The 109th Congress promised ethics reform in response to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, and has responded by steadily eroding the core values of the promises - travel bans and stronger ethics enforcement. Now, the House and Senate have the audacity to scale back the weak lobbyist disclosure measures that were passed in place of substantive reform. The House lobbyist disclosure bill passed May 3 and the House has yet to name negotiators to work on a compromise with the Senate. Therefore, Congress may adjourn this year without tightening restrictions on the dealings of lobbyists' with lawmakers. So much for lobbying reform in 2006.

The two chambers disagree on a number of provisions. For example, House Republicans contend that 527s, independent interest groups that run political ads, should be curbed. Senate Democrats, and a handful of Senate Republicans, have opposed these changes while failing to offer a tangible reform plan as an alternative.

If lobbyists are happy then Congress has failed. The bicameral impasse can be blamed on the House and Senate's lack of sincerity when promising reform measures. It is appalling that the most likely way to return reform to the negotiating table is another scandal. Lawmakers' proclivity is to respond to public demand. Maybe the public is not shouting loudly enough.

The North Carolina House is gearing up to look at the ethics and lobbying bill that passed in the state senate on July 19. Last year, the so-called "goodwill" lobbying loophole that allowed lobbyists to wine and dine lawmakers as long as legislation was never discussed was closed. With ethics and lobbying reform in the public eye, the NC legislature is now trying to define what, exactly, constitutes a "gift." The state senate is now looking to exempt anything deemed "personal."

While some lawmakers and lobbyists argue that it's not that simple, saying gift bans could be too oppressive, lawmakers defending the ethics legislation as it stands have pointing out that the bill will make noteworthy changes in monitoring how government does business.

Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle (D) received $17,684 in reelection campaign donations from six officials at the architectural and engineering firm HNTB. HNTB had previously received the lucrative Marquette Interchange design and information-management contracts. The Doyle campaign maintains that the donations had "absolutely nothing to do" with the contracts awarded to the firm, contracts that include the $810 million Marquette Interchange.

Wisconsin state officials have received campaign contributions from road builders, consultants, and other transportation industry specialists for decades. HNTB Vice President Matt Hintze said contributions to political candidates by HNTB officials have no connection to the state contracts. All six HNTB officials contributed to Doyle's reelection campaign on June 1.

The Doyle campaign is under scrutiny because former state purchasing supervisor Georgia Thompson was convicted in federal court of steering a contract to a firm with two executives that gave the maximum $10,000 donation to Doyle's campaign. Jay Heck of Common Cause Wisconsin says that it "insults the intelligence" of Wisconsin taxpayers to deny any connection between campaign donations and state contracts. Heck says:

In California, the fine line between government and lobbying is being blurred by a legislative staff migration. California's lobbying corps, caustically referred to as the Third House, is being led by experienced legislative staffers that no longer work in government. Jordan Rau reports in the Los Angeles Times:

Lobbyists can earn double or more what can be made on the public payroll while working on the same legislation they researched as staffers. UC San Diego Professor Thad Kousser says that this is an unwanted effect of term limits giving interest groups "a much more active role in actually drafting the legislation, negotiating the amendments."

There is a one year "cooling off" period in which former staffers have to wait to join a lobbying firm. Nevertheless, the smooth transition from staffer to lobbyist compromises the legislative process because staffers may effectively parlay their job in government into a lucrative career. Of course, this is nothing new, or even unique. Regardless, this is yet another example of the bond between the moneyed interest and government, which is a terrifying connection indeed.

On Friday in Florida, the Republicans effectively won both state legislative houses without the benefit of an election. The candidates who faced no opposition in November instantly won reelection, with 55 of 120 House members and 9 out of 20 state Senate automatically returning. Challengers would rather wait out the eight year term limit until a seat is open than face a well-financed incumbent who has name recognition. From the St. Petersburg Times:

Because of term limits, and the big money granted to incumbents, many Florida voters are left without a choice.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut filed a lawsuit on July 6 challenging Connecticut's campaign finance reform law. The main targets of the lawsuit are the law's prohibitions on lobbyist contributions and its handling of third party candidates. The Green and Libertarian parties, along with a lobbyist, are also plaintiffs in the suit.

State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and Elections Enforcement Commission Executive Director Jeffrey Garfield will defend the state against the lawsuit. In the Stamford Advocate, Garfield said, "We look forward to the court's vindication of the strong public policy that these laws carry forward." Blumenthal is also confident that the law is constitutional because minor parties may receive public financing if they meet the same threshold requirements as the major parties. If they have the support to be competitive, then they will have access to public financing.

In December, Connecticut's campaign finance reform law was passed in a special legislative session. It was then amended on May 3 to lower requirements for third-party candidates to qualify for public financing. The law will not begin implementation until the 2008 state legislative elections.

This suit aims to assault the whole campaign finance reform act, rather than merely block the provisions to which the plaintiff's object. The grassroots efforts of Common Cause Connecticut and Common Cause volunteers were vital in getting this breakthrough legislation passed, and hopefully the federal court will reward this great effort to make legislators accountable to Connecticut voters.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Eastern Missouri is filing a lawsuit challenging the new voter identification law requiring Missouri voters to provide photo identification when voting. From the Jefferson City News article:

Gov. Matt Blunt, a supporter of photo IDs, signed the bill a month ago in an attempt to eliminate "voter fraud." The Missouri Constitution provides all Missourians who are at least 18 years old and are registered in "the political subdivision in which they offer to vote are entitled to vote at all elections by the people." However, beginning in November, the new law dictates that those not presenting a photo ID, such as a driver's license or passport, will have to use a provisional ballot that will be later verified by election officials.

As in Georgia, this move by the Missouri legislature complicates the voting process for the elderly and minorities who may not have a recognized photo ID, and deters an imaginary voter fraud problem.

Read the AP story here.
Read the story from the Jefferson City News-Tribune here.

The Georgia primaries are tomorrow. Over the weekend, there were heated exchanges in the debates for governor and secretary of state. The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports that the subject of photo IDs for voting has become an integral component of the primary races. Generally, the Republican candidates are for mandatory photo ID cards, while the Democratic nominees are against photo voting IDs.

In the race for the Democratic nomination for governor, the debate was over which candidate was a stronger opponent of mandatory IDs. In the Republican debate for the secretary of state nomination, three of the four candidates support mandatory IDs, with only businessman Paul Martin withholding open support for the measure. In the Democratic race, all six candidates opposed photo IDs and also endorsed a paper trail for voting machines.

Last weeks state supreme court decision suspending the GA legislature's photo ID law prompted the debate, and hopefully Georgia voters have become better educated on the topic. It is a shame that the debate is split by partisanship, with candidates on both sides effectively slinging mud at each other in the final push to Tuesday's vote.

For a list of the current voting requirements in Georgia click here.