Political News — August & September 2007

Article 1

Iraqi Unions Fight the New Oil Law

Political News August & September 07 Home Hillary on Campaign Contributions Truth Abut Tillman --- Murder is not "Friendly Fire" Lobby Reform Bill Passed by Congress Iraqi Unions Fight the New Oil Law

Iraqi Unions Fight the New Oil Law From In These Times, a monthly political news, pro-labor magazine also available on the internet at www.inthesetimes.com Iraqi Unions Fight the New Oil Law By David Moberg, 7/9/07 David Moberg, a senior editor of In These Times, has been on the staff of the magazine since it began publishing. Before joining In These Times, he completed his work for a Ph.D. in anthropology at the University of Chicago and worked for Newsweek. Recently he has received fellowships from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Nation Institute for research on the new global economy. Iraq’s proposed oil law, which would open up control of the country’s oilfields to multinational corporations, is one of the Bush administration’s top political priorities. On July 3, Bush called Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to encourage him and other leaders to move “aggressively forward” on it, and as In These Times went to press, its latest draft appeared headed to the Iraqi Parliament for debate. Even if it passes, however, enacting it won’t be easy, as it faces strong opposition from Iraqi oil workers. “It doesn’t serve the interests of the Iraqi people,” says Faleh Abood Umara, general secretary of the Basra-based Southern Oil Company Union and the Iraqi Federation of Oil Workers’ Unions. Umara recently toured the United States, advocating both national control of Iraqi oil assets and immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq Umara says that the law—”written in the United States”—would permit joint ownership of many Iraqi oil fields by foreign companies, which could export much of the oil and profits from these fields for up to 35 years under what are called “production sharing agreements.” “We want the national Iraqi oil company to make service contracts with the companies, not partnerships,” Umara said in an interview, shortly after dedicating a plaque that extolled international labor solidarity at the Chicago monument to the Haymarket workers, whose protests in 1886 led to the declaration of May Day as the international workers’ holiday. “We want new technology for the production of oil but to have foreign companies work with Iraqi workers and professionals for a limited time,” he says. “We are not opposed to being developed with advanced and imported technology, but we would like to be sole owner of our wealth and use it to develop our country and cities.” The proposed oil law partly would govern distribution of revenue, which Umara says the oil workers’ unions want directed to a national redevelopment fund. But the Bush administration has long wanted to give foreign oil companies as much control as possible over Iraqi oil fields. Under the law, the Iraqi national company would have to compete with foreign companies for production rights, Umara says. Antonia Juhasz, an analyst for the watchdog group Oil Change International, says that the law gives foreign oil companies great flexibility, with no requirement to hire or invest profits locally, and opens the door to the long-term production-sharing agreements that other Middle East oil-producing nations have rejected as exploitative. The oil workers’ opposition to the law could prove a serious obstacle to the already much-delayed legislation. In June, oil pipeline workers struck for a week “for the rights of workers and against the proposed law,” including demands on companies to live up to promises for profit-sharing, affordable housing construction and other benefits, Umara says. Although the government had frozen union assets, issued warrants for union leaders’ arrests and even worsened the old labor law from Saddam’s era—preserved by the Provisional Coalition Authority—Umara says the 23,000-member union, representing 36,000 workers, is growing stronger. In 2003, the union forced Halliburton out of the oil fields, which inspired port workers to oust the Danish shipping company Maersk from the docks. The oil workers’ union also wants U.S. troops to start withdrawing immediately. “I’d rather they withdraw yesterday than today,” Umara says. “I assure you, chaos will not happen, and even if it happened, I’m very sure we can solve our own problems.” Different religious and ethnic groups cooperate now in a Basra controlled by the Iraqi security forces, he says. While the average oil worker still worries about security, their main concern is the future of Iraq’s oil. “Most important,” says Umara, “is not to let that new oil law pass.” If their lips move, they are lying

From In These Times, a monthly political news, pro-labor magazine also available on the internet at www.inthesetimes.com Iraqi Unions Fight the New Oil Law By David Moberg, 7/9/07 David Moberg, a senior editor of In These Times, has been on the staff of the magazine since it began publishing. Before joining In These Times, he completed his work for a Ph.D. in anthropology at the University of Chicago and worked for Newsweek. Recently he has received fellowships from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Nation Institute for research on the new global economy.

