This just in from the department of I Am Not Making This Up: After all the work to pass an ethics and lobbying reform bill, and passing both houses of Congress by overwhelming margins, President Bush is hesitant about signing the bill.

The White House, according to the Los Angeles Times, is worried that the bill doesn't go far enough to shed light on earmarks. White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore told the Times the administration "was concerned that the earmark provisions were not 'as strong as we'd like.' As to whether Bush would sign it, she said, 'We're continuing to review the legislation.'

What?

When I first heard this, I thought: Since when did Bush care about a bill to change Senate ethics rules? About the same time he decided Dick Cheney was in the legislative branch and not the executive branch?

BREAKING NEWS: The U.S. Senate voted this afternoon, 83-14, to send the lobbying and ethics reform bill to the White House for President Bush's signature.

The vote, which technically gives Senate approval to changes the House made in the bill on Tuesday, July 31, came a couple of hours after the Senate voted, 80-17, to end debate on the bill.

Some interesting notes from today's vote: Sen. Ted Stevens, R-AK, who faces a federal corruption investigation and had vowed to kill the bill after an IRS-FBI raid on his house Monday, voted for its passage. Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, a longtime reform champion and supporter of the ethics and lobbying reform bill, voted against passage.

The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, also known as S. 1, or the ethics and lobbying reform bill, is not everything we had hoped it to be. And it's nowhere near what we'd like it to be despite its lofty title and low number.

That's all right.

If the Senate gives its approval to S. 1 this week, as it's expected to do, Congress will finally have produced tighter ethics and lobbying rules after being dragged through the mud of the Abramoff, Foley, Ney and Cunningham scandals of years past. And we'll soon be reminded of why we went to this trouble, when Rep. William Jefferson, D-LA, goes to trial.

On Friday, May 24th the House of Representatives passed an ethics reform bill with a 382 to 37 vote. The bill was brought to the floor through the advocacy of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) and Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Martin T. Meehan (D-MA).  The proposal calls for the provision of bundling reform, which requires lobbyists to disclose all campaign contributions made to members of congress. It also establishes a firmer system of monitoring lobbyists' charity contributions on behalf lawmakers.

Of course, in order to ensure these provisions, Congress had to drop the provision of the "revolving door" reform, which require that former Representatives wait an additional year until they are eligible to work as lobbyists after serving in Congress. Clearly, it has proven to be rather difficult for these lawmakers to enforce these ethics reforms.  

Ever wonder how much employers pay their lobbyists? Well, now you can (assuming you live in Tennessee). Under a new state ethics law, employers must disclose how much they pay lobbyists, which includes direct payments as well as PR and advertising. Over a six-month period, employers in the state of all sizes and shapes spent somewhere in between $11.4 million and $18.7 million.

This is certainly good news that this information is being disclosed to the public. However, it would be nice if the number was a little more accurate. There is a big difference between $11.4 million and $18.7 million, which is like the difference between a middle-of-the-rotation starter and a Cy Young candidate. In addition, the chairman of the Tennessee Lobbyist Association told lobbyists to "over-report" payments and told the paper "Does it give an indication? Yes. Does it give an accurate indication? No." Is this opinion on the number's accuracy correct? Yes. Should he continue to use this question-and-answer technique? Probably not.

This is definitely a step in the right direction, especially considering 2005's Tennessee Waltz scandal, in which seven state lawmakers were arrested for bribery. Still, the ethics commission still has a lot of work to do. Now if Tennessee's notorious football player Pacman Jones would disclose all his "payments," the state would be in great shape.

This is good:

And frankly, it will highlight big money's role in politics and make it harder for those profiting under that system to avoid the limelight. Hopefully that makes it more enticing for lawmakers to pass much-needed public financing reform and eliminate the need for constant big-money-driven campaign fundraising altogether.

Today it's the New York Times on the offensive. Why can't the House Democrat rank-and-file understand what's apparent to everyone else?

Excuse me, Congressman, but your profession at the moment is Representative of the people of the 8th District of Massachusetts, not lobbyist-in-training.

USA Today's opinion section today ran an editorial blasting House Demcorats for the weak lobby reform legislation pending, and also a countering op-ed by Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) defending the reforms they're presenting.

USA Today rightly says:

They present a staggering figure from research done by Public Citizen - 43% of lawmakers since 1998 became lobbyists upon leaving office!  A few decades ago, lobbying after Congressional service was seen as "somewhat disreputable" - but no more; now, Congressional service is largely seen as a "stepping stone" to a more lucrative paycheck.  And what about Democrats' promise to break the link between lobbyists and legislators?

The Senate passed a stronger reform package in January - but the House is balking at following suit.

Not everyone would agree, however.  For example, Rep. Marty Meehan, as mentioned above, holds just the opposite - House Democrats are keeping their promise to the American public, he says.  Follow me after the jump for his argument.