House Democrats unveil their first bill in the majority: a sweeping anti-corruption proposal

[CousinIT]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/30/18118158/house-democrats-anti-corruption-bill-hr-1-pelosi

Democrats will take up voting rights, campaign finance reform, and a lobbying crackdown — all in their first bill of the year.

House Democrats will unveil details of their first bill in the new Congress on Friday — a sweeping anti-corruption bill aimed at stamping out the influence of money in politics and expanding voting rights.

This is House Resolution 1 — the first thing House Democrats will tackle after the speaker’s vote in early January. To be clear, this legislation has little-to-no chance of passing the Republican-controlled Senate or being signed by President Donald Trump.

But by making anti-corruption their No. 1 priority, House Democrats are throwing down the gauntlet for Republicans. A vast majority of Americans want to get the influence of money out of politics, and want Congress to pass laws to do so, according to a 2018 Pew Research survey. Given Trump’s multitude of scandals, it looks bad for Republicans to be the party opposing campaign finance reform — especially going into 2020.

The issue is being spearheaded by Rep. John Sarbanes (MD), a longtime advocate of campaign finance reform who has long disavowed corporate PAC money. Sarbanes and other House Democrats have been working with progressive heavy hitters in the Senate including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (MA), whose own wide-ranging anti-corruption Senate bill was recently introduced in the house by Sarbanes and progressive Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA).

On Friday morning, Sarbanes and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (who is poised to become the next House speaker) will introduced the latest details along with a group of freshmen Democratic members, including Angie Craig (MN), Veronica Escobar (TX), Mike Levin (CA), Tom Malinowski (NJ), Ilhan Omar (MN), Chris Pappas (NH), Dean Phillips (MN), Mary Gay Scanlon (PA), and Susan Wild (PA).

[octoberlib]

1. Good for them!

[Ohiogal]

2. YAY!

It's about time!

[SWBTATTReg]

3. Good. Get the repugs on record for opposing common sense legislation, designed to ...

improve voting rights and reduce the impact of dark money in our elections, and where people like the Koch brothers have an outsized role in our elections by throwing their money at elections and skewing the results simply because of money...in effect, this dark money is minimizing our individual rights as voters and in a way, eroding our voting rights/our votes.

[Power 2 the People]

11. +1000

[Bernardo de La Paz]

17. Indeed. Keep hammering it. Without truly free & fair elections, everything is at risk. . . . nt

[northoftheborder]

4. Excellent!!!!!

[ananda]

5. * Like *

..

[mcar]

6. A great way to start!

[NoMoreRepugs]

7. Finally, Democrats are on the offensive, creating the narrative

versus having to fight or argue against it. Proposing legislation that has huge voter support nationwide is how you create the perception (remember, that's more important than reality) that the Repukes are actually anti-American.

[ehrnst]

8. And she's giving freshmen visibility! (nt)

[Bernardo de La Paz]

18. Take that all naysayers who wanted to stab Pelosi looking for new blood. . . . nt

[Hortensis]

28. Yes. I read that was something she could give them

to both benefit their careers and to help spread our messages to those who listen to them. And here it is in action.

Plus, some will have won by narrow margins or be otherwise targeted to be taken out in 2020, and I've read those will get special assistance from the party from the get-go, like committee assignments their constituencies can be pleased with. And this kind of thing.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. "Rep. John Sarbanes (MD)"

As a long-time CSPAN junkie, I got so used to his dad (since retired for awhile now) that I forgot he was elected to Congress after his dad left.

Good to see 2 of the newest PA reps involved.

[Grins]

10. Not enough.

Need to ban the practice of not disclosing donors to ALL political causes/organizations.

[rurallib]

23. you are so right - this is extremely important

[msongs]

12. of course the repubs in the problem solvers group will support this lol nt

[volstork]

13. Now THIS

is the proper way to govern.

[Squinch]

14. Perfect! Exactly what they needed to do! Now next, clean up that mess with those poor kids

in the tent villages, and make sure it can't happen again.

[Nitram]

15. The perfect way to start. Go Pelosi!

[C Moon]

16. A bill like that would mean fair elections, which would mean the Democratic Party win BIG TIME.

[erronis]

22. A desirable added benefit! Fair elections? Who would possibly want that? (sarcasm)

We all know who doesn't want them. (R).

[cannabis_flower]

19. I think.

a good idea would be no purging of voter rolls less than 60 days before the election and without notice. I understand the need to purge dead people and people who have moved but they shouldn't do it right before the election

[The Liberal Lion]

20. I like how Nancy is leading so far

[Yavin4]

21. "a sweeping anti-corruption proposal"???

If they want to sweep out Trump, they're going to need one big ass broom.

[Apollyonus]

24. This is needed but more importantly

even Trumpanzees and Trumpettes will get behind it. It fits their "drain the swamp" pipedream.

[Honeycombe8]

26. No, they won't. They'll call it an attack on Trump, because he gets a lot of money.

There's no pulling the Trumpers over to the side of logic and reason. They are brainwashed cult members. They parrot whatever their leader says to say. They support whatever their leader does. It doesn't have to be logical. That's why they are called cult followers. Only a deprogramming program would work. Or the leader has to go away. But these people are ripe to follow any cult leader who shows up.

[Honeycombe8]

25. A good start. The agenda begins to be set.

[JCanete]

27. Waiting for all the posts asking what's the value of this since Republicans in Senate wont match it.

[JudyM]

29. They need a strict conflict-of-interest rule that will apply to all 3 branches of government.

The details need to be hammered out, the article says, and so far this is the only part of the article’s description that would apply:

Giving the Office of Government Ethics the power to do more oversight and enforcement and put in stricter lobbying registration requirements.
Create a new ethical code for the US Supreme Court, ensuring all branches of government are impacted by the new law.

The rule should be that no one can accept anything of value, i.e., anything worth more than, say, $20. No golf trips to Scotland, etc. NO influence is no influence. These people are salaried and will have pensions. That is enough.

If they think they’re deserving of large gifts/entertainment as a perk they should not be in government. Let only those genuinely interested in public service be our government, not those who are in it to enrich themselves. A rule like that would help to clear out the swamp.

[cstanleytech]

30. Probably the best way to counter any SCOTUS challenge though is to close down anonymous

donations entirely and require complete transparency both by the people that donate the money and those that receive it and make the use of 3rd parties to try and hide the source of a donation a felony.
The other change that might help some is to change House terms to 4 years so that the House members are more focused on legislating rather than gathering money.