Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, August 3, 1993 TAG: 9309090300
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
But whatever public benefit our elected representatives claim arises from the system of lobbying that has grown up around Congress, there is every reason to be suspicious of the gifts, perks and fund-raisers that are provided as well.
Gifts, expenses-paid ``fact-finding'' trips, contributions to a congressman's favorite charity (or a foundation he or she controls), campaign fund-raisers, parties and legislative retreats - the costs for all these things surely are offset by the benefits to whoever is footing the bill. Why else spend the money?
This is perfectly legal, thanks to generous congressional rules governing what gifts can be accepted. Yet much of this is hidden from public scrutiny - and that's perfectly legal, as well, thanks to those same laid-back congressional rules.
That is what the so-called Wellstone amendment to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1993 seeks to change.
The amendment, added to the Senate version of the bill by Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., would require lobbyists to disclose any gift to members of Congress or their staffs that is worth more than $20, or gifts that total more than $50 a year. Lobbyists who sponsor political fund-raisers also would have to report how much was spent on an event and how much was raised.
The House version of the bill doesn't include this disclosure requirement - nor is it likely to.
The measure is before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Government Relations. Its chairman, Rep. John Bryant, D-Texas, opposes the amendment, according to The New York Times. And House Speaker Tom Foley, D-W.Va., pooh-poohs it, saying lobbyists' gifts do not unduly influence members of Congress.
Perhaps not. But that is something the electorate should decide, based on an elected official's voting record, plus full knowledge of what monetary benefits he or she has received from various special-interest groups.
Sixth-District Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., who won his first term in the House promising congressional reform, has an opportunity here to deliver on his rhetoric. As a member of Bryant's House subcommittee, he could champion the inclusion of some sort of disclosure requirement as an amendment to the House bill.
Goodlatte has a problem with the Wellstone amendment. He'd rather the reporting requirement fall on members of Congress, rather than the lobbyists. He thinks the burden should be on the elected officials - and he's worried that organizations might report sending gifts that, somehow, were never received.
Fine. Such a change would not dilute the strict reporting requirements set out in the Wellstone amendment, which are important.
Goodlatte's aides report he will consider supporting such a change when the subcommittee gets around to taking up the bill again, probably sometime after August. Let's hope he considers it favorably.
Members of Congress insist that what they mostly get from lobbyists is the information needed to make sound decisions. Perhaps.
But if the public welfare is a congressman's only interest, what, pray tell, can be his or her objection to full disclosure of the financial benefits received from narrower interest groups?
by CNB