SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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 mendax on Tuesday January 03 2017, @05:43PM
The NY Times just reported [nytimes.com] that the House has backed away from what they did last night. Good for them. Now all we need is a good ethics investigation of the House in general. Half of the Congress would be caught up in it! Talk about emptying the swamp.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 03 2017, @07:37PM
s/ethics investigation of/large delivery of napalm for/
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by mendax on Tuesday January 03 2017, @08:08PM
Oh, I like that idea, but doesn't that make you a terrorist?
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 03 2017, @08:50PM
If I were to actually do it, yes. On the other hand, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, as they say...
So, for now I'll just stick to imagining what it would be like if these parasites got a burning shower. Something even worse, by their standards, may actually happen: they may be kicked out in disgrace. I really think most of them would rather die horribly than live like us peons.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by mendax on Tuesday January 03 2017, @11:48PM
I would prefer they receive a golden shower--from the three million voter majority who voted for Hillary Clinton--than a burning shower, even though it's the latter they deserve.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday January 03 2017, @08:10PM
A *lot* more than half: Right now, both the Democrats and Republicans demand that their members of Congress spend approximately 60% of their waking time sitting in tiny cubicles making fundraising calls to potential big donors. Which means that they almost definitely engage in some shady deals to get said big donations. So basically, everybody but Angus King, Bernie Sanders, and Gregorio Sablan are guaranteed to have ethics violations.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @09:52PM
Its literally not an ethics violation to make legislative promises in exchange for campaign donations.
That's because campaign donations do not go into the politician's pockets. There are lots of laws to stop that on the back-end too (like no draining the accounts of any remaining cash after the election either).
You can argue whether or not political favors in exchange for campaign donations ought to be an ethics violation. But under the current rules they are not.