David Moberg, a senior editor of In These Times, has been on the staff of the magazine since it began publishing. Before joining In These Times, he completed his work for a Ph.D. in anthropology at the University of Chicago and worked for Newsweek. Recently he has received fellowships from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Nation Institute for research on the new global economy.

Iraq’s proposed oil law, which would open up control of the country’s oilfields to multinational corporations, is one of the Bush administration’s top political priorities. On July 3, Bush called Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to encourage him and other leaders to move “aggressively forward” on it, and as In These Times went to press, its latest draft appeared headed to the Iraqi Parliament for debate. Even if it passes, however, enacting it won’t be easy, as it faces strong opposition from Iraqi oil workers. “It doesn’t serve the interests of the Iraqi people,” says Faleh Abood Umara, general secretary of the Basra-based Southern Oil Company Union and the Iraqi Federation of Oil Workers’ Unions. Umara recently toured the United States, advocating both national control of Iraqi oil assets and immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq Umara says that the law—”written in the United States”—would permit joint ownership of many Iraqi oil fields by foreign companies, which could export much of the oil and profits from these fields for up to 35 years under what are called “production sharing agreements.” “We want the national Iraqi oil company to make service contracts with the companies, not partnerships,” Umara said in an interview, shortly after dedicating a plaque that extolled international labor solidarity at the Chicago monument to the Haymarket workers, whose protests in 1886 led to the declaration of May Day as the international workers’ holiday. “We want new technology for the production of oil but to have foreign companies work with Iraqi workers and professionals for a limited time,” he says. “We are not opposed to being developed with advanced and imported technology, but we would like to be sole owner of our wealth and use it to develop our country and cities.” The proposed oil law partly would govern distribution of revenue, which Umara says the oil workers’ unions want directed to a national redevelopment fund. But the Bush administration has long wanted to give foreign oil companies as much control as possible over Iraqi oil fields. Under the law, the Iraqi national company would have to compete with foreign companies for production rights, Umara says. Antonia Juhasz, an analyst for the watchdog group Oil Change International, says that the law gives foreign oil companies great flexibility, with no requirement to hire or invest profits locally, and opens the door to the long-term production-sharing agreements that other Middle East oil-producing nations have rejected as exploitative. The oil workers’ opposition to the law could prove a serious obstacle to the already much-delayed legislation. In June, oil pipeline workers struck for a week “for the rights of workers and against the proposed law,” including demands on companies to live up to promises for profit-sharing, affordable housing construction and other benefits, Umara says. Although the government had frozen union assets, issued warrants for union leaders’ arrests and even worsened the old labor law from Saddam’s era—preserved by the Provisional Coalition Authority—Umara says the 23,000-member union, representing 36,000 workers, is growing stronger. In 2003, the union forced Halliburton out of the oil fields, which inspired port workers to oust the Danish shipping company Maersk from the docks. The oil workers’ union also wants U.S. troops to start withdrawing immediately. “I’d rather they withdraw yesterday than today,” Umara says. “I assure you, chaos will not happen, and even if it happened, I’m very sure we can solve our own problems.” Different religious and ethnic groups cooperate now in a Basra controlled by the Iraqi security forces, he says. While the average oil worker still worries about security, their main concern is the future of Iraq’s oil. “Most important,” says Umara, “is not to let that new oil law pass.”

“It doesn’t serve the interests of the Iraqi people,” says Faleh Abood Umara, general secretary of the Basra-based Southern Oil Company Union and the Iraqi Federation of Oil Workers’ Unions. Umara recently toured the United States, advocating both national control of Iraqi oil assets and immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq

Umara says that the law—”written in the United States”—would permit joint ownership of many Iraqi oil fields by foreign companies, which could export much of the oil and profits from these fields for up to 35 years under what are called “production sharing agreements.”

