WP: No Outcry About Lobby Scandal, Lawmakers Say

[DeepModem Mom]

No Outcry About Lobby Scandal, Lawmakers Say
Republicans See Little Risk In Pushing Modest Ethics Bill
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, April 27, 2006; Page A06

The scandal surrounding disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff has been a Washington obsession for months, but Republican lawmakers who returned from a two-week recess this week said they felt free to pass a relatively tepid ethics bill because their constituents rarely mention the issue.

The House is scheduled to vote today on ethics legislation to increase lobbyists' disclosures and require lawmakers to own up to the earmarks, or narrow projects, that they insert into appropriations bills. But the measure would not restrict the gifts or meals provided by lobbyists as House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) had proposed in January, nor would it expand the number of enforcers of lobbying rules and laws.

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."

Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.), a former ethics committee chairwoman, said passage of the bill will have no political consequences because "people are quite convinced that the rhetoric of reform is just political."

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 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....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042602416.html

[aquart]

1. Jesus. What pigs.

They went home to see what they could continue to get away with.

[napi21]

2. That's OK guys, you keep thinking that. You'll have a lot of time

to think too...when you're sent HOME!!!!!

[Pithy Cherub]

3. Deluded corrupt republicans obviously did not see the poll slippage.

The inability of them to grasp that the lobbying scandal is an ongoing festering rash on their reputations is not unexpected. They want to talk about other items until the next batch of indictments come down. It is also a true thing that people go silent and withdraw. Republicans heard from some of their constituents not all of them. But hey, there is no reason to interrupt their ongoing denial.

Republicans know how to manipulate intelligence so they just fit their faux facts around their own fantasies. The Abramoff bomb has not gone off yet! :nuke:

[KansDem]

4. F**K YOU NANCY!!!

Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.), a former ethics committee chairwoman, said passage of the bill will have no political consequences because "people are quite convinced that the rhetoric of reform is just political."

For those of you taken aback by my uncharacteristic outburst of acrimonious vitriol, let me explain. Nancy Johnson was the person who ran interference for Newt Gringrich, back in 1995:

Nader Criticizes House Ethics Chairwoman Nancy Johnson for

"Stonewalling" Gingrich Investigation

Following reports that all Republicans on the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct rejected appointing an outside counsel to investigate charges against Speaker Newt Gingrich, Ralph Nader said "this is a sweetheart whitewash in the making. Nancy Johnson and the House Republicans are demonstrating why the public does not trust politicians and why politicians can't be trusted to police themselves."

The Washington Post reported on Saturday, May 22, that Ethics Committee ranking Minority Member Jim McDermott had moved to appoint an outside counsel to investigate the ethics complaints against Gingrich. But the motion failed when all five Republicans on the ten Member panel voted against the measure. Tie votes block a measure.

"Nancy Johnson is turning the ethics process into a sham to protect House Speaker Newt Gingrich," Nader said. "Johnson has permitted herself to become a mouthpiece for partisan cronyism and business as usual to block any effort to get at the truth regarding these charges," Nader said. "This just shows the bankruptcy of the Congressional ethics process as currently constituted."

Since 1979, the Ethics Committee has appointed an outside counsel to investigate every serious ethics case against a House member. These outside counsel investigations include: Rep. Charles Diggs (1979), Abscam (1980), Rep. George Hansen (1984), House page scandal (1983), Rep. Fernand St. Germain (1987), Rep. Jim Wright (1989).

"Johnson is breaking House precedent by refusing to appoint outside counsel in the Gingrich case," Nader said. "She should simply follow established precedent by appointing an outside counsel who will independently evaluate the charges against Gingrich."

(more)
http://www.congressproject.org/releases/hethrelf.html

[Selteri]

5. I'd say they are disconnected from reality... OR

They are just getting so many letters about things they are messing up on that thy don't see it as being any bigger of an issue than any other issue.