Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Sue Kelly: Yes to corruption
The Republican culture of corruption continues on unabated. The party that brought you convicted ex Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff just passed a flimsy excuse of a ethics reform bill in the House offered by David Dreier and his fellow Republicans. According to a Washington Post editorial:
At best the bill would marginally improve the existing arrangement of minimal disclosure, laxly enforced. Reporting by lobbyists would be quarterly instead of twice yearly and slightly more detailed (with listings of lobbyists' campaign contributions -- already available elsewhere -- along with gifts to lawmakers and contributions to their charities). Nothing would crimp lawmakers' lifestyles: Still allowed would be meals, gifts (skybox seats at sporting events, say) and cut-rate flights on corporate jets. Privately sponsored travel would be suspended, but only until just after the election.Just how did Sue Kelly (who loves to call herself a moderate) vote on this legislation? You guessed it. As usual, Kelly voted along with her Republican allies and sided with lobbyists and big business. Not that this is any surprise as Sue just loves herself some big campaign contributions, especially when it's coming from big business and Political Action Committees. This is just further proof that Sue Kelly cares only about advancing the Republican agenda and little about the interests of her constituents in NY-19.
Comments:
<< Home
Even the Wall Street Journal agrees that this is a sham ethics bill. Today's article by David Rogers says that the bill "preserves the most cherished - and often abused - perks available to lawmakers." After the Ambramoff guilty plea (only 4 months ago) Danny Hastert promised legislation that would "bar all privately financed trips, end lobbyist-paid meals and curb below-cost flights on corporate jets -- a huge lobbying tool for business."
"Yet" according to the WSJ, "all these perks are largely untouched by the bill as passed, and the bill is also less aggressive than the Senate version in the scope of its lobbyist disclosure requirements."
Sue - does this mean you support the culture of corruption? You have voted to perpetuate it!
"Yet" according to the WSJ, "all these perks are largely untouched by the bill as passed, and the bill is also less aggressive than the Senate version in the scope of its lobbyist disclosure requirements."
Sue - does this mean you support the culture of corruption? You have voted to perpetuate it!
Chalk it up to another close vote where Kelly chose her PAC contributors over the people she's supposed to be working for: the people here in the 19th. While 20 Republicans crossed party lines in opposition to this sham legislation, Kelly towed the party line once again.
Given that 25% of the voters in this district are independent/unaffilated, don't we deserve someone who can also think independently? Sue Kelly is clearly not that person.
Post a Comment
Given that 25% of the voters in this district are independent/unaffilated, don't we deserve someone who can also think independently? Sue Kelly is clearly not that person.
<< Home
