Lobbying Reform Bill Still On Hill

Even though Congress has passed the so-called Lobbying Reform Bill Congressional leaders worry the President will break out the veto pen. From the Influence Peddler:

The Congressional leadership calls this an 'ethics' bill, but that's not really accurate. It has only a limited impact on how Representatives and Senators do their work. Even Speaker Pelosi's summary isn't able to show much of an impact on Members' activities. Apparently in the ethics cases of Bob Ney, Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, Bill Jefferson and... many others, it was the lobbyists who were at fault. As such, there's no outside ethics review body, no provision for outside groups to file complaints against Members... no teeth to speak of.

It also doesn't help that leaders chickened out on meaningful reform of earmarks, as the White House has pointed out.

It must be very tempting for the White House to consider vetoing this. As it is, the bill is a political document that does little to clean up the Congress. Signing it gives the Democratic leadership a free pass. They get the credit for ethics reform without actually doing any work. A veto might at least force them to consider real changes.

They are right, this bill does more to punish lobbyists that it does to "clean up Congress."

"Ethics reform" bills like these are simple for Congress and legislatures to pass because it puts the burden on reform on those outside of Congress. Increased lobbying disclosure rules, bans or limitations on lobbyist campaign contributions, lobbyist registration documents, etc. do nothing to change the behavior of Congress.

I have never believed that you can legislate ethics. You can make some things a matter of public disclosure--such as campaign contributions and lobbyist registrations, but you can't legislate personal behavior. Either a person has personal and professional ethics or they don't. If ethics were capable of being regulated, you wouldn't routinely see lawyer disciplinary actions, you wouldn't see Congressional or governmental behavior so off the charts as to cause you to wonder, "What the hell were they thinking?"

As much as I don't like them, I am wondering if terms limits is the answer to Congressional behavioral problems.