Liberal Blogosphere on the Senate's Lobby Reform Lite

"...the Senate has voted for a halfhearted package of reforms that would come nowhere near curing the easy money, quid pro quo culture that now bedevils the Capitol," editorializes the New York Times today, in describing the "lobby reform lite" adopted by the US Senate two days ago.

The Times continues, "Facing voters' flagging confidence, the Senate chose to emphasize greater disclosure by lobbyists while rejecting such vital reforms as the creation of an independent office to investigate ethics abuses. The instinct to protect privileged clubbiness carried the day, most glaringly when the Senate spiked any idea of ending lawmakers' shameless use of the executive jets so eagerly offered by corporate officials bent on insider access. "

The bill passed resoundingly on March 29 by a vote of 90 to 8, with only three Democrats....Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Russ Feingold (D-WI) and John Kerry (D-MA).....voting against this bill, which they find woefully weak and ineffective at reining in lobbying abuses. The five Republicans who voted against this bill were Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsay Graham (R-SC), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Jim DeMint (R-SC) and James Inhofe (R-OK).
---------------
Let's take a job around the blogosphere to see what liberals think of Senate lobby reform lite.....

Blogger A Democrat on the Redneck Riviera linked to today's Washington Post editorial, which starts: "Here's a simple way to judge the lobbying reform bill just approved by the Senate: The leading advocates of reform, including the parties' two designated point men on the issue, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), all voted against it."
---------------
From Jeremy Dibbell at top-blog The Moderate Voice: "Don't get me wrong, I think the bill as passed is better than nothing. But in principle I agree with those who voted against it that it simply does not go far enough.....

Asked yesterday if he thought the bill lived up to the clamor for reform that had been echoing around Washington earlier in the year, Senator McCain laughed, according to the Washington Post, and said in true McCain style 'The good news is there will be more indictments, and we will be revisiting this issue.' "
---------------
And the last, delightfully eloquent word comes from blogger Cranky Boy at The Daily Curmudgeon: "Should we torture puppies? Should slavery be legal? Can I be less cranky?....These, of course, are absurd questions that really have no 'other' side to debate.....I bring this up since I just heard a CNBC anchor ask before a commercial break, 'Should Congressman be prevented from insider trading?' Gee, let me think.

I raise this because the Senate just passsed what they call lobby reform which is nothing of the sort. They can still do practically the same things they've done before and they'll find new ways to continue the money laundering. It must be o.k. since they made it legal.

They can fly on private jets with lobbyists and sell the country to the highest bidders. They can earmark millions of dollars to their favorite donors. They can let they wives 'consult' on fundraising and take a 10 or 15% cut of the money they raise. What a great deal. A deal they will never give up. For them it would be like asking them to give up breathing.

So the next time you hear 'Should Congress give up their right to steal?' don't think it's The Daily Show doing a parody of Congress. It might just be C-Span."
------------------------------