digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Democrats Push for Quick Ban on Travel Paid for by Corporations

bloomberg.com — The House has installed its new Democratic leadership and is now moving quickly to ban lawmakers from flying on corporate jets and accepting gifts and meals from lobbyists. This is the first order of business aimed at demonstrating Democrats' commitment to cleaning up Congress and to end the "Culture of Corruption".

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -46/+21There's no way bush lets that pass!
    • citizen782, on 10/12/2007, -18/+40But how good is it going to look for the Repubs who don't join in the 2/3 required to over-ride Chimpee McFlightsuits veto? It looks a lot better right now to vote against Bush than with him.
    • zizzybaloobah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+66You obviously didn't read the article:

      "If adopted, the rules would apply only to House members and wouldn't require any further congressional action or the signature of President George W. Bush"
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -24/+50I certainly hope Teachers' Unions count as corporations. I'm not trying to be critical of Democrats, I'm just skeptical of politicians in general. Democrats accepted all the "perks" they are now banning and acting as if their legislative integrity is superior and should be trusted without question. Does anyone else have a problem with politicians trying to pass a gang-load of legislation in "100 hours?" I understand they are trying to make a point, but part of the legislative process is public review, and 100 hours is not enough time for the public to form an opinion on all this legislation and contact their representative. I just hope they don't accidentally throw out the constitution along with all the garbage while "cleaning house."
    • toppgun, on 10/12/2007, -29/+2delete
    • florin, on 10/12/2007, -12/+13So, if any politician opposes this measure, that means said politician is in favor of corruption. Hence, a quick removal from office should happen by default.
    • zizzybaloobah, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23@nixonrichard: I wouldn't count on it. For all their rhetoric about the GOP being in bed with big business, the Dems are doing the same thing with unions and are too politically beholden to them to cut them off like that.
    • creoderiot, on 10/12/2007, -23/+24@nixonrichard

      "part of the legislative process is public review"

      are you out of your mind? congressmen and women have been tucking amendments into bills int he mmiddle of the night - and the peopl who vote on them often haven;t had enough time to read the bills BEFORE the extras were tucked in, never mind being aware of the content of the additions

      yeah i'm REAL concerned about the democrats throwing out the constitution - bush is the one who called it "just a f*^%ing piece of paper"

      "I'm not trying to be critical of Democrats"

      umm, actually, yes you are
    • glock22ownr, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4Even if Bush vetos or whatnot it can still pass if it has 2/3 approval. And... these new measures do not require his signature.
    • iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -17/+20"yeah i'm REAL concerned about the democrats throwing out the constitution - bush is the one who called it "just a f*^%ing piece of paper"

      Good to see the left are such good students of Goebbels. Repeat a lie often enough...
    • iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23"So, if any politician opposes this measure, that means said politician is in favor of corruption. Hence, a quick removal from office should happen by default."

      Thank you Senator McCarthy.
    • chicbicyclist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14@zizibolah

      Unions are declining in power at least. Corporations are at least 10 times more powerful and can directly affect you.
    • HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15As long as they ban ALL travel paid by people other than the person doing the travelling I'm all for this.

      Democrats often craft laws targeting "corporations" because they know that Republicans get more money from them than they do. They never target "unions" who do the same thing.
    • zizzybaloobah, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11@chickbicyclist: Corporations are not stupid -- they 'hedge their bets' and contribute to/court candidates in both parties (after all, who wants to find themselves supporting the candidate that didn't get elected). Not so the unions -- even though they extract dues from their members of all political affiliations, they overwhelmingly throw their support toward the Dems, with the members having no input whatsoever as to where the donations go or who gets endorsed.
    • GenghisCon, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1"Good to see the left are such good students of Goebbels. Repeat a lie often enough.."


