What is Digg?119 Comments
- 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" - 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.
- fatlip, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32it's about god damned time
- 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."
- 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 - inactive, 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.
- RealHyperX, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24as a republican, i agree with this law... good for them!
- 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. - 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. - 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.
- diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Somewhere, there will be a loophole big enough to fly the plane through.
- 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.
- VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Can you provide a link on that?
- 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. - markgl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9its not a republican democrat thing. its about stopping corruption for all lawmakers.
- 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. - 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. - 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. - 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.
- 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. - 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. - 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.)
- 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...
- 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. - freff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This closes a lot of the loopholes in the old laws. There were plenty.
- 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. - 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. - mrlost117, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6***** a right
- 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. - 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.
- 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/ - 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. - diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You're describing an NCAA scholarship athlete.
- 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 - freff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4She'll have to conform to the new rules like everyone else now.
- 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.
- DeepDoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yup, business as usual
Both of these groups pretend to take the moral high road.
Its hard for me to use guys like Ted Kennedy or Virgil Goode as a moral compass. - bobbknight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Exceptions to the prohibition will be the thing to look at.
- Kahnza, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6No more getting in bed with large corporations. YAY!
- wapp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, cause like Dulles, BWI, and DCA are all tiny ass airports that only accommodate "puddle jumpers"
- 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. - 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. - 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.
- 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... - 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) - 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. - 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. - 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." - 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.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 115 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is