Lobbyists, "Bundling," and Congressional Ethics Reform

From the Politico:

It's a familiar backpedaling pattern emerging early in the new Democratic-controlled Congress. From lobbying reforms to anti-corruption proposals to curbing earmarks, Democratic lawmakers who railed against Republican corruption a year ago have flinched from imposing the harshest standards on themselves. Consequently, this Democratic Congress may end up no better prepared to police itself than the Republicans were when the Jack Abramoff bribery scandal broke and the spate of criminal convictions it spawned surfaced as a primary reason for voters' angst last fall.

It comes as no surprise to me, the GOP when they took control in 1994, promised a whole series of reforms and changes. They did close the House bank, but the tough new gift rules got rolled back and interpreted in such a way as to permit a great deal. The fact that the Democrats are reluctant to impose restrictions on themselves can be explained by two words, "self interest."

But this part still cracks me up:

Indeed, the public may become increasingly dependent on the lobbyists to disclose the business of lawmakers. Why? The outsiders will face more serious consequences if they don't follow the law, including the threat of Justice Department investigations, than the incumbents. One measure coming to the House this week illustrates the point. It would require lobbyists to disclose how much money they've bundled in donations for campaigns. That provision provides insight into which lobbyists are closest to certain lawmakers. It also could provide the first accurate information on the subject.

The term bundling, as it is used here, just generally makes me laugh.

Take a little test, in teh above paragraph, substitute the word "wife, son, daughter, mother, father, neighbor or high school friend" for "lobbyist" and tell me what is wrong with "bundling." The answer, not a thing.

See bundling is just fundraising and that is no more illegal than watching a baseball game. But for some reason the fact that a lobbyist is doing it, somehow makes it more insidious. If a lobbyist asks a client to make a contribution to a candidate, the client can so no with impunity. The client holds the power in the relationship and could even fire the lobbyist for making the request. Teh fact that a lobbyist raises money for a candidate doesn't mean that lobbyist will ultimately have any more sway of the future lawmaker than the lawmaker's wife, son, daughter, mother, father, neighbor or high school friend and in fact will probably still have less.

But Congress wants a boogeyman and the lobbyist is the easiest one to abuse. The onus of this regulation is all on the lobbyist. So Congress can't really reform itself, it must turn outside of itself to save Congress. The burden of disclosing bundling could have just as easily been placed on the candidate (incumbent), but that means taking responsibility for the people a candidate uses to raise money.

Wow, imagine that, a Congressman taking responsibility for their own actions!! Were that the world we lived in.