      Where is the lie?
      Aside from most of the ***** the Bush crime cartel told us about Iraq that is...
    • faskippy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Yeah, let's bash the Unions. The people that brought you the weekend, competitive pay, worker safety laws, training, etc. I'm sure you really have it tough thanks to these thoughtless bastards in organized labor groups. Whaddaya run, a sweat shop or something? Oh, sorry. I'll give it to you in your language.

      Baaaa baaaa baa baa...
    • bobbknight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Exceptions to the prohibition will be the thing to look at.
    • deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Democrats are barely in office yet. And already they are pushing this country in the right direction. Poor Republican congressmen, what are they going to do now. No more Jack Abramoff kick back money. And they might even have to work 5 days a week. Boo hoo. For the love of God, have mercy on them. It's time to work for the nation - bunch of lazy fukers.

      The evolution of the Republican party ...
      http://www.democratgiftshop.com/cgi-bin/store/store.cgi/2727233783/_democratees/961157
  • GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -39/+12This should be debated by the members of Congress.

    Not all travel sponsored by organizations is 'golf trips'.
    • zediker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+48the only reason a congressman should be on a corporate jet is if they are evaluating it for a purchase for the government, or traveling by a ticket purchased on the government's dime. Its just that simple. Anything else and you start seeing conflicts of interest and possible corruption.
    • Tenlow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+39And if you're a member of congress, you can afford to pay for your own ticket when not on the clock. Actually they should pay for their own tickets anyways.
    • GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -19/+9lol, suggesting members of Congress debate an issue gets you downvoted?

      haha
      /nelson
    • wild, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19I am sorry that on Digg a desenting (sp?) opinion gets you voted down. Thats an abuse of whats supposed to just be a spam blokcer and idiot shield.

      But, you are wrong in your reasoing. Any flight for government purposes should be paid for by the government on a government owned or sponosred jet. Preferably by the budget for that particular lawmaker's office. Flying on a corporate company jet is a favor. One that shouldn't be allowed. It creates favortism.
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7I'm going to be the devil's advocate for a while and argue that you aren't considering the fact that members of Congress are also citizens of the US working in a government job . . . they still have the right to quit and work for another company. They shouldn't have to give up all their rights.

      How would you feel if your company (after you were already hired) started a rule saying you weren't allowed to meet with employees from competing companies without telling them about it? You are not allowed to fly in their planes, or ride in their cars or boats. Also, your family is obligated to follow these same rules. Now your daughter who used to get a ride to school from your neighbor (who works for a competing company) has to take the bus or you will lose your job and possibly be arrested. Also, you used to go camping with a friend from college (who went on to work for a competing company) . . . now you have to take two cars, and don't even THINK about eating the food he brings camping (that would be inappropriate). And if you decide to "swing" with your friend and his wife, you have to tell your company how much time you spent together and exactly what you talked about before, during, and after sex. Believe it or not politicians are often friends of CEOs (before they take office) and not every plane ride is rewarded with a billion dollar tax break. I'm a big fan of transparency in government, but I also believe that outside of work, your private life should be just that . . . private.
    • diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You're describing an NCAA scholarship athlete.
    • ArmyOfFun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@nixon

      Every example you pointed out I'd view as minor hardships. Regardless if a congressman finds them unacceptable, they're free to give up their seat. We're not talking about indentured servants here, we're talking about people who fought very hard to get to their position.

      When you willingly enter public service in a role that is not only in the public eye but one the public has a vested interest in, I think it's reasonable to accept there will be some loss of privacy.
    • wild, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"How would you feel if your company (after you were already hired) started a rule saying you weren't allowed to meet with employees from competing companies without telling them about it?"

      Pretty sure if another ad agency were flying me to New York without my employer's consent, they wouldn't like it. In fact, my job would be in jeopardy.

