Senate passes ethics bill with veto- proof majority

[Beaverhausen]

Senate passes ethics bill.In an 83 to 14 vote, the Senate today joined the House and passed legislation requiring that “lawmakers disclose more about their efforts to fund pet projects and raise money from lobbyists, a move some called the biggest advance in congressional ethics in decades.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/02/senate-passes-ethics-bill/

[Beaverhausen]

1. really- no one here cares? Link to yahoo article about it just in case

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070802/ap_on_go_co/congress_ethics;_ylt=AiAafrXgqgRkt6YKdSm4y4is0NUE

WASHINGTON - The Senate sent President Bush a bill Thursday to make lawmakers pay for private plane rides and disclose more about their efforts to fund pet projects and raise money from lobbyists.


Some advocates called it the biggest advance in congressional ethics in decades, but Bush received it coolly. He has "serious concerns" about the measure and has not decided whether to sign it, said White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore.

Democrats, however, hailed the 83-14 Senate vote as proof they are fulfilling their 2006 campaign promise to crack down on lobbying abuses, which sent some lawmakers and a prominent lobbyist to prison. Like the House, the Senate passed the bill by a margin that would overcome a presidential veto, assuming no lawmakers switched sides.

The bill would require lawmakers seeking targeted spending projects, or earmarks, to publicize their plans in advance. Lawmakers and political committees also would have to disclose those lobbyists who raise $15,000 or more for them within a six-month period by "bundling" donations from many people.

more at the link

[zehnkatzen]

2. My favorite faux moderate R voted for it...

...good ol' Senator Smith, hoping everyone mistakes him for Mark Hatfield, votes yea. Of course it's the right thing to do, which means, for him, either a)he's feeling the hot breath of the upcoming election or b)he knows there's no professional risk in voting for this or most likely, c)both.

[SeattleGirl]

3. Good! I guess Stevens wasn't able to have his way, huh? n/t

[karynnj]

4. This is a major milestone

Great that they found a way past the Republicans' obstructionism on letting this go to conference.

[SoCalDem]

5. Why not just GIVE each legislator a finite amount of money

that he/she can use for "home appeasement" usage, and make them report it.. and then NO other "pork" in ANY bill?

Why do the always choose complicated, over simple? (rhetorical question)

[Beaverhausen]

6. Kicking for more recs- I want this on the greatest page

cause you know, every once in a while they do something right!

[zehnkatzen]

7. I already did. Can't rec it again, so I'm kickin' it.

At the time of this writing there were two recs, so I'm one of them!