Article 2

Hillary on Campaign Contributions

Hillary on Campaign Contributions Hillary’s Hypocrisy – And Ours, www.huffingtonpost.com, 8/5/7 Daniel Brook: a journalist whose writing has appeared in Harper's, Dissent, The San Francisco Chronicle, and The Boston Globe, among other publications. Brook was a finalist in the 2003 Livingston Awards for Young Journalists and won the 2000 Rolling Stone College Journalist Competition while a student at Yale. He lives in Philadelphia. He is the author of The Trap: Selling Out to Stay Afloat in Winner-Take-All America. Last night at the Yearly Kos Democratic presidential candidates' debate in Chicago, Hillary Clinton, bated by Barack Obama and John Edwards who have pledged not to take campaign money from Washington lobbyists, defended her open pocket policy: "A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans," the New York senator said. "They represent nurses, they represent social workers, yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people...I don't think, based on my 35 years of fighting for what I believe in, I don't think anybody seriously believes I'm going to be influenced by a lobbyist." A less hypocritical answer to the question might have looked something like this: "Yes, I am taking lobbyists' donations and I too am concerned about the disproportionate influence wealthy interest groups have on the political process. I have often had to compromise my beliefs for lobbyist cash and that troubles me as a Senator, as a citizen, as a human being. And that's why we desperately need to switch over to a public campaign finance system. But with the system we have, in order to win, I need to take their money. If I elected, I will do my utmost to enact a public campaign finance system." But Clinton seems to be in denial about the power of campaign cash even though, as a matter of historical record, she has flip-flopped like a trained marine mammal at Sea World for major contributors. For example, as First Lady, Hillary Clinton convinced her husband to veto a credit card company-backed bill to make it harder for Americans to declare bankruptcy. Inspired by Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren's speech about the devastating impact the legislation would have on single mothers and their children, Hillary informally lobbied the president on what she termed "that awful bill." Yet a few years later, Hillary, now in the Senate with the help of copious contributions from the credit card companies, voted for the same bill. "The financial services industry is a big industry in New York, and it's powerful on Capitol Hill," Warren later explained. "It's a [testament to] how much influence this industry group wields in Washington that...they can bring to heel a senator who obviously cares, who obviously gets it, but who also obviously really feels the pressure in having to stand up to an industry like that." So please, Hillary, let's not pretend that Washington lobbyists defend the interests of social workers -- or single mothers -- and that their contributions don't affect your positions anyway. The power of entrenched wealth perverts the political process and turns politicians--even those whose hearts are in the right place, as Hillary's often is -- into paid corporate spokespeople. As the late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis put it, "We can have a democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of the few. We cannot have both." Hillary's hypocrisy then, is not just Hillary's hypocrisy. It is America's hypocrisy. It is the hypocrisy that says we can be a plutocracy and be a democracy at the same time. This campaign, then, must be a time for choosing. If their lips move, they are lying

Hillary’s Hypocrisy – And Ours, www.huffingtonpost.com, 8/5/7 Daniel Brook: a journalist whose writing has appeared in Harper's, Dissent, The San Francisco Chronicle, and The Boston Globe, among other publications. Brook was a finalist in the 2003 Livingston Awards for Young Journalists and won the 2000 Rolling Stone College Journalist Competition while a student at Yale. He lives in Philadelphia. He is the author of The Trap: Selling Out to Stay Afloat in Winner-Take-All America.

Daniel Brook: a journalist whose writing has appeared in Harper's, Dissent, The San Francisco Chronicle, and The Boston Globe, among other publications. Brook was a finalist in the 2003 Livingston Awards for Young Journalists and won the 2000 Rolling Stone College Journalist Competition while a student at Yale. He lives in Philadelphia. He is the author of The Trap: Selling Out to Stay Afloat in Winner-Take-All America.