      When you are an elected official, you are hired to represent the people of the United States. You are to do so with only their interests in mind. Not your own, and not private organizations. Self serving deals and favortism, while impossible to fully prevent, should be minimized as much as possible. And people should damn sure be held accountable for them.

      if its at the end of a term, and your flying out for a job interview, thats one thing, and you should be up front about. Heading out to Haliburton on their plane two months after your elected is fishy. Or having them fly you home for the holidays, thats rotten.
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Pretty sure if another ad agency were flying me to New York without my employer's consent . . . "

      What I was saying is jobs like yours where you apparently need your employer to approve how you travel during your time off work must suck. I'm not talking about sleeping with the enemy on the job, I'm talking about your personal time. I, for one, would be pissed if my employer required me to tell them what airline/flight number I would be on during my vacation. It's none of their damn business. THEY can book my ticket for work-related travel, but *I* get to decide what I do with my free time. As long as I'm not violating any non-compete or non-disclosure agreements, they don't need to know what I'm doing.
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@Armyoffun

      "I think it's reasonable to accept there will be some loss of privacy." I understand that when you take a high-profile job in the public eye you lose a lot of your privacy and you open yourself up to public ridicule, but this is a side effect of your position . . . I have a problem with passing laws, rules, and regulations that intentionally take away your privacy. I understand that the right to privacy is not explicitly outlined in the Constitution, but I believe it is still an important right. I don't like laws that require you to say who you are with and what you are doing at every moment of your life even when you're not at work and I certainly don't like rules that employers make restricting your private activities. Also, I think a public servant job should be LESS restrictive that a private sector job, not more. And yes, I also don't like random drug screenings of employees. If there's no probable cause or impact on work performance, leave people alone.

      I'm not saying the proposed rule changes are bad, I'm simply saying that they are not automatically good just because they help fix a problem. They might solve one problem but cause another and I think it's important to look at every aspect.
  • GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -14/+8Is this story even accurate? Check this passage.

    "The new ethics code also would end anonymous sponsorship of pet projects, or earmarks, that have been quietly tucked into spending measures."

    The anonymous sponsorship is already killed. There is a new law on the books that passed in the last Congress and signed into law by President Bush.
    • freff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25It's accurate. The Republican bill was, as was typical from the former Congress, incomplete. It exempted earmarks involving federal agencies and independent campaign organizations. Which were the ones that were causing problems. The old one fell way short of the measures that Pelosi had called for.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401674.html
    • GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@freff

      Can you link to some details about that? I seem to recall an awful lot of press covering the bi-partisan bill signing.
    • freff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@GabrielS

      If you read the article that I linked to the end, it gives a pretty complete picture of the reform package passed by the last Congress.
    • HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Only in congress can a loophole be found in a bill that says "no money for steel fences" by calling it a barrier rather than a fence!
  • JJsays, on 10/12/2007, -23/+4Great! Now the tax payers can pay the bill. ***** genius! The trips are still going to be made. Cram as much ***** on the budget as you can...
    • stan205, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@JJsays

      Not true, considering it's their own personal choice if they decide to live outside of DC, thus making it a personal expense; e.g. it comes out of the money we already pay them.
    • spectre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I don't think any reasonable tax-paying citizen has any problem with funding trips for congresspeople who are on official business. It's only logical that in those situations you *would* have your trip bankrolled by the State.

      You start running into serious Conflict of Interest trouble when you (as a citizen) expect private and corporate entities who have a large amount to gain through relationships with lawmakers to jump into bed with them and hand out plane tickets, golf trips, and expensive gifts like Pez.
    • snowballs, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1Our Representatives in congress are high-profile public servants - does anyone expect them to fly coach on Jet Blue or Southwest Airlines, or pay for their own travel? I agree that they should not be given luxury accommodations at every turn, but wow - is having corporate sponsored travel really the definition of "corruption"?

