Mrs. Clinton mocks ethics reform, fuels cynicism

[Adelante]

New York Times Editorial
Published: January 21, 2008

The Truth About Ethics Reform

We’ve long grown used to candidates’ cherry-picking each other’s records to score points in a campaign. But the new Congressional ethics law, and the role Senator Barack Obama played in passing it, have been belittled in troubling ways that are worth noting.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton voted for the ethics measure, but has lately suggested that it was neither a landmark change nor particularly controversial. Wrong on both counts.

No ethics law is perfect, and much depends on the vigor with which the changes are enforced. But there was a big cultural shift in the legislation’s ban on gifts, meals and travel paid for by lobbyists, and provisions requiring greater disclosure of lawmakers’ pet projects and making it harder for former lawmakers to capitalize on their Capitol Hill connections.

The measure ultimately passed the Senate by a lopsided 83-to-14 vote, hardly surprising because few lawmakers want to go on record against cleaning up Congress, especially in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff scandal. The hard part was assembling and passing a strong package of rules against intense resistance within Congress and from lobbyists.

With Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, Mr. Obama played a central role in this effort. Forcing fellow members of Congress to disclose the names of lobbyists who bundle campaign donations is not the sort of thing that endears you to your colleagues.

At a debate before the New Hampshire primary, Charles Gibson, the news anchor, and former Senator John Edwards poked fun at the fact that the ban on lobbyists’ buying meals does not prevent lobbyists from providing food and drinks to lawmakers at stand-up receptions. Mrs. Clinton cited that comment approvingly last week on “Meet the Press.” As they all surely know, there is a big difference between attending a crowded reception and pressing a cause at intimate sit-down meals.

Mocking the ethics law simply fuels a cynicism that can only make future ethics battles harder.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21mon2.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

[MonkeyFunk]

1. I'm not sure how she "mocked" it.

Can you explain?

[Adelante]

2. It's clear in the editorial nt

[MonkeyFunk]

3. If it were, I would have understood

I don't see how what she said is "mocking". It might be diminishing it, but she didn't mock it. She didn't ridicule it, she didn't treat it with contempt.

It sounds to me like she was saying it was a small, but good, step, and more needs to be done.

[Windy]

4. It was a significant step and she couched it as a small step...

she belittled the effort, that is very clear.

[rodeodance]

7. Get real--being critical is NOT belittling

[rodeodance]

9. What is clear is that this short editorial was a hit piece and the IP ate it up.

[rodeodance]

5. If all the lawmakers were truly honest--they too would say this is a watered down

version. Most bills are.

[MethuenProgressive]

6. There's no "mocking" of ethics reform in your quote.

You do know some people read further than the subject lines, don't you?

[rodeodance]

8. I have heard lots of news pundits chuckle at how lawmakers now just go to stand up lobby receptions

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. I agree with the NYT editorial but I don't think the matter was worthy of a NYT editorial

Comments like those that Edwards and Clinton are taken to task here for making, in the context of a primary race, are relatively inconsequential in the larger scheme, even in the the larger scheme of ethics battles. This doesn't even rise to the level of a dispute over Obama's actual actions taken or his intended goals. Cynicism is being fueled by far more heady concoctions during this primary season than anything being complained about in this NYT editorial. And every candidate has had his or her actual record distored in far far more troubling ways than the "belittling" here cited.

But it is a NYT Editorial and fair game for posting. It's even true in what it reports. That puts it above 75% of DU threads right there alone :)

[FormerDittoHead]

11. From what I read in the article - EDWARDS "mocked" it - not Clinton...

Mocked, as in "poked fun" at it?

I'm an Edwards supporter too, and I agree with Clinton's take on it, but it wasn't Hillary who mocked it, it was Edwards...

[Adelante]

12. Mockery and cynicism

Mockery:

“When Senator Obama was asked, what is your major accomplishment in the Senate,” Clinton said, “he said it was passing ethics reform and getting legislators to be prohibited from having lunch with lobbyists. And then, you know, Charlie Gibson said, ‘Well, wait a minute. You can have lunch if you’re standing up, not if you’re sitting down.’ So if that’s his main claim for legislative accomplishment, people deserve to know that.”

Cynicism:

But Clinton didn’t always speak so negatively of the lobbying legislation. In fact, according to Clinton’s Jan. 18 speech from the Senate floor on the bill, she lauded it as “much needed and long-awaited.” She even said it bans meals.

“The American public deserves to be certain that their elected officials are not being swayed by lavish gifts offered as quid pro quo for promoting special agendas,” Clinton said, per a search of the Library of Congress database. “To that end, gifts from registered lobbyists have no place in our legislative process. For that reason, I support the sweeping ban on lobbyist-paid gifts in the Senate bill. This ban includes not just meals but also gifts of travel and lodging, areas that have been the subject of notorious abuse.”

She closed her speech this way: “The reforms contained in both the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 and the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 enact much-needed and long-awaited reforms that move us toward those goals.”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/580425.aspx