Three Cheers for (Sensible) Lobbying Reform

This blog isn't one that's been much on good news, but here's some.

S.1, or "Senate Bill One", which I blogged about earlier, has passed close to unanimously.

Why is this good news, considering I blogged against the bill? Because it passed with an amendment attached, striking section 220, which is the section I found objectionable. So — wahoo! — Reasonable lobbying reform has passed the Senate!

Also, Senators Coburn (R-OK) & Hatch (R-UT), who voted against the bill have some 'splaining to do. And someone should let Harry "We in the Senate are going to work like everyone else in American does" Reid know that two of his fellow Senators, Brownback (R-KS) and Johnson (D-SD), couldn't even muster enough effort to vote on this bill ... the 19th vote of this Senate session. If you are paid to vote on things, and can't even make it through 19 votes in a row, there's a problem. (And, no, I'm not cutting Johnson any slack. If you suffer a medical condition that is going to keep you from doing your job for months, the honorable thing to do is resign.)

Senate Bill One - A Bad Bill to Enable Bad Bills

I'm highly in favor of the spirit of the Senate's first bill of the current session, S.1 ("Senate Bill One"). It's intent is to achieve ethics reform through lobbying reform. Good stuff.

I don't like how it sets out to accomplish this goal though.

A significant chunk of the bill sets up new and additional regulations (with increased fines) for organizations that do lobbying. Now, I know "lobbying" is a dirty word these days in light of the whole Abramoff scandal, so let me give some examples of those evil lobbying organizations this bill sets out to further regulate: MoveOn.org, Focus on the Family, and the AARP.

These organizations aren't the problem. In fact, when bad bills come up, they are the very organizations that encourage advocacy to stop those bad bills. These are the organizations that encourage legislative transparency.

So, S.1 sets out to increase legislative transparency by burdening organizations that inform the public. Frankly, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The way to reform Senate ethics should center around adding regulations to the Senate, not to organizations that keep the Senate in check.