      Another question - should they all live in D.C. or in the districts in the State that they represent?
    • saigumi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@stan205

      Hahahaha... right... they'll all still find a way to slushfund their trips in. This will *NOT* come out of any gov't officials personal funds. Now it's just another form of creative bookkeeping. That golf trip just became a "educational seminar on Irish culture" and is now sucking money from real programs that need it.
    • qjkwtf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@snowballs

      quite frankly, yes

      *Edit:
      yes, to the first question.

      to the second question -- they have to maintain a residence in the represented state, but normally maintain some sort of DC residence also. It is not unheard of for junior members of the house to room together.
    • stan205, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@saiqumi

      I agree, there's always going to be that representative which will roll the expense into some slush fund. Something else to think about as well, when the representatives elected into congress actually ride on planes with the constituents which elected them it may create a great avenue to communicate pressing issues. I would love to end up on a plane or see one of my representatives in the airport so I could approach them and actually let them know what they were doing well and poorly at. This is our job as citizens and we don't get to exercise it when they fly corporate.
    • zizzybaloobah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The real shame: that most everyone commenting here, regardless of their political affiliation (or lack thereof), is so jaded and skeptical about the situation (not that such skepticism is unwarranted). If only the voting public exhibited the same measure of skepticism and cynicism when it comes Election Day.
  • fatlip, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32it's about god damned time
  • VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I was under the impression that there were already laws governing this.
    • freff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This closes a lot of the loopholes in the old laws. There were plenty.
    • VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ahh, ok, I can understand that than.
  • RealHyperX, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24as a republican, i agree with this law... good for them!
    • venicerocco, on 10/12/2007, -23/+6Not sure whether to digg you up for agreeing, or down for *still* being a republican after what we've witnessed over the last six years.

      *shudders*

      EDIT: Dugg down.
    • there, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2 I used to like Republicans under Reagan and even Bush Senior wasn't so bad. Junior and cronies are extremists and a lost cause though.

      Still... I'm gonna dig you up for saying something sensible.
  • diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Somewhere, there will be a loophole big enough to fly the plane through.
    • floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Really. I can't think of a bill or anything that congress did that plainly stated what they wanted done. Remember McCain-Feingold Bill? and how that was suppose to fix campaign finance?
  • Kahnza, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6No more getting in bed with large corporations. YAY!
  • gus2074, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Just a bunch of crooks. Now we get to sit back and watch the democrats try to do what the republicans thoroughly failed to - rise above their own crookedness.
    • jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9"Now we get to sit back and watch the democrats try to do what the republicans thoroughly failed to "

      Repubs try? LOL

      Like 3 of them who were punished by the rest of their party.
    • Rivetgeek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@jaycliche


      yeah, punished after the republican party KNEW it was going on for years and the only reason they finally had to do something was cause the press found out.
    • atb12688, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1They're both equally as crooked and there's really no doubt about that. And to consider that a senior democratic senator is a former KKK grand dragon is a little mind-boggling...
  • zizzybaloobah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I'd love to see it happen, but I'm skeptical -- I can see this failing to pass, and then members from both parties offering up spin and lame excuses (my colleagues across the aisle didn't support it enough, the proposed changes weren't enough (or were too much), it wouldn't apply to the senate so why bother, it was poorly worded, it would keep us from fulfilling our obligations, etc.)
    • freff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15This is why the Democrats are essentially locking the Republicans out for the first 100 hours. It's not just to get back at the Republicans for doing it to them for so long, but to get a whole bunch of legislation like this to vote without messing around with it getting changed or amended If they're serious, and they already have a plan, this should fly through.
    • VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"but to get a whole bunch of legislation like this to vote without messing around with it getting changed or amended If they're serious, and they already have a plan, this should fly through."

