Lobbying Reform Passes Big

Who was it who last week claimed that lobbying reform was fizzling in the House? Oh, yeah, now I remember--me.

As it turns out, the final votes--especially on that crucial bill requiring bundling disclosure--weren't even close.

FRIDAY MORNING UPDATE: There's a lot of interest these days among our commenters regarding our sourcing, and this is one instance where I don't mind discussing it. Commenter Hadenough seems to think Karl Rove has me on speed dial:

Was your original post something you just dreamed up or was it a tip somebody gave?

I ask because your post was very similar to the politico and washington times and several gop talking points outlets.

So what was it, were ya just thinking or did rove, I mean somebody feed you that lie?

My original post was based on two things: 1. Anxious comments I was hearing from the interest groups that had been working to get this passed. They were keeping very close tabs on how many commitments they had, and how many they still needed. 2. House Democratic leaders and their aides who were "whipping" it and keeping the same lists.

I don't believe in either instance that this was a "lie" so much as a real reflection of how difficult a vote this was, given that it could make it harder for lawmakers to raise money. That it passed is a testament to the extraordinary efforts of, among others, DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (who should get double props, considering that the campaign chairman's primary job is raising money for the 2008 campaign), Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel and Congressman Martin Meehan, a longtime champion of ethics reform. One of their smartest decisions was to split the bill in two when it looked like the whole thing was going to sink.

By the way, that lopsided final vote to pass it also reflects a Washington phenomenon. As Fred Wertheimer told me in my update to that original post, "Floor votes are our friend." If this had been a secret ballot, most people I talk to think it would have lost. But once it became clear it was going to pass, no one wanted to be publicly on record as defending the discredited status quo. There was a bipartisan stampede to be on the side of open government.

ONE MORE UPDATE: Yes, I agree with many commenters that this bill was not as strong as it could have been, and that there are already some obvious loopholes--e.g., bundling can still be done without disclosure by people who aren't registered lobbyists. And as always happens, there will be loopholes that nobody even anticipates yet. Many of the worst abuses spring from reform efforts: Watergate reforms spawned PACs; PAC reform spawned soft money; soft money reform spawned 527s. (I may have missed a step or two in there.) That doesn't mean this reform exercise has been easy or that it isn't worth the effort; it can at least slow down the special interests as they figure out ways to get around the new restrictions. But in the end, the only real answer is electing honest people who will write bills and cast votes on the basis of the best interests of their constituents.

As Ana might say, and next, I'd like a pony...