McQ over at QandO takes a look at what real ethics reform would look like. It does not resemble, in any way shape or form, the "reforms" being pushed by Nancy Pelosi. This really will not be a big surprise if you read the earlier post about Daniel Henninger's column in the Opinion Journal.
Well, not that. In fact the reform the Democrats are proposing isn't even as tough as some state legislatures have imposed on themselves:
Several states, responding to the federal scandals as well as their own statehouse imbroglios, have already adopted more sweeping gift and travel bans, broader measures to end the central role of lobbyists or government contractors in financing campaigns and new public campaign financing intended to reduce lawmakers’ dependence on big donors.
To enforce their rules, about half the states have also created independent ethics watchdogs, outside the control of the lawmakers they police — something federal lawmakers have so far resisted. House Democrats recently said they would create a panel to study the idea.
You've heard of the "Bridge to Nowhere?" Well meet the "panel to nowhere". My guess is a few Democrats can make most of a career "studying" the idea. And, frankly, as long as Dianne Feinstein and the California delegation oppose it, well, my guess is studying the idea is about as good as it will get.
Henninger started off his column by pointing out that Congressional ethics don't actually resemble what the population at larger would recognize as ethics. McQ shows that rather convincingly. He also points out that the problem is one that everyone should be able to get behind really fixing. As opposed to toothless, window dressing "reforms".