      I hope you are right, but I am not holding my breath.
  • Brasky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I find it completely ridiculous that this is even legal in the first place. Come on, its nothing but bribery. I would love to see Bill O'Reilly try to justify these trips...
    • zizzybaloobah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not just O'Reilly, but any representative that's taken them.
  • diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, Congresswoman from Cleveland, and new Head of the Ethics Committee in the House was way up there in the free trips category. I'm sure it was all for the public good, though.
    • freff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4She'll have to conform to the new rules like everyone else now.
  • catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Its a good thing democrats never accept travel or gifts from corporations so this won't affect them at all.
    • markgl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Excellent point. The democrats are angels from heaven right!?
    • freff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I didn't notice anything about these rules effecting Republicans only. Both Democrats and Republicans will have to follow them.

      If anything, it's interesting that the Republican Congress was not willing to pass a reform like this. But that's nitpicking. It's just good that this is going to pass.
    • doyadigg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1This has nothing to do with Republicans refusing to pass this. This is just meaningless fluff. Is this seriously the best the Democrats can do? With all the crap going on this is one of the things they want to focus on?? And as many others have mentioned, there will be loopholes and this won't be effective. People who think the Democrats care about them any more than Republican are being naive. Democrats pander to people as much as Republicans do.
  • ksponge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Shifty politicians, all being bribed legally, hmm what the ***** is my boggle??!?
  • Desslok, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is a good start, but putting a new rule on the books and enforcing said rule are entirely different matters. I honestly hope that they follow through, as this is not a republican vs. democrat issue, both sides have been guilty of accepting unethical and potentially illegal perks in the past.
  • heaintheavy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Drain the swamp.
  • jegnyr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2inaccurate. The "ban" will allow you to do the same things, just fill out extra paperwork for disclosure sake.
  • koktakee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The big problem here is that you guys think one crop of these parasites is any different from the rest. In 5 years you'll be saying the same thing about this batch and wanting a change. Hooray 2 party system! LOL
  • saigumi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Ok.. anyone else put two and two and two together and see that the Democrats are really just playing against the morale of your average Republican house memember?

    1. Extra long work weeks that make it harder to fly home on the weekends to see family. (Ok, I admit that the family should move to DC with them, but whatever.)
    2. No more free flights in corporate jets. (Yes, they should have to pay for their own flight and use public methods to get around. Seriously!)
    3. Most of the Democrat states are on the east coast.

    Ready to see how this all adds to 6?

    The Democrats realize how making the average time of a Republican candidate to get home will affect their morale. Without the use of corporate private jets, the flight time extends about 2 to 3 hours. Plus they may have to drive further from large airports that are on public routes. Plus, now that the official has a longer week, their "weekend" has been reduced to about 36 hours from the 72 before. Most eastcoast flights are already little puddlejumper commuter aircraft, so this won't affect them that much.

    Crackpot conspiracy? Hrmm....
    • freff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I guess Nancy Pelosi should have thought things through a little better. She's going to get boned now.

      In purely financial and legislative way, of course.
    • BonhamsGhost, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Waaah, poor republicans. They have to work MORE? But the congress works so damn hard already, lining their pockets.

      (PS ***** the dems too)
    • wapp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, cause like Dulles, BWI, and DCA are all tiny ass airports that only accommodate "puddle jumpers"
  • markgl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9its not a republican democrat thing. its about stopping corruption for all lawmakers.
  • MrPotato, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Somewhere, there will be a loophole big enough to fly the plane through." hits it right on the head. Since Congress MAKES the laws, If there isn't a loophole they'll take care of that tomorrow by either changing the law to include said loophole or drafting a new piece of legislation that contains one. Immediately thereafter, we'll hear about items like this in the news:

    Congressman X: Places call to his old employer, a large legal firm on the East coast.
    Bud who works for large legal firm answers the phone.
    Congressman X: Hello, Bud, this is Congressman X.
    Bud: How are you sir?
    Congressman X: Bud, I'm in a pickle. I need to get to L.A. this afternoon and was hoping you have a plane headed that way. I just don't like flying commercial if you know what I mean.
    Bud: Sir, you realize that you authored a bill outlawing that type of thing right?
    Congressman X: Not to worry, there is a loophole that only a select few of us know about, it's OK.
    Bud: Sir, I'm not comfortable with this.
    Congressman X: Well, how does an all expenses paid week in Vegas sound?
    Bud: The plane will pick you up at Reagan National at 2:00 PM
    Congressman X: Thanks, I knew I could count on you Bud. My secretary will be in touch about the Vegas thing soon. Say, how many seats will that plane have?
    Bud: It seats 10 sir. Why?
    Line goes dead.

