Clash brews on ethics

A handful of reform-minded freshman Democrats emboldened by a sense that 2008 voters want change and an end to the power of Washington special interests plan to press their case for stronger ethics enforcement when Congress returns later this month.

The freshmen, led by Reps. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Zack Space (D-Ohio), will try to convince their leaders to amend a late December proposal to create an outside ethics office.

{mosads}“When we get back in January, those of us who think that we can make the proposal a little stronger will be reaching out to Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Mass.) and the leadership,” Murphy said in an interview.

House Democratic leaders, however, may refuse to allow amendments intended to strengthen a House rules package that includes provisions creating an outside ethics office, according to several sources with outside watchdog groups.

They worry that an open amendment process could lead to a flurry of GOP measures that could weaken or even kill the bill. They also worry that granting the outside ethics office subpoena power, something watchdog groups and some freshman Democrats support, could diminish the proposal’s chances of passage because of opposition from some members.

Murphy and Space introduced a bill in November that would give an outside ethics entity subpoena power and provide a formal process for reviewing complaints from outside groups.

A no amendment strategy could be risky because closing the bill off from amendments could provoke charges that House Democrats are shutting down members’ ability to strengthen enforcement of the new ethics rules passed last fall.    

In December, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the House would take up the rules change in January, although the timing could slip into February considering the brief legislative schedule this month.

“I’m doubtful that [Pelosi] will allow open amendments, but I’m hopeful that she will allow at least some,” said the Campaign Legal Center’s Meredith McGehee.

Pelosi’s office did not respond to a request for comment while a House Rules Committee aide would not say whether Democrats plan to allow amendments on the rules package, calling the question “premature.”

One Democratic leadership aide, however, noted that leaders “will want to have the opportunity to engage the Democratic Caucus in further discussions about this proposal” before making a decision about how to bring the package to the floor.

Murphy was quick to say that Capuano’s latest proposal for an outside ethics office is “an incredibly important step forward” and a “landmark reform,” but he argues that it could be stronger.  

“People want Washington to change the way business is done and are supporting candidates that are preaching that gospel,” he added. “I hope that everyone inside the Beltway is paying attention.”     

Last year, fresh from a campaign that focused on GOP “corruption” charges, it seemed as if Democrats had heard the message loud and clear. Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowed to run the most open and ethical House in history. Democrats passed an ethics and lobbying reform package and tapped Capuano to head a bipartisan ethics task force devoted to creating an outside ethics office to help police members and enforce the new rules.

After grappling with the issue for months, Capuano unveiled his plan on the last day of the 2007 session. His plan would provide much more transparency to a secretive ethics process in which lawmakers evaluate charges levied against one another by setting up deadlines for when the panel must report its findings if no action is taken against a member.

Capuano’s proposal would not enable the outside office to subpoena testimony and documents, what some watchdog groups consider an essential element. After it was unveiled, four groups sent a letter calling on Democrats to add subpoena power to the proposal or at least access to subpoena power through the ethics committee. The Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21, Public Citizen and the League of Women Voters argued that without subpoena power the office could be ignored in its efforts to interview people and obtain documents.

A spokesman for Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) was quick to slam Democratic leaders for refusing to say whether they would allow amendments on the package.

“If Democratic leaders are serious about their ‘most open and honest Congress in history’ pledge they will allow members on both sides to offer amendments to this ethics bill,” said Kevin Smith. “Surely they don’t want to shut down their own freshmen and other Democrats and Republicans, do they?”

Republicans have been tight-lipped about the substance of the  proposal, although talking points slamming it have been circulating among GOP lawmakers for weeks. A spokeswoman for Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the ranking Republican on the panel, said her boss would talk to members when they returned before passing judgment on it.

Capuano continues to be open to changes to the proposal from both sides of the aisle, although he said he’s concerned that adding subpoena power will only lead to lengthy delays in the office’s investigations because lawmakers could fight the subpoenas in court.

Capuano also doesn’t want to make any changes to the proposal that would diminish its chances of passing or impinge on its strengths: transparency and independence.

Common Cause, U.S. PIRG  and the Brooking Institution’s Thomas Mann would prefer that the office have subpoena power but worry that adding it could kill the measure’s chances of passing.

“We’re on the edge here,” said U.S. PIRG’s Gary Kalman. “Democrats should have the opportunity to strengthen [the proposal] if possible, but they need to pass this. They can’t screw this up —whether it’s offered under a closed rule or a modified rule. They need to make sure that they can get 218 votes.”
Mann called the proposal “a substantial step forward.”

 “I’ve been pushing for a role for an independent panel for 20 years or something,” Mann said. “The idea that you would reject this now because it doesn’t have a particular power and assume it’s toothless, I just think is dangerous and sad.”

He said watchdogs should give the subpoena issue one year to play out. If the office’s investigations aren’t getting anywhere because people are refusing to talk without a subpoena, Democrats can go back and add it later.

 Capuano said he hasn’t discussed the proposal with any House colleagues since December and doesn’t know when or how Democratic leaders will bring up the rules package. He also brushed off concerns that ethics issues will impact Democrats’ reelection chances.

“I have never, ever seen a single official on any level win or lose election on the basis of generic ethics issues and I do not see it now as an election issue,” he said, noting that he was talking about races absent specific ethics scandals.