There's been a lot of excitement about the Obama movement, coupled with some detractors out there saying Obama is all style and no substance. My response to that is to look at ethics reform, an issue no one should scoff at as corruption was the #1 reason Congress changed hands in 2006. It just so happens that Barack Obama played a big role in getting ethics reform done. Not only that, I would like to focus on some key votes which show like night and day, the difference between Obama and Clinton. Obama had to log some courageous votes that amounted to rebellion against the Democratic leadership -- Reid and Durbin -- while Hillary Clinton chose not to rock the boat. Come along with me, and I will share the tale.
Crossposted at DailyKos
One of the big themes Democrats ran on in 2006 was the Republican Congress's "culture of corruption" exemplified by Tom Delay and Duke Cunningham, among many others. Although the Iraq War was a big factor in Democrats winning, exit polls showed that corruption, in fact, was the voters' number one issue. The House was quick to take up and pass one of the most sweeping ethics reform bills in history. They did it in the first 100 hours, and then it was time for the Senate to do the same.
Unfortunately, Reid didn't want the tough House bill, and was intent on watering it down. The Republicans sensed a weakness and cynically exploited it:
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) offered an amendment today that mirrored the tougher legislation passed by House Democrats.According to Craig Holman of Public Citizen, Reid's version, if it had been applied to earmarks as part of legislation passed last year, would have disclosed the sponsor of only approximately 500 earmarks. DeMint's amendment would have forced sponsors to be known of roughly 12,000.
"DeMint's version is considerably tougher," Holman told me, noting that both Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who co-sponsored the bill, are "on the appropriations committee and haven't really believed in strong earmark reform propoals in the first place."
This all happened in January 2007, and it was a potential public relations disaster for Democrats. Reid did not pick up the fact that the DeMint amendment was the exact language of the House bill, so he spent the day trying to kill his own party's ethics reform. What an embarrassment!
But Democrats sought to block DeMint's amendment, with an effort led by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL). They failed, due mostly to nine Democrats, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and freshmen Sens. Jon Tester (D-MT) and Jim Webb (D-VA), who crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans, along with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT). Here's the roll call tally.But instead of then passing DeMint's amendment, as would normally occur in the Senate, the Democratic leadership held the vote open, a move that Senate Republicans called unprecedented, and reminiscent of tactics used by the GOP-controlled House that voters just booted.
This was a moment of truth. Who supported Washington's business as usual, and who wanted to change things, fulfill the voters' desire of cleaning up Washington, and was willing to defy the leadership in Washington?
Among those voting no were Webb, Tester, Feingold, Kerry, and Obama.
Among those who agreed with Reid that most earmarks should be kept secret as to who sponsored them: Clinton, and even Obama's senior colleague from Illinois, Dick Durbin. There are even more disappointing names in the roll call which you can find at the link.
Let's be clear here: this was not just about crossing Reid and playing hero for a day. Obama and the other brave Democrats prevented the leadership from making a huge mistake, which would have given the Republicans endless ammunition. The only reason Democrats have bragging rights on the "most sweeping ethics reform in history" is because a few brave Democrats stood up and made it so. The next day, Reid saw the writing on the wall, and accepted the tougher earmark reform:
Yesterday, Paul reported on the fireworks erupting in the Senate over ethics reform. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) went to the wall for a watered-down reform proposal, which would have kept the public from knowing which lawmakers inserted billions of dollars worth of earmarked expenditures. Republicans, with the help of nine Democrats (and Joe Lieberman), kept him at bay by pushing an amendment that would force nearly all earmarks to be identified by their sponsors.Today, Reid appears to have accepted defeat.
Reid offered an olive branch to Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., agreeing to embrace his amendment to a pending ethics and lobbying overhaul (S 1) with some modifications. DeMint's amendment, which Democratic leaders tried but failed to kill on Thursday, would expand the definition of member earmarks that would be subject to new disclosure rules. . . .Friday morning, a chastened Reid said, "Yesterday was a rather difficult day, as some days are. We tend to get in a hurry around here sometimes when we shouldn't be. Personally, for the majority, we probably could have done a little better job."
And because of open anti-corruption Democrats like Obama, Webb, Tester, Kerry and Feingold, Reid was prevented from doing a really bad job!
After the earmark reform fiasco, there were many, many amendments voted on, some of which disappointingly did not pass. Here is a link to the ethics reform bill, for which you can peruse through all of the amendments and votes on them. I would like to highlight one more amendment which I think is relevant to this primary campaign.
It was an amendment introduced by Senator Vitter (R-LA), which you can find at the amendments link to the bill. It is marked "S.Amdt.6". Here is what it said:
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
to prohibit authorized committees and leadership PACs from employing the spouse or immediate family members of any candidate or Federal office holder connected to the committee.
Of course, any objective reading of the amendment knows this is common sense, and a good way to prevent even the appearance of conflict of interest. Roll call, please:
The vote was aye to table (or kill) or nay to keep.
Among the ayes: Reid, Dubin, Dodd, Biden, Clinton (go to the link for more depressing results)
Open anti-corruption Democrats who voted no: Feingold, Kerry, Tester, Obama
Senator Clinton went on the Senate floor the next day to utter three sentences about the vote:
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, yesterday evening I voted to table an amendment that would have prohibited authorized committees and leadership PACs from employing the spouse or immediate family members of any candidate or Federal officeholder connected to the committee. I appreciate the concerns raised by Senator Vitter regarding allegations of abuse in this area, and believe action should be taken when the Senate Rules Committee undertakes comprehensive campaign finance reform later this year. I look forward to working with Chairwoman Feinstein and the rest of my colleagues at that time to deal with the concerns raised by Senator Vitter.
That's our Scarlet O'Hara from New York -- there's always tomorrow to deal with conflicts of interest. As of this date, she has done nothing on this matter.
These votes are just one concrete example of how what Obama says is actually backed up by his record -- he isn't just running against the DC Establishment, he actually voted against DC insider club rules. Hillary Clinton can superficially say she voted for ethics reform. Of course, 96 senators ultimately voted for the ethics reform package, so it wasn't exactly a stand out vote. The real battle was with the amendments, and the choice is very clear between an open government Democrat, Barack Obama, and a get along go along DC insider, Hillary Clinton.