    This will change nothing. Like the old adage says "The more things change the more the stay the same."

    • rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I guess there's no use trying, then.

      Let me guess, you don't vote because "it's a waste of time."
    • lacronicus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@potato, you do realize that they are really under no pressure to pass this kind of law, so if it werent for their good intentions, why bother passing it at all. if it were a bit closer to election day, then you might have been right, but people said the same thing about roosevelts new deal, which played a large part in getting us out of the great depression. politicians arent all corrupt, i mena really, how many politicians can you name, coz thats about all the ones weve caught being an idiot. maybe 20-30? otu of how many? sure thats not the perfect number, but they arent all bad.
    • MrPotato, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Look, I didn't mean to say that things *might* not change but I'm dubious/jaded nonetheless. And, you're right, it wasn't the New Deal entirely that got us out of the Depression, WWII played a HUGE part in that. Most likely, I can name more politicians than you can - nice try.
  • antoniusblock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You can see where each Congressperson has traveled to, how much it cost and who paid for the trip here:

    http://opensecrets.org/travel/
  • DeepDoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Does anyone seriously think that a group of people who think themselves to be above the law will be affected by yet another law?
    • lacronicus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1to do something that is close to illegal based on a technicality is a far stretch from doing something outright illegal. one must remember that this is still their livelyhood, and they would not give that up for something small. so they are either gettign a large amount of money, which very few are influential enough to get, or they wont tak the risk. and those that do have that kind of influence are so closely watched that theyd have to be really good to get away with it. and very few end up doing so, which is where politicians get their bad reputations.
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Lopphole Alert

    FTA
    "The rules to be voted on this week also would bar lobbyists and the organizations they work for from arranging overnight trips. Nonprofit foundations affiliated with lobbying groups could continue to pay for trips approved in advance by the House ethics committee."

    So nonprofits, which are more likely to lobby Democrats, get a big loophole. What a surprise.
    • rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"nonprofits, which are more likely to lobby Democrats"

      Hmm, are you implying that charitable people who devote their lives to helping others are more likely to be Democrats?
    • lacronicus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1rationalist, while you do have a point there, it is hardly the point he is trying to make. although this is a great thing for the us political system, it may end up being viewed as slightly underhanded on the part of the dems for allowing themselves access to free stuff, while not allowing republican supportes the same opportunity.
      bu coming back to rationals point, while the point is valid from a political sense, it is still flawed that nonprofit organizatioons favor democrats, which is not the fault of the np organizations.
    • zizzybaloobah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not all non-profits are charitable. Aren't many lobbying organizations non-profit?
    • jmoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah watch the non-profits...some of them are very dirty, which is why the IRS has been cracking down on them.

      http://www.quatloos.com/tax_shelters_crackdown.htm
      http://www.bdo.com/about/publications/industry/np_apr_03/article3.asp
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3FTA
    "The new ethics code also would end anonymous sponsorship of pet projects, or earmarks, that have been quietly tucked into spending measures."

    This is more important than reigning in corporate lobbying, IMHO. Make people accountable for wasting taxpayer money, and they're less likely to cave because of lobbyists.
  • edrift101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Awesome link! Thanks!
  • DogmaticAtheism, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1It's hard to believe Democrats are doing such good things. It's really really hard to think that there are still good people left in any sort of power position. I want to believe, I want it to be true... but I can't until it happens. Our government has let us down so many times...
  • Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The Democrats, socially liberal but other than that, they're assholes.
    The Republicans, fiscally liberal, but other than that, they're assholes.