Last night at the Yearly Kos Democratic presidential candidates' debate in Chicago, Hillary Clinton, bated by Barack Obama and John Edwards who have pledged not to take campaign money from Washington lobbyists, defended her open pocket policy: "A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans," the New York senator said. "They represent nurses, they represent social workers, yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people...I don't think, based on my 35 years of fighting for what I believe in, I don't think anybody seriously believes I'm going to be influenced by a lobbyist." A less hypocritical answer to the question might have looked something like this: "Yes, I am taking lobbyists' donations and I too am concerned about the disproportionate influence wealthy interest groups have on the political process. I have often had to compromise my beliefs for lobbyist cash and that troubles me as a Senator, as a citizen, as a human being. And that's why we desperately need to switch over to a public campaign finance system. But with the system we have, in order to win, I need to take their money. If I elected, I will do my utmost to enact a public campaign finance system." But Clinton seems to be in denial about the power of campaign cash even though, as a matter of historical record, she has flip-flopped like a trained marine mammal at Sea World for major contributors. For example, as First Lady, Hillary Clinton convinced her husband to veto a credit card company-backed bill to make it harder for Americans to declare bankruptcy. Inspired by Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren's speech about the devastating impact the legislation would have on single mothers and their children, Hillary informally lobbied the president on what she termed "that awful bill." Yet a few years later, Hillary, now in the Senate with the help of copious contributions from the credit card companies, voted for the same bill. "The financial services industry is a big industry in New York, and it's powerful on Capitol Hill," Warren later explained. "It's a [testament to] how much influence this industry group wields in Washington that...they can bring to heel a senator who obviously cares, who obviously gets it, but who also obviously really feels the pressure in having to stand up to an industry like that." So please, Hillary, let's not pretend that Washington lobbyists defend the interests of social workers -- or single mothers -- and that their contributions don't affect your positions anyway. The power of entrenched wealth perverts the political process and turns politicians--even those whose hearts are in the right place, as Hillary's often is -- into paid corporate spokespeople. As the late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis put it, "We can have a democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of the few. We cannot have both." Hillary's hypocrisy then, is not just Hillary's hypocrisy. It is America's hypocrisy. It is the hypocrisy that says we can be a plutocracy and be a democracy at the same time. This campaign, then, must be a time for choosing.

"A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans," the New York senator said. "They represent nurses, they represent social workers, yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people...I don't think, based on my 35 years of fighting for what I believe in, I don't think anybody seriously believes I'm going to be influenced by a lobbyist."

A less hypocritical answer to the question might have looked something like this: "Yes, I am taking lobbyists' donations and I too am concerned about the disproportionate influence wealthy interest groups have on the political process. I have often had to compromise my beliefs for lobbyist cash and that troubles me as a Senator, as a citizen, as a human being. And that's why we desperately need to switch over to a public campaign finance system. But with the system we have, in order to win, I need to take their money. If I elected, I will do my utmost to enact a public campaign finance system."

Article 3

Truth Abut Tillman --- Murder is not "Friendly Fire"

Once again, the Administration is pulling the old magician's trick of misdirection, this time in the Pat Tillman case. And once again, the press is falling for it. Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers focused on "what they knew and when" -- to borrow the Watergate phrase -- rather than the core issue at the heart of the Pat Tillman matter, which is this:

Yet a Google News search on the terms "Tillman" and "friendly fire" yielded 1,044 hits today, all from the last 24 hours. That's after the facts behind the fratricide are widely known - and after a number of clues that suggest the entire command structure, from the White House on down, concealed a murder from the public and took no steps to investigate it.

Friendly fire is commonly understood to mean the accidental death of a U. S. soldier through weapons fired by U.S. or allied troops. (See this definition.) The facts in the Tillman case make friendly fire highly unlikely. He died from three bullet holes grouped together in his forehead, fired from a M-16 that was no more than ten yards away.

That's not "friendly fire." That's murder. (Unless Cpl. Tillman stood up in the path of another soldier's fire, took three hits precisely in the forehead, then fell before being hit again.)

As abhorrent as it was for the Administration to delay telling the family, the handling of the fratricide question was even worse. A killer's trail went cold. Now we may never know the truth.

As for the narrative that Rumsfeld and Myers offered yesterday, let's look at it in detail - together with the known facts:

