I want to thank you for joining us this afternoon.
No
doubt you have seen the surveys that show corruption in Congress is a
top tier issue for voters going to the polls this year. Former lobbyist
Jack Abrmoff and Rep. Duke Cunningham are going to jail. Former aides
Michael Scanlon and Tony Rudy are headed for the same fate. Reps. Bob
Ney and Alan Mollohan and Sen Conrad Burns are among those who are
operating under a cloud and Rep. Tom DeLay felt it better to step down
than explain his actions to voters. Despite all of this, I was not sure
the importance and immediacy of these ethical transgressions had really
made it into the culture until a colleague told me that it had been
debated on a recent episode of The West Wing.
This
issue is timely and critically important. With members back home in
their districts this week, this is the time for them to understand how
bitterly disappointed and frustrated people are with the low ethical
standards Congress has set for itself. And now that they are forced to
address these issues, they not only produce a weak bill but one filled
with false promises.
Chellie
talked about what is not in the bill, I want to explain a few
provisions that highlight why the bill or bills they will consider upon
their return to Washington are not even a slap on the wrist, just more
sleight of hand from a Congress that is more concerned with facing
voters than facing the problem.
Let’s
begin with the ban on privately funded travel. Having read the same
polls as you and I, members know that banning travel paid for by
wealthy interests to buy access is a very popular response to the
scandal. In fact, a real travel ban would be a significant step. But
what the House leadership has proposed is a temporary ban that
conveniently expires after the election. Anyone who supports the
measure can accurately tell voters that he or she supported banning
privately funded travel and because of the sunset provision, they will
never have to vote to revoke it and resume business as usual. Helpful
gimmickry in an election year.
A
second provision would require new disclosure requirements for who pays
for events that “honor” members of Congress. Lavish parties have long
been a favored way to gain access to a member of Congress. Disclosure
would help the public understand who is underwriting these elite
events. However, in order for disclosure to be required, the official
invitation must literally say “honor” or “recognize.” If one were to
simply say that a member is attending, the new disclosure requirements
can be avoided.
Another
new disclosure provision would require lobbyists to make public their
own contributions if they “host” or “co-host” a fundraising event.
Again, a very helpful provision that would shed light on where a
particular incumbent’s support is coming from. Again, the provision is
easily evaded by having the lobbyist simply sponsor rather than host
the fundraiser.
Unless
serious changes are made, the measures that Congress will be voting on
won’t even be an inconvenience to the wealthy interests who wish to get
around the new rules. The bills are less a pathway to open government
than a roadmap for sidestepping accountability.
The
cost to the American people of ‘insider’ deals with wealthy interests –
in high gas prices, affordable healthcare, a clean environment and more
– is staggeringly high. The recent scandals highlight the worst abuses,
but much of what goes on goes unpunished. We deserve a Congress that
plays by the rules in an open environment. Immediate changes must be
made.
