In one of their first moves of the new Congress, House Republicans have voted to gut their own independent ethics watchdog — a huge blow to cheerleaders of congressional oversight and one that dismantles major reforms adopted after the Jack Abramoff scandal.
Monday's effort was led, in part, by lawmakers who have come under investigation in recent years.
Despite a warning from Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), House Republicans adopted a proposal by Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) to put the Office of Congressional Ethics under the jurisdiction of the House Ethics Committee.
The office currently has free rein, enabling investigators to pursue allegations and then recommend further action to the House Ethics Committee as they see fit.
Now, the office would be under the thumb of lawmakers themselves. The proposal also appears to limit the scope of the office's work by barring them from considering anonymous tips against lawmakers. And it would stop the office from disclosing the findings of some of their investigations, as they currently do after the recommendations go to House Ethics.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/house-republicans-gut-their-own-oversight-233111
The Office of Congressional Ethics was established in 2008 under House Democrats, in response to the era of lobbying scandals made notable by Jack Abramoff, the former lobbyist who went to prison on corruption charges.
It is the first independent body to have an oversight role in House ethics. There is no Senate counterpart. The OCE independently reviews allegations of misconduct against House members and staff, and if deemed appropriate refers them to the House Ethics Committee for review. The OCE cannot independently punish lawmakers for any ethics violations.
Update: House Republicans pull plan to gut independent ethics panel after Trump tweets
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @02:42PM
What else is new...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @03:47PM
"Score:2, Informative"
This website is shite.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Tuesday January 03 2017, @03:50PM
I don't moderate ACs up at all, sometimes I'll mod them down.
Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @04:23PM
Your policy is as stupid as most of your comments. What does posting as an "AC" matter? Surely, what matters is the quality of the content; I mean, heck: You are not an "AC", and yet your own content is almost exclusively crap.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday January 04 2017, @05:08AM
And I regularly moderate ACs up if they post something deserving of it.
Moderation is to make good posts visible, not for political BS.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @04:52PM
Even more to the point, why did snotnose feel the need to share all that in the first place?
The post he was responding to had literally nothing to do with his response.
Looks like a case of pure virtue signaling. Except there really isn't any virtue involved. Its more like baboon-ass signaling.