Because Grover Norquist is a degenerate; and Gordon Smith is an bald-faced opportunist; I can't think of anything more destructive to the citizenry of Oregon than the spawn of these two head cases. If ever there was a justifiable case for Smith being found guilty by association, surely this is it.

These weekly rants against Gordon Smith would be more meaningful if the Dems had an actual candidate - or at least an identified front runner. There are 652 days until the 2008 general election and I have no idea who the Dem candidate will be or what his/her position will be on anything. Maybe he or she would have voted the same as Gordon Smith?

On the bill itself, it is interesting to see that voting "YES" in addition to Gordon Smith we have every Republican in the Senate plus Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Conrad (D-ND), Dorgan (D-ND), Landrieu (D-LA), Nelson (D-NE), Salazar (D-CO), not to mention Johnson (D-SD) who did not vote.

If this bill is so bad, rather than worry about Smith, my question is why so many Democrats abandoned the newly won "majority" in the Senate to vote with the Republicans? I thought that "we" are now in control?

While it would certainly be better if there were an announced challenger, in the interim I think it's fair to use how Sen Wyden votes as a barometer to compare what a Democrat representing Oregon would do.

And while Democrats have the majority, I probably don't need to explain to you that it takes 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate.

My understanding of the negotiations is that the Republicans were using the Bennett Amendment (topic of this post) and a Line Item Veto amendment in an attempt to torpedo the entire ethics bill, and ultimately the leadership agreed to vote on the Bennett Amendment in exchange for Republicans dropping Line Item Veto.

As for the 7 Democrats that crossed over, that's for them to explain.

I had heard that this provision was poorly written in such a way that even independent bloggers like myself, with no financial stake in the issues about which I blog, whatsoever would have to make quarterly reports to the government. Can someone enlighten me on that aspect of the bill, please?

That argument is a smokescreen used by opponents. The real, carefully-worded purpose is to require disclosure of the hundreds of millions of dollars in Astroturf operations done by lobbyists.

See Sen. Levin's testimony, where he answers that claim specifically after McCain makes that argument: here.

Also, everyone's favorite Democrat from CT - JoeMentum - addressed that issue in his floor testimony:

This grassroots lobbying provision would do nothing to stop, deter or interfere with individuals exercising their constitutional rights to petition our Government for redress. We are talking about disclosure, not censorship, not limits in any way on lobbying. We are talking about disclosure of large sums of money spent by professional organizations. We are not talking about barring any organization from conducting a grassroots lobbying campaign. And we are not talking about small grassroots lobbying efforts.

Here's a pretty high-tech myth vs. fact analysis that addresses the "political blogger" issue at the bottom.

This loophole is a big enough to drive a truck through. (Which Abramoff and Norquist just so happened to do...)

This has to be a joke, right? Groups across the political spectrum, from the ACLU to Focus on the Family, wrote blisteringly and persuasively about how poorly the bill was written and how dangerous it was, and urged passage of the Bennett amendment that Smith voted for. The ACLU warned of the chilling effect it would have on smaller political parties and organizations. It's a shame more Democrats don't give a damn about the First Amendment.

As ethically challenged as he is, Smith deserves credit for standing up for what was right here. Harry Reid incorrectly presumed he could corral the Dems behind the toothless, business-as-usual "ethics" legislation designed to allow Congressmen to continue to squander millions of taxpayer dollars on pet-project earmarks without any oversight, but the Dems mentioned above were courageous enough to stand up to him. To his great shame, Wyden was not one of these. I'm very disappointed that he was willing to play along with the corrupt Democratic machine -- one can only wonder what he was promised in return.

This has to be the most ludicrous spin I've yet seen here on Blue Oregon. The Senate Democrats very nearly blew it, after the House did itself proud in bipartisan fashion, and somehow it comes out on here as yet-another-evil-Republican-plot. I hope this is not an example of what we can expect from Mr. Steele.

Gordon Smith breaks logjam to save ethics reform.

Crooks and Liars > Ethics Reform Stalled in Senate http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/18/ethics-reform-stalled-in-senate/

KTVZ.com - Central Oregon's Local News - Smith backs ethics reform bill http://www.ktvz.com/story.cfm?nav=oregon&storyID=18125

Please note, by late afternoon Thursday, it looked like ethics reform was hopelessly stalled in the Senate with Gordon Smith the ONLY REP to break with Mitch McConnell's determination to include a line item presidential veto on spending items. Yet somehow, after 10:00 pm that same day, ethics reform passed 96 to 2.

The next day, the bill UNANIMOUSLY passed the House. All it now needs is Bush's signature.

Was Smith's agreeing to the amendment an act of valor, a despicable deed or something inbetween? I don't know enough about the trade-offs to pass judgment.

I don't get all the Gordon haters on this site. According to the Oregonian he voted less often with his party than any other member of the Oregon delegation. While it was still a very high percentage, he has always struck me as a pretty sincere, thoughtful guy even when I disagree with him. Why all the hate instead of enlightened debate? Geez, give the guy a break. Even when he votes with the ACLU the lemmings on this site trash him. Think for yourself.

Write a letter to the esteemed Senator and try to figure out his lame response... Face it Oregon, the guy is a golfer who has been on a on a 12-year junket... Any "statesman" that accepts an award from a Grover that not only boasted of starving and then drowning metaphorical kittens but pensively posed with Taliban weaponry to emphisize his anti-communist tendencies is a fringe sicko. GS, an Independent maverick my @ss.

Thanks Kelly. That cleared it up for me. Before that I had heard a lot of smoke and even read the bill, but the language in legislation is so convoluted you almost have to be a lawyer to pretend to understand it.:-)

I used to be a Mormon, and even attended BYU. I remember when VP Nelson Rockefeller came to speak at an Assembly. With him on the dais was a fellow named J. Willard Marriott. Mormons don't believe in alcohol, but have you ever seen a Marriott Hotel that didn't serve alcohol? Mormons have very deep ties to the Almighty Dollar, and to Republican politics. I have seen (trust me!) the hypocrisy firsthand...'nuff said...

PS: Orrin Porter Rockwell was Brigham Young's Right-Hand man, and his "Enforcer". His claim to fame? He invented the sawed-off shotgun! Also Google "Mountain Meadows" and "Fawn Brodie" for more LDS History...