The Truth About Ethics Reform - New York Times

The Truth About Ethics Reform - New York Times:

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.

"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.

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

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."

Distortion seems to be at the heart of the Clinton strategy.

Why else would they take a hundred of the four thousand votes cast in the Illinois Senate out of context to prove what is demonstrably a lie.

I wonder if Senator Clinton cast four hundred votes in her entire Senate service. Do you think it even approaches a thousand. By her own admission, she's voted for bills she never read.

She's got mud on her face, bloody a disgrace, waving her husband all over the place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21mon2.html?th&emc=th