NYT- Push to Tighten Lobbying Rules Loses Strength

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: March 11, 2006
WASHINGTON, March 10 — The drive for a tighter lobbying law, just two months ago a major priority on Capitol Hill, is losing momentum, a victim of shifting political interests, infighting among House Republicans and a growing sense among lawmakers of both parties that wholesale change may not be needed after all.

In the Senate, debate on a lobbying bill was derailed this week by the fracas over port security, and it is unclear when the measure will return. A chief architect of the legislation, Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said Friday that the bill was "way off track" and that she feared its chances had been jeopardized.

"People have turned to other issues," Ms. Collins said in a telephone interview from Maine. "This was our window, and I'm afraid it will be slammed shut."

In the House, Representative David Dreier of California, the Republicans' point man on lobbying legislation, said reaching consensus on what the bill should include had been more difficult than he had expected.

more:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/11/politics/11lobby.html?hp&ex=1142139600&en=2c8884534c2aaee8&ei=5094&partner=homepage

"People have turned to other issues," Ms. Collins said

------

short memories...and nothing really "big" / "New" to report

although quite a few blatherheads have speculated the abramoff/lobbying scandal will explode this summer

Perhaps they'll bless us by tossing out a few virtual peanuts, and we'll experience a strange moment of fleeting comfort.

by the people who put them in office.

What I don't understand is why aren't the Democrats all over this issue? I mean surely they risk the loss of their little corporate jet rides to score some good points against the Republicans by forcing them to vote against some touch reform initiatives.

Would it be so horrible for Senator Blowhard and Congressman Fathead to have to spend time in an airline terminal or on a plane with actual, eeeek, citizens?

Live within your own means.

If you can't afford to take a 3,000 golf trip on your salary (which is MUCH higher of a salary than most Americans' salaries) - then don't take the trip.

If you can't afford a $100 meal - then don't eat at that restuarant.

The "enhancement" to your salaries in the form of luxury perks from lobbyists needs to end. The entre those perks gives those folks to make campaign $ pledges while pitching a favorite cause or taxpayer funded contract for a client - is killing our system. Stop whoring yourselves and making a mockery of 'representative' form of govt.

You pass legislation that makes bankruptcy conditions much harsher, without provisions for those who go bankrupt due to an unforseen medical emergency or natural disaster - but you can't live within your own well-healed means?

right versus wrong, profits versus kindness, hatred versus love, black versus white... killing the living versus demanding that the unliving be alive, and this stupid newspaper article suggests that we think about lobbiests?

lobbiests are no more than... why, they're pure shit.

I do believe they think they've dodged a bullet.

Which means that every candidate in either party has to be asked EXACTLY what his position is on lobbying reform. Every one of them.

Maybe Norton, too, with her "foundation" receiving money from Abramoff's clients.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2160054
An AP article re Brownback.
Brownback tops private-paid travel list.
The senator's trips were worth more than $21,400, higher than any other Kansas lawmaker.

It may not drop out of the news.

amounts to tightening rules on capitalistic, so-called "liberal", structure. Which will never happen. Might as well ask corporations to share their profit with the community.