1115.org

My, how things change.

It wasn’t all that long ago—a few months at most—that the Republican leadership in Congress got some old-time religion about ethics and lobbying reform. Duke Cunningham had pled guilty to bribery and tax evasion (among other things), überlobbyist Jack Abramoff was facing his own jail time amid accusations that he had influenced numerous lawmakers and Washington officials, and Tom DeLay had so many question marks swirling around him that he might as well have been The Riddler. Combined with the Democrats’ “Culture of Corruption” sloganeering and basement-level Congressional approval ratings, the Republican leadership promised to clean house and bring new lobbying reform legislation to a vote.

Well, as that day has finally dawned, let’s look at the legislation that the House has baked up:

• No additional restrictions on gifts from lobbyists
• No additional restrictions on meals from lobbyists
• No increase in the number of enforcers of lobbying rules and laws

Sure, these were the kinds of things that Congressional leaders like Dennis Hastert supported back in January, but don’t feel too cheated by the whole thing. The bill, which will undoubtedly pass when it is brought to a vote today, does include mandatory ethics training for House members, and lobbyists will now have to report donations more often than before. Progress!

If you are thinking that this so-called ethics/lobbying reform is more window-dressing than anything substantial, you’re right. But whose fault is it? According to the lawmakers who ran screaming away from legislation that would turn off the money spigot, the fault belongs to you:

Lawmakers acknowledge that the bill is more limited in its scope and impact than the provisions promised by congressional leaders immediately after Abramoff’s guilty plea to federal charges of bribery, conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud nearly four months ago. But they say they do not feel compelled to push more stringent measures partly because voters do not appear to be demanding them. “We’re all being rushed into a bill,” said Rep. David L. Hobson (R-Ohio). “We panicked, and we let the media get us panicked.”

(…)

Some Republican leaders assert that lawmakers are hearing little from constituents about the congressional corruption scandal, even though it has received considerable media attention. Jo Maney, spokeswoman for Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), a chief architect of the House ethics bill, said: “Many members have told him [Dreier] that they are not hearing about corruption and lobbying reform at home. They hear more about immigration, gas prices.” Still, Dreier and Hastert “feel strongly” that the ethics bill “is the right thing to do” and that it will “improve the public’s perception of the integrity of the House of Representatives,” Maney added.

There’s a lot of bullsh*t in there, but it can be broken down like this: The public hasn’t screamed loudly enough for substantial ethics reform, so the lawmakers feel no need to bother with it—never mind if it is actually, you know, the right thing to do in a political system that (theoretically) values transparency and the principle of “one person, one vote”. However, even though these lawmakers’ constituents apparently don’t care about ethics legislation and think Jack Abramoff is the punch-line to some sort of dirty joke, passing this neutered bill will “improve the public’s perception” of the House’s integrity. Huh? If the public doesn’t care, why bother passing any legislation? And if the public doesn’t care, what does one make of this?

A Washington Post-ABC News poll this month showed that 63 percent of Americans called “corruption in Washington” important to their vote

While no one expects that ethics reforms will replace gas prices or the Iraq war in the forefront of American political complaints, it’s hard not to think that these lawmakers are being a bit selective about their constituents’ views on the issue. But if the idea that the American public doesn’t care gets established as common knowledge (and the Post story didn’t do much to dispel that notion), then there is less reason for the media to subsequently pay attention, and in turn the issue fades away. It’s a pretty smart move, all things considered. And, of course, the politicians can keep getting the meals, golf vacations, free travel and skybox seats they so obviously deserve.