Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Credo Mobile

HOME

ABOUT US

OUR ISSUES

Federal Budget

Information & Access

Nonprofit Advocacy

Regulatory Policy


PRESS ROOM

ACTION CENTER

PUBLICATIONS

THE WATCHER

OUR BLOGS


SIGN UP

Receive news, updates, and alerts!

DONATE

Help support our work


OTHER SITES

FedSpending.org

RTK NET

NPAction

Working Group on Community Right-to-Know

Citizens for Sensible Safeguards

Open the Government

OMB Watch Logo
Home :  Special Topics :  Lobbying Reform & Government Ethics :  Lobbying and Ethics Reform Blog : 
Lobbying and Ethics Reform Blog:     

Lobbying and Ethics
Reform Blog


Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Senate's Turn on Ethics and Earmarks Rules

The House adopted its earmarks and ethics rules last week. This week, the Senate is struggling with its own rules package, S. 1, based on a bill that the Senate passed easily last year, with the expectation of considering several amendments and completing it next week. Regardless of the outcome, S. 1, "will be a tremendously important piece of legislation in the annals of history of this country," Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) said yesterday, per CQ($$).

Let's see how it turns out.

The ethics part of S. 1 tracks the equivalent provisions of the House rules. But regarding earmarks, the paths are diverging in one noteworthy respect thus far.

Like the House package, S. 1 would require disclosure of all spending earmarks, targeted tax benefits, or targeted tariff benefits, the identity of members requesting them, and an explanation of their "essential governmental purpose." Similarly, those seeking earmarks would have to certify that neither they nor their spouses had a financial interest in the item.

But the House version defined "targeted tax benefit" a federal deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference "to 10 or fewer beneficiaries," while S. 1, BNA ($$) reports, limits applicable tax benefits to those involving "a particular taxpayer or limited group of taxpayers." Budget Committee ranking member Judd Gregg (R-NH), author of the Senate provision, may withdraw it and replace it with the House version under pressure from reformers.

Stay tuned.



Posted by Dana Chasin



Entries by Theme

All Themes

Lobbying Reform & Government Ethics

Most Recent Entries for Lobbying and Ethics Reform Blog

New LDA Guidance, Again

Some Hiccups in Implementing New Ethics Law

New Lobbying Disclosure Rules Cause Confusion

Forms and Instructions for LD-203 Released

September Argument Set In NAM Appeal

Updated LDA Guidance Including the New Form LD-203

Lobbyists Prepare for New Disclosure Reports

Lobbying Campaigns and PAC Contributions

NAM Discloses Membership Involved in Lobbying

Objection to Member Disclosure Law Continues

Archived Entries for Lobbying Reform & Government Ethics

July

June

May

April

March

February

December, 2007

November, 2007

September, 2007

August, 2007

July, 2007

June, 2007

May, 2007

April, 2007

March, 2007

February, 2007

January, 2007