House to relax ethics rule

[richlevy]

Well, we now have another example of why it's better to have a divided Congress.

House to relax ethics rule

What's the point of having power if there are rules in the way on how you can abuse it?

[wolf]

House to discuss relaxing ethics rules.

The article doesn't say — who proposed the rule changes?

[elSicomoro]

It doesn't specifically say, but the first paragraph gives a clue:

House Republican leaders are urging members to alter one of the chamber's fundamental ethics rules, which would make it harder for lawmakers to discipline a colleague.

[wolf]

That's one, but there are multiple rules discussed.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by wolf

House to discuss relaxing ethics rules.

The article doesn't say — who proposed the rule changes?

These are rules changes, not bills. I'm not sure how much of a gap there is between discuss and adopt.

I sent an e-mail to Specter, Santorum, and Weldon, my three reps in Congress. I also sent a similar e-mail for the Inquirer opinions page.

[elSicomoro]

Originally Posted by wolf

That's one, but there are multiple rules discussed.

Damn, woman...read!

The proposals are among the nearly two dozen House rule changes being circulated for comment this week by GOP leaders, in preparation for the 109th Congress. The majority Republican caucus plans to discuss the proposals Monday, with the full House scheduled to vote on them Tuesday.

[lookout123]

Rich, while my political views seldom match yours, I commend you for taking action when something disturbs you. most people just whine and complain without any real action.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by sycamore

Damn, woman...read!

Why, when I can use my womanly wiles to get others to do that for me?


actually I was looking for names, not general party affiliation.

[elSicomoro]

Well, the article refers to GOP House leaders...there aren't THAT many from which to choose.

(EDIT: Of course, they could have been created by Dems for all we know, but if GOP House leaders are pushing them, well...put 2 and 2 together. And if they're going to push them, they now bear the responsibility for them.)

[elSicomoro]

And, to be fair...from MSNBC:

Challenges to ethical standards seem to follow a pattern. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, his administration imposed a five-year ban on lobbying by administration officials after their retirement. Clinton's administration dropped that ban near the end of his second term -- when many officials were about to go into the private sector.

[richlevy]

Well, here is the site of Poltical Money Line , which tracks lobbyists contributions, which will hit a record this year.

Here is the web site of the House Committee on Standards and Conduct

Since, this is a rules change and not a bill, it is hard to track supporters and detractors.

[russotto]

The rule in question in the article is one of those catch-all "Conduct unbecoming..." rules which has no place in any sort of justice, as it means whatever the committee decides it does mean, after the fact.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by russotto

The rule in question in the article is one of those catch-all "Conduct unbecoming..." rules which has no place in any sort of justice, as it means whatever the committee decides it does mean, after the fact.

Except that that rule is still a part of military justice.

The proposed change would essentially negate a general rule of conduct that the ethics committee has often cited in admonishing lawmakers -- including Majority Leader Tom DeLay -- for bringing discredit on the House even if their behavior was not covered by a specific regulation. Backers of the rule, adopted three decades ago, say it is important because the House's conduct code cannot anticipate every instance of questionable behavior that might reflect poorly on the chamber.

The military has lived with 'conduct unbecoming' for a few hundred years. If someone doesn't like it, they do not have to become a soldier. Unless someone wants to write 4000 pages of do's and don'ts, there will have to be some general rules. Obscenity and 'lewdness' are not explicitly defined in the law, but that doesn't mean you won't get arrested running down the street naked.

In a partisan atmosphere, one can accuse one side of making trumped up accusations, but the other side can be just as guilty of overlooking real offenses. Previously, in a deadlock the offense would be investigated. Under the new rules it would not be investigated. This renders the committee powerless if either side votes along party lines.

In a Congress where one party dominates, this is a huge gift to special interests.

[elSicomoro]

The GOP backed off.

[Happy Monkey]

John Feehery, a spokesman for Hastert, said a change in standards of conduct “would have been the right thing to do, but it was becoming a distraction.”

Hee hee...