    People like both parties for those reasons, and the Libertarian party combines them. We really need a nation-wide ad campaign letting people know about the Libertarian party.
    • lacronicus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4if people went solely on what they actually wanted, they would all be independent and we would ditch the party system. but that is not the case. i mean, look at abortion, stem cell, capitol punishment, gay marriage, and other such policies. people are devided on those issues, not just liberal or conservative views in their entirety. for example, i am for the death penalty, but against abortion. where do i fit? nowhere. which is for the most part the same with the rest of this country, at least, it would be if we werent so attached to our parties. i can almost gauruntee that no one in this country agrees with everything their party believes. and those that dont have pobably changed their views to fit with the party they most believe in. the 3rd parties are not the answer to anything. in fact, were it to have any success at all, it would break a party apart, which would decrease the votes for both new parties, giving the win to the opposing major party. and 3rd parties have no success. we truly need to abolish the party system, but we cant, because niether party would vote to get rid of themselves, no matter how beneficial.
    • amoro99, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I don't think anarchy is going to help lower corruption.
  • Salgat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Extremely impressed. I think many average americans are tired of Republicans, even my support for them is waning. I guess I'm all for democrats as of now.
  • g30ph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I wonder how long it will take for them to vote themselves a raise in pay. Democrat or Republican, they are still politicians.
    • lacronicus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1um... maybe you havent followed the news recently, but im willing to bet that it wont be a while, considering as how the dems wont approve of it until minimum wage is raised. granted, raising the minimum wage is the wrong way of going about it, but it is a good step, nonetheless.
  • OriginalLucid1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Oh yes, the high morality of the democrats has come to save the day! When they decide to do something about William Jefferson or John Conyers, get back to me. Until then recognize this for what it is....smoke and mirrors
  • wiivangelist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Unions have massive political influence (Duh)
    In order to work in pretty much any blue collar trade, you have to join the union, in many places, a requirement for membership in the union is membership in the democratic party.
  • BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Obvious pandering is always entertaining. It even works on the more gullible voters believe or not.
  • TB65, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Two quotes FTA:
    "The most important thing we can do is pass comprehensive lobbying reform,''
    "Nonprofit foundations affiliated with lobbying groups could continue to pay for trips approved in advance by the House ethics committee."

    So this basically just adds another layer to the lobbying process through the use of a non-profit organizations.

    If you want real lobbying reform, stop making laws that favor one group over another. Congress could also stop handing out money for everything not specified in the constitution, which is 99% of what they do.

  • atb12688, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So I guess they're ending their own culture of corruption as well?
  • hiikeeba, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I remember when the Republicans passed their lobbying reform when they took control of the Congress. They killed speaking fees that made Tip O'Neill's successor, whose name escapes, require groups purchase a large quantity of his book before speaking to them.

    ALL politicians are crooks. Rep. Jefferson of Louisana keeps cash in groundmeat in his freezer. His son got a sweet telecommunications deal with Africa. The Republican in California sold his $500,000 house for $3 million to a lobbyist.

    The Democrats want to stop the ways Republicans got rich, and keep the perks that allow them to cash in. Will Rogers was right: We have the best politicians money can buy.
  • Hercules, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They work some of the shortest days of a working individual, make the highest salaries in return, and have a 96% chance to keep their job when their contract comes up for renewal (ie, re-election).

    Yea, get your asses on Priceline with the rest of us you bastards.
  • Sfmobius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Anything that cuts back on unfair influence is good IMHO. Will this one bill fix all the woes of Congress? No. Is it a good start? Yes.

    In an age where public figures and are increasingly under scrutiny from both sides of the fence, it serves there own interests to make it harder to accept bribes. I'm sure both parties want to avoid the massive scandals in the future that have racked the republicans over the last 4 years.
  • joggingmac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is great!
    Lobbyists suck ass!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.