Black lawmakers want to limit new ethics office (1 Viewer)

[Renae]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Stung by a series of inquiries, nearly half the members of the Congressional Black Caucus want to scale back the aggressive ethics procedures that Democrats trumpeted after gaining control of Congress.
Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, and 19 fellow black lawmakers in the all-Democratic caucus quietly introduced a resolution last week that would restrict the powers of the new independent Office of Congressional Ethics. The office, formed by Congress in 2008, is run by a panel of private citizens.
Black caucus Chairwoman Barbara Lee, D-Calif., is among the sponsors, but the full 42-member caucus did not endorse the measure. Lee declined comment through a spokesman.

My Way News - Black lawmakers want to limit new ethics office

I think the action of these 19 lawmakers show why we need this Ethics Office.

 

[zimmer]

quietly introduced a resolution

Lee declined comment through a spokesman.

Ahhh... so very ethical.

.

 

[Renae]

Ahhh... so very ethical.

.

Amusing how no one wants to touch this.

 

[Redress]

It's funny how so many threads with republican misconduct or that have positive liberal messages you won't touch...

From the link:

The citizen-run ethics panel is far more open than the notoriously secretive standards committee, publicizing its referrals even when the standards committee finds no violations.

Fudge's proposal would remove that power, and allow lawmakers on the standards committee to seal from public view the ethics office's findings on matters deemed meritless.

The resolution also would make it harder for the ethics office to initiate investigations, requiring a sworn complaint from a citizen claiming personal knowledge of an alleged violation. That could prevent complaints from watchdog groups, for example.

It would prevent the standards committee from taking a referral from the ethics office within 60 days before an election in which the subject of the case is a candidate.

The first and third I have no problem with. A lawmaker cleared of wrongdoing should not have the claims publicized. He did nothing wrong. 60 days before an election makes sense since it avoids politicization of the process. That still leaves the vast majority of the time to investigate wrongdoing.

The second one I disagree with the lawmakers on strongly. Limiting the ability to investigate wrongdoing is not what we should want.

 

[Renae]

It's funny how so many threads with republican misconduct or that have positive liberal messages you won't touch...

I wish you'd show more intellectual honesty and not try these passive aggressive personal attacks against me.

From the link:



The first and third I have no problem with. A lawmaker cleared of wrongdoing should not have the claims publicized. He did nothing wrong. 60 days before an election makes sense since it avoids politicization of the process. That still leaves the vast majority of the time to investigate wrongdoing.

The second one I disagree with the lawmakers on strongly. Limiting the ability to investigate wrongdoing is not what we should want.

Only the first one do I agree with them on, 2 and 3 are bad.

I don't care when the election is, misconduct is misconduct.

 

[Redress]

I wish you'd show more intellectual honesty and not try these passive aggressive personal attacks against me.

Ummm...I just turned your own words around...

Only the first one do I agree with them on, 2 and 3 are bad.

I don't care when the election is, misconduct is misconduct.

I understand your point on three, but I worry that it could be used as a political tool. Even with 2 year elections, it's only 60 days out of 730 days that they cannot take a referral. That leaves plenty of opportunity and eliminates the worst of the possibility of political misconduct within the committee for either party.

 

[The Prof]

i wonder why pelosi, hoyer, clyburn, van hollen, et al, aren't coming along?

must be the body language

whatcha hiding, ms lee?

there aren't MORE charlie rangels, are there?