Article 4

Lobby Reform Bill Passed by Congress

Lobby Reform Bill Passed by Congress But they failed to address the two major promblems: funding of elections by big business and their ownership of the media. This is just another do little, business as usual bill--a facade of action. And so what if their relation to lobbiest is published, it certainly be widely disseminated by corporate media--jk. From Publiccitizen.org, the Ralph Nader group at http://citizen.typepad.com/watchdog_blog/2007/08/congress-delive.html At the bottom is jk’s comment pointing out why the bill passed by such a wide majority. Congress Delivers on Lobbying and Ethics Reform! Finally – real ethics reform passed in Congress! Yesterday the Senate approved S. 1 – the “Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007” – with a veto-proof majority of 83 to 14. On Tuesday, the House also passed the bill with flying colors by 411 to 8. This terrific legislation will give the public important new information about the cozy relationships between industry lobbyists and members of Congress, and limit the outrageous gifts and travel junkets that laid the groundwork for the culture of corruption on Capitol Hill. Today marks the final chapter of a long struggle. We first kicked off the drive to fix Capitol Hill over three years ago. Back then, our “wish list” of reforms was largely ignored by members of Congress and the media – even laughed at as a political impossibility. Then Jack Abramoff’s world – and that of many prominent members of Congress – started to unravel. As the investigations into kickbacks and bribes became indictments, our call for reform – and the increased public disgust with Washington – became more and more difficult to ignore. When Abramoff worked out a plea deal in January 2006 to name those whom he bribed to the FBI, you’d have thought the gig was up. But the leadership of the 109th Congress burrowed into the warm sand like ostriches and ignored the need for reform. In return for their indifference, the voters changed up the Congress in 2006, citing corruption as a top concern. But institutional change is hard even for a Congress elected on a promise to “end the culture of corruption.” As the bill moved forward, the “K Street” crowd lobbied hard, warning members not to bite the hands that keep lawmakers fat and happy. Public Citizen’s activists did not back down, sending thousands of faxes, emails and making hundreds of call to the Hill to tell Congress it must see this through. The final legislation includes a large number of new lobbying laws and ethics rules that will open the books on the often corrupting nexus between lobbyists, money and lawmakers. It also imposes a series of new ethics restrictions to keep Congress more honest and open. Here are some of the hard-won reforms that we all won together: Requires more of the money trail on the Internet: Lobbyist fundraising for lawmakers, including direct campaign contributions, bundled contributions and the hosting of fundraising events will be posted on the Internet. Slows the revolving door between Congress and K Street: The bill extends the cooling off period for senators from one year to two, and requires all members to publicly disclose any job negotiations while serving in Congress. Lobbying revealed online: Lobbyists must report their lobbying activities every three months in an electronic format, to be immediately posted on the Internet. No more goody bags: The bill bans all gifts from lobbyists to lawmakers and their staff. No more golf trips to Scotland: The bill ends the congressional travel junkets by: 1) Prohibiting any organization that employs a lobbyist from sponsoring trips for members longer than one-day; 2) requiring pre-approval and disclosure of all trips on the Internet; 3) restricting the use of private corporate jets to fly members around the globe; and 4) prohibiting lobbyists from going along on any of these trips. Earmarks in the sunlight: The bill requires disclosure of the sponsor and recipient of earmarks to be posted on the Internet 48 hours before final approval of appropriations to tax bills, and allows any senator to remove an earmark “air-dropped” into a conference report by a point of order challenge. The party’s over: The bill prohibits on members of Congress attending lavish parties sponsored by lobbyists at the national party conventions. We should all be pleased – this long, hard fight produced real change. We commend the leadership in Congress on this bold step to curb corruption – Speaker Pelosi, Representative Van Hollen, and Senator Feingold in particular took the concerns of Americans to heart and in hand. But most of the thanks is due to the many people for their thousands of e-mails, calls and meetings with members of Congress. We would not be celebrating this victory for reform without the people-powered politics behind the call for change. See how your representative and senators voted on the bill and call them to express your thanks or disappointment. (Find the phone numbers of your representative and senators, or call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-225-3121.) What do you think about this victory? Do you have an interesting battle story from this fight for real reform? Let us know with a comment below. Posted by Laura MacCleery on August 03, 2007 at 11:37 AM It is not so hot, since the main form of corruption, soft money given to political parties is not affected. In other words, the direct dole ends, but the funding for their elections remains. It is business as usual. The conflict of interest remains: those whom they govern are still paying for their elections. They were giving up the ribbons on the hat box, but not the hat--jk. If their lips move, they are lying

But they failed to address the two major promblems: funding of elections by big business and their ownership of the media. This is just another do little, business as usual bill--a facade of action. And so what if their relation to lobbiest is published, it certainly be widely disseminated by corporate media--jk.

