What the bill accomplished:
Banned Certain Gifts and Increased Lobbyist Disclosure Requirements. The bill tightened disclosure requirements on multiple campaign contributions "bundled" by lobbyists and bans meals, travel and gifts from special interests. [Washington Post, 8/7/07]
Increased Transparency for “Pet Project” Earmarks. The bill requires sponsors of earmarks to make known their sponsorship of those pet spending projects tucked into legislation. [Washington Post, 8/7/07]
Separated Congressional Earmarks from Lawmakers’ Bank Accounts. The bill bans lawmakers from requesting earmarks in which they hold a principal financial interest. The law provides for most of that information to be posted online. [Washington Post, 8/7/07]
Loopholes in the new bill:
Questionable Enforcement. Government watchdogs and ethics lawyers question how the new rules will be enforced. Without an effective organization and infrastructure for managing the flow of new disclosures provided by the law, the legislation won't mean much. [Washington Post, 8/7/07]
Lacks Accountability and Meaningful Enforcement Provisions. The new law lacks strong enforcement provisions to ensure that Washington politicians and lobbyists are held accountable and playing by the rules. While the new law requires additional lobbying reports to be posted and maintained online, the enforcement process has been weakened without a system to manage disclosure information. [Washington Post, 8/7/07; New York Times, 1/3/08]
Watered Down Legislation. The Washington Post reported that after a Republican-led blocking of the bill, the Senate watered down several provisions that led to weaker rules on the reporting threshold for bundled contributions and the disclosure of “pet project” earmarks. [Washington Post, 8/7/07]
Lobbyists Gift Ban not Strong Enough. The new law still allows industry lobbyists to exploit a loophole in legislation and throw lavish parties for elected officials. [New York Times, 1/3/08]
Ethics Panel Lacks Legal Power – Politicians End Up Policing Themselves. The proposed six-member ethics panel charged with reviewing accusations against lawmakers has little legal power to effectively investigate members of Congress, who essentially end up policing themselves. According to the New York Times, the panel would have no subpoena power, and while it could dismiss accusations, credible charges would be referred to the existing Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, thus leaving final adjudication where it is now, in the hands of members of Congress policing themselves. [New York Times, 1/3/08]
