split on
constitutionality of spending limits, raising the likelihood
that the high Court may once again take up the issue
of campaign limits.
And given the presence of newly appointed Chief Justice
John Roberts and most probably Supreme Court nominee
Samuel A. Alito's confirmation to the high court, Buckley
as established case law could face an uncertain future.
|