From Publiccitizen.org, the Ralph Nader group at http://citizen.typepad.com/watchdog_blog/2007/08/congress-delive.html At the bottom is jk’s comment pointing out why the bill passed by such a wide majority. Congress Delivers on Lobbying and Ethics Reform! Finally – real ethics reform passed in Congress! Yesterday the Senate approved S. 1 – the “Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007” – with a veto-proof majority of 83 to 14. On Tuesday, the House also passed the bill with flying colors by 411 to 8. This terrific legislation will give the public important new information about the cozy relationships between industry lobbyists and members of Congress, and limit the outrageous gifts and travel junkets that laid the groundwork for the culture of corruption on Capitol Hill. Today marks the final chapter of a long struggle. We first kicked off the drive to fix Capitol Hill over three years ago. Back then, our “wish list” of reforms was largely ignored by members of Congress and the media – even laughed at as a political impossibility. Then Jack Abramoff’s world – and that of many prominent members of Congress – started to unravel. As the investigations into kickbacks and bribes became indictments, our call for reform – and the increased public disgust with Washington – became more and more difficult to ignore. When Abramoff worked out a plea deal in January 2006 to name those whom he bribed to the FBI, you’d have thought the gig was up. But the leadership of the 109th Congress burrowed into the warm sand like ostriches and ignored the need for reform. In return for their indifference, the voters changed up the Congress in 2006, citing corruption as a top concern. But institutional change is hard even for a Congress elected on a promise to “end the culture of corruption.” As the bill moved forward, the “K Street” crowd lobbied hard, warning members not to bite the hands that keep lawmakers fat and happy. Public Citizen’s activists did not back down, sending thousands of faxes, emails and making hundreds of call to the Hill to tell Congress it must see this through. The final legislation includes a large number of new lobbying laws and ethics rules that will open the books on the often corrupting nexus between lobbyists, money and lawmakers. It also imposes a series of new ethics restrictions to keep Congress more honest and open. Here are some of the hard-won reforms that we all won together: Requires more of the money trail on the Internet: Lobbyist fundraising for lawmakers, including direct campaign contributions, bundled contributions and the hosting of fundraising events will be posted on the Internet. Slows the revolving door between Congress and K Street: The bill extends the cooling off period for senators from one year to two, and requires all members to publicly disclose any job negotiations while serving in Congress. Lobbying revealed online: Lobbyists must report their lobbying activities every three months in an electronic format, to be immediately posted on the Internet. No more goody bags: The bill bans all gifts from lobbyists to lawmakers and their staff. No more golf trips to Scotland: The bill ends the congressional travel junkets by: 1) Prohibiting any organization that employs a lobbyist from sponsoring trips for members longer than one-day; 2) requiring pre-approval and disclosure of all trips on the Internet; 3) restricting the use of private corporate jets to fly members around the globe; and 4) prohibiting lobbyists from going along on any of these trips. Earmarks in the sunlight: The bill requires disclosure of the sponsor and recipient of earmarks to be posted on the Internet 48 hours before final approval of appropriations to tax bills, and allows any senator to remove an earmark “air-dropped” into a conference report by a point of order challenge. The party’s over: The bill prohibits on members of Congress attending lavish parties sponsored by lobbyists at the national party conventions. We should all be pleased – this long, hard fight produced real change. We commend the leadership in Congress on this bold step to curb corruption – Speaker Pelosi, Representative Van Hollen, and Senator Feingold in particular took the concerns of Americans to heart and in hand. But most of the thanks is due to the many people for their thousands of e-mails, calls and meetings with members of Congress. We would not be celebrating this victory for reform without the people-powered politics behind the call for change. See how your representative and senators voted on the bill and call them to express your thanks or disappointment. (Find the phone numbers of your representative and senators, or call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-225-3121.) What do you think about this victory? Do you have an interesting battle story from this fight for real reform? Let us know with a comment below. Posted by Laura MacCleery on August 03, 2007 at 11:37 AM It is not so hot, since the main form of corruption, soft money given to political parties is not affected. In other words, the direct dole ends, but the funding for their elections remains. It is business as usual. The conflict of interest remains: those whom they govern are still paying for their elections. They were giving up the ribbons on the hat box, but not the hat--jk.

Finally – real ethics reform passed in Congress! Yesterday the Senate approved S. 1 – the “Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007” – with a veto-proof majority of 83 to 14. On Tuesday, the House also passed the bill with flying colors by 411 to 8.

This terrific legislation will give the public important new information about the cozy relationships between industry lobbyists and members of Congress, and limit the outrageous gifts and travel junkets that laid the groundwork for the culture of corruption on Capitol Hill.

Today marks the final chapter of a long struggle. We first kicked off the drive to fix Capitol Hill over three years ago. Back then, our “wish list” of reforms was largely ignored by members of Congress and the media – even laughed at as a political impossibility. Then Jack Abramoff’s world – and that of many prominent members of Congress – started to unravel.