WP - House GOP Weighs Preapproval of Sponsored Travel

[maddezmom]

Proposal Outlined to Offset Controversy Over Lobbyist-Aided Trips; Hastert Plans to Seek Bipartisan Advice

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 11, 2005; Page A05

House Republican leaders are considering asking the ethics committee to preapprove privately sponsored trips before lawmakers and their aides would be permitted to travel, party sources said last night.

~snip~

Republican officials said the speaker's directive is an effort to head off piecemeal proposals from outside groups and various small groups of members, and reflects the realization by party leaders that it is now a matter of how to tighten the rules, not whether they should.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a telephone interview that if Hastert wanted to be bipartisan, he could have consulted her and she would not have learned about the plan from a reporter. "They don't get it," she said, adding that Republicans might be trying to divert attention from questions about trips taken by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.).

"Where there were many technical violations on some of the travel about the timeliness of reporting or this or that, they say, 'Let's look at the travel,' instead of looking at the entire culture of it," Pelosi said. "Some of the travel is legitimate, and some of it is part of this other culture of gifts and entertainment that the public has a right to resent, and that must be changed."

~snip~
more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/10/AR2005051001464.html

[TahitiNut]

1. This is a horrible idea.

Any attempt to co-opt an oversight or audit authority into the approval process negates the independence of that authority. When and if such travel is later determined to be illicit, the sole oversight authority is then implicated and unable to act with what little independence it has. No oversight function should ever be included in an operational approval process. It creates the epitome of 'conflict of interest.'

[oscar111]

2. Sponsoring is BRIBING plain and simple

Just like campaign "donations' should be termed

campaign bribes.

All campaigns should be "cash free campaigns" with the only publicity being legally required space in the media, donated by legal requirement.

didnt Holland have that system, perhaps still have it?

[Trillo]

3. Why have any "privately sponsored" trips?

If the travel is part of an official government function, then why should a "private interest" have to pay for it?