For several months, Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) has been responsible for leading the task force charged with reporting a recommendation to Speaker Pelosi about creating an independent commission to hear and advise on ethics complaints against members of the House.

The Capuano task force has stopped meeting, according to Congressional Quarterly ($). Apparently, "some Democrats ... fear that a change in the current ethics process would leave them vulnerable to politically motivated complaints." As opposed to the status quo?

What is the prognosis for the Capuano task force? Says a top Democratic leadership aide: "It's not dead, but it's in a coma."

As already noted, Republicans will only go along with naming conferees for the ethics and lobbying bill if the Senate takes up the Senate electronic filing bill along with an unspecified amendment. According to BNA Money and Politics, ($$) that amendment likely deals with lifting controls on political party coordinated spending to help candidates. This item has already been introduced as a separate legislative proposal, S.1091, the Campaign Accountability Act of 2007 which would "repeal the limitation on party expenditures on behalf of candidates in general elections." Because Democrats have not seen the amendment they have not agreed to vote on it.

Observers closely following the progress of the lobbying and ethics bill suggested that McConnell could be seeking to score a victory for a piece of legislation favored by Republican as a condition for allowing the lobbying and ethics bill--a major Democratic priority--to move toward final passage. Alternatively, Republicans might be seeking to soften some of the more controversial provisions of the lobbying and ethics bill itself, such as tough new restrictions on the "revolving door" between government service and lobbying or new disclosure requirements for lobbyists' "bundled" campaign contributions.

Meanwhile, the New York Times is wondering why the GOP is refusing to name conferees.

It's not clear what games might be under way. Are K Street lobbyists staging a last-ditch fight against finally disclosing their fund-raising clout with lawmakers? Are Republicans trying to foil Democrats from delivering on their campaign promises last year for credible reform?

An article in The Hill this morning quotes GOP Sen. Larry Craig (ID), responding to a question about whether President Bush was being hypocritical for requesting hundreds of earmarks even while criticizing them and vowing to cut the number of earmarks in half this year:

"Hypocrisy? No, but one might call that duplicity."

According to the article, Rep. David Obey estimates that Bush had requested over 800 earmarks in the Energy-Water appropriations bill alone. Nevertheless, Bush has promised to veto it, on account of "the excess spending in this bill." Is that what Sen. Craig meant by 'duplicity'?

On May 24, the House adopted H.R. 2316, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (aka, the lobbying and ethics bill), in a lop-sided 396-22 vote. The Senate passed S. 1, its own version of the bill back on January 18 almost unanimously, 96-2.

The versions differed on the revolving door, or "cooling-off" period during which former lawmakers and staff are barred from lobbying Congress, with the Senate bill doubling the period from the current one-year period to two, at the behest of co-sponsors Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). The House included no such provision.

In the intervening five weeks, a silent struggle has been waged over appointment of the Democratic conferees, with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) snubbing Feingold's request to serve and mute about Obama's expression of interest in serving in his place.

Now, per the New York Times this afternoon:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has blocked appointment of Senate conferees on the stalled lobbying bill, casting doubt on the future of the biggest overhaul of ethics and lobbying legislation in a dozen years. [But] according to Senate aides and outside ethics experts, this impasse could be resolved by simply bifurcating Senate and House revolving door rules. Under this proposal, the Senate would end up with stricter revolving door rules than the House.

If conferees cannot be appointed in short order on a bill overwhelmingly supported by both Houses, it will be tempting to say that Mr. Pallasch's concerns have been realized even without this proposal.

On May 24, the House adopted H.R. 2316, the lobbying and ethics bill (aka, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, in a lop-sided 396-22 vote. The Senate passed S. 1, its own version of the bill back on January 18 almost unanimously, 96-2.

The versions differed on the revolving door, or"cooling-off" period during which former lawmakers and staff are barred from lobbying Congress, with the Senate bill doubling the period from the current one-year to two, at the behest of co-sponsors Sen. Russell Feingold (D-wI) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). The House included no such provision.

In the intervening five weeks, a silent struggle has been waged over appointment of the Democratic conferees, with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) its own version of the bill back on January 18 almost unanimously, snubbing "Feingold's request to serve and mute about Obama's expression of interest in serving in his place.

