Dreier Puts Forth Worthy Package of Ethics Reforms
It's a tough slog, working against the self-interest of so many legislators. So we give Inland Valley Rep. David Dreier credit for staying in the fight.
The House last week approved Dreier’s House Resolution 1000, which will remove "earmarks" from the top-secret category and make them available to public scrutiny.
Earmarks are those little designations that lawmakers slip into bills that specify exactly where and how money will be spent. Sometimes it's as innocent and aboveboard as designating improvements to a particular interchange on a federal highway, but some earmarks specify not only the amount to be spent on a federal contract, but also which contractor will get the job.
That's where the underhanded stuff can happen. Contractor A contributes heavily to a legislator's campaign fund, then Contractor A turns up in an earmark inserted in a bill by that legislator. The contractor and the legislator are both happy, but taxpayers are a little bit poorer for the exercise.
Lawmakers always say there's no tit for tat, legislation is considered independently of campaign contributions, yadda yadda yadda. But at worst you get former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, now serving time in federal prison for bribery over his awarding of contracts to defense firms that supported his lavish lifestyle, and at best you get the feeling that greasing the wheels is the main activity in the halls of Congress.
An explosion in earmarks has helped drive up the federal budget deficit in the past several years, but it took the Cunningham bribery conviction and the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal in which Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, agreed Friday to plead guilty to federal corruption charges to get Congress to check its own excess. Dreier, chairman of the Rules Committee, was the choice to lead the reform effort in the House.
His HR 1000 requires the disclosure of earmarks in bills and conference reports. If a list of earmarks and their sponsors does not accompany any tax, appropriations or authorizing measure, any House member can raise a point of order against consideration of the legislation.
The resolution passed 245-171, with 45 Democrats voting for it.
Some Democrats complain that it was not enough and we agree that it would be even better to require members to justify each earmark's relevance to their district and identify any financial interests they might have in the earmark, as proposed in an alternative bill. But HR 1000 is a very big step, because up to now there have been no disclosure requirements whatsoever, allowing lawmakers to operate in complete secrecy.
Transparency of the earmarking process is the best way to keep it on the up and up. When voters can see what's going on, the questionable goings-on will be reduced dramatically.
Dreier sees it as another incremental step in the reform of lobbying and campaign practices. We agree, and encourage him to keep at it.
