Dreier puts forth worthy package of ethics reforms
 

Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
March 17, 3006

Lobbying reform on Capitol Hill may have stalled for now as Congress takes off this week for spring break, but Congressman David Dreier, R-Glendora, has put together a strong package of reforms that should be acted on in response to recent congressional ethics scandals.

That there's already considerable objection to some of his proposals - especially the moratorium on privately funded travel - even from House members of Dreier's own party, is indicative that the package would make major differences in the way Congress operates.

In the wake of the bribery guilty plea and prison sentence for former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham and the corruption guilty plea by superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, Dreier, as chairman of the House Rules Committee, was charged by Speaker Dennis Hastert with putting together legislation to reform interactions between lobbyists and members of Congress.

Among the proposals they put on the table last week:

• More thorough disclosure for lobbyists. Lobbyists would be required to report electronically, four times a year instead of the current twice, and would have to post more information about their campaign contributions, gifts and meals bought for members. The House inspector general would be authorized to do random spot audits of lobbying disclosure forms, and maximum noncompliance fines would be doubled, to $100,000. We applaud this proposal; it has to be part of any meaningful reform.
• Challenges to "earmarks." The pork spending items known as earmarks are too often placed in legislation at the behest of lobbyists, many times at the last minute or in the dead of night to avoid scrutiny. Dreier would require that lists of earmarks in legislation would be made public before votes on bills or conference reports, and that any member could bring a point of order against a particular earmark and subject it to a 20-minute debate. We like it. Again, ethics reform would be meaningless without changes in the shady way some expensive earmarks are tacked onto bills. We'd like to see a required time period for public notice of at least 24 or 48 hours included in the final legislation.
• Employment as lobbyists. Members could still go to work as lobbyists one year after leaving Congress, but notification of start and end dates of employment bans would be sent to the appropriate offices by the clerk of the House. We like the notification, but we'd rather see the ban extended to two or three years - so that an ex-member would be tempted in the meantime to get a more productive job than lobbyist.
• Pension forfeiture. Members convicted of felony violations in office would forfeit their pensions. We like this idea; it would relieve taxpayers from paying lifetime pensions to those, like Cunningham, who violate the public trust.
• Moratorium on privately funded travel. The ban would run through the end of the year, and the House Ethics Committee would be charged with arriving at permanent rules on travel, meals and gifts by Dec. 15. Dreier's proposal does not lower the limits on gifts and meals as he called for earlier, but leaves it to the Ethics Committee. We're lukewarm on this, fearing that the committee might blow off the whole thing after the November election.
• No traveling with lobbyists. When a member travels on a corporate jet, reimbursing the company for a first-class ticket, no lobbyist would be permitted on the plane. We'd prefer a ban on Congress members' use of corporate jets - perhaps with some authorized exceptions - but this is the next best thing.
• Contribution limits for so-called 527 advocacy groups like MoveOn.org and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. This might be a good idea, but it's campaign finance reform rather than congressional ethics reform. We know the two are linked in spirit, but we think this should be considered separately and on its own merits, so that it doesn't gum up the push for ethics reform.
• All in all, Dreier has come through, with a solid package of reforms. Congress should follow up by giving them a thorough airing. We fear what might happen to it in committee, but we like the starting point.