Now, per the New York Times this afternoon:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has blocked appointment of Senate conferees on the stalled lobbying bill, casting doubt on the future of the biggest overhaul of ethics and lobbying legislation in a dozen years. [But, a]ccording to Senate aides and outside ethics experts, this impasse could be resolved by simply bifurcating Senate and House revolving door rules. Under this proposal, the Senate would end up with stricter revolving door rules than the House.

If conferees cannot be appointed in short order on a bill overwhelmingly supported by both Houses, it will be tempting to say that Mr. Pallasch's concerns have been realized even without this proposal.

CQ ($$) reports that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, (R-KY) has blocked the appointment of Senate conferees on the lobbying and ethics bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) tried to name conferees Tuesday afternoon, but Republicans objected at McConnell's request, saying they would only allow action if promised a vote on a bill to require electronic filing of campaign finance reports (S. 223).

As the Senate stalls on the legislation, House and Senate staffers are working behind the scenes to work through several major sticking points before each chamber names its conferees. One major obstacle in the lobbying bill appears to be "revolving door" rules aimed at preventing members of Congress and senior staff from immediately cashing in on K Street with high-paying lobbying jobs after they leave Capitol Hill.

True or False: Whether the laws of the United States governing the cooling-off period (currently one year) restrictions for former Congressional staffers to lobby their erstwhile offices apply depends upon the salary of these staffers.

Answer: True (per Public Law 101-194).

Now -- and no cheating -- staffers are exempt from these revolving door restrictions if they:

• A. Were at no point one of the top-two paid staffers in a Congressional office
• B. Received a total of $200,000 or more during their tenure as Congressional staffers
• C. Received less than 75 percent of the salary earned by the member of Congress they served
• D. Received no compensation at all during their service

Hint: what are the chances that someone chosing an answer at random will get it wrong?

True or False: Whether the laws of the United States governing the cooling-off period (currently one year) restrictions for former Congressional staffers to lobby their erstwhile offices apply depends upon the salary of these staffers.

Answer: True (per Public Law 101-194).

Now -- and no cheating -- staffers are exempt from these revolving door restrictions if they:

• A. Were at no point one of the top-two paid staffers in a Congressional office
• B. Received a total of $200,000 or more during their tenure as Congressional staffers
• C. Received less than 75 percent of the salary earned by the member of Congress they served
• D. Received no compensation at all during their service

Hint: what are the chances that someone chosing an answer at random will get it wrong?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) received a letter yesterday from reform groups on her leadership involving recent House Lobby and Ethics reform legislation. A similar letter was sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). The letter calls on the Democratic leaders to keep the strong provisions in their respective bills intact so that numerous changes do not weaken the bill during the upcoming conference report. The groups express concern for the bundling provision, maintaining the disclosure by lobbyists of their fund-raising events, and disclosure of lobbyists bundling contributions. Groups that signed the letter include the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.

Meanwhile, the Hill reports on a possible recommendation for changes to the House Ethics enforcement process. A provision of the proposal would require groups to reveal their donors if they file ethics complaints. And now many groups have expressed opposition to the donor disclosure measure.

The House bill also dropped a Senate restriction on all lobbying activities--not just direct contacts--during this "cooling-off" period. The House bill also does not contain changes in Senate ethics rules that were addressed in the Senate version of the reform legislation. The rules changes include new restrictions on earmarks, secret Senate "holds," and private aircraft travel by senators. While these measures have been expected to be included in a final bill, they will not take effect until the final version is enacted.

Another issue is whether or not any changes will be made to the House ethics enforcement process, as recommendations are awaiting from a special task force. According to CQ ($$), one such recommendation would be to let anyone, not just a member, file an ethics complaint. Another proposal would be to create a panel of four people that would review complaints and decide whether or not the cases are serious enough for a full investigation by the ethics committee.

Meanwhile, Norman Ornstein writes this opinion piece in Roll Call ($$) reviewing the overall process of the House passing a lobbying and ethics bill.

The lobbying reform was tough. Its journey was tortuous. It is a sad reality that if the reform package had been decided in a secret ballot vote, it would have gone down. Way too many Members do not want to discomfit their lives with embarrassing inconveniences such as disclosure of fundraising connections or to dilute or delay any future gravy train for post-Congress employment in the lobbying world — a world where half of all retiring Members of Congress now go.