The Skinny: The Toothpick Rule

No Free Lunches For Congressmen. Unless They Are Served With Toothpicks.

(CBS)  The Skinny is Hillary Profita's take on the top news of the day and the best of the Internet.

---

Ethical behavior, in theory, is all the rage these days on Capitol Hill. In practice, lawmakers are finding it's sort of a pain. Why? The Wall Street Journal's front page has the answer: because there is "considerable uncertainty about what's allowed, and some unintended consequences."

One big problem has to do with corporate jets, for which there are some new restrictions. The new rule, unfortunately, was "written by people who don't know the difference between private planes and corporate planes," Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), told the paper. That's because an unintended consequence of the rule forbidding corporate jet use includes those members who are flying their own planes. Fortunately, Peterson and others are working to change the rule, which should be resolved in the next few months.

No Free Lunch! Unless It's Eaten With A Toothpick.

The no-free-meals-from-lobbyists (and people who work for companies that employ lobbyists) rules are also "especially knotty," writes the Journal.

For example, a "congressional aide can't accept a hamburger from the National Association of Home Builders, which uses lobbyists." But a steak dinner from individual home builders who don't have registered lobbyists? Bon Appetit!

Other exceptions include hors d'oeuvers and "food that you have to eat standing up using a toothpick," according to one Washington lawyer who "advises lobbyists and companies about ethics rules." That means that at next month's "Let the World Be Your Oyster" event, thrown by lobbyists from the seafood industry, raw oysters will be served, but the traditional oyster pasta will not.

"Oyster pasta, the seafood lobbyists decided, would be difficult to eat with toothpicks."

Some Oversights

Ethics rules weren't completely absent from Congress before this big overhaul, and USA Today's front page reveals that three Democrats have violated at least one of those.

"U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and two other prominent Democrats [Rep. Rahm Emanuel and Sen. Evan Bayh] have failed to disclose they are officers of family charities, in violation of a law requiring members of Congress to report non-profit leadership roles," writes USA Today. All of the foundations are "funded and controlled by the lawmakers and their spouses, and do not solicit donations from outside sources."

Bayh and Pelosi's spokespeople told the paper that the lack of disclosure was an "oversight," Emanuel's staffer said, "We believe we're following the instructions of the (ethics) committee exactly right, but if we're not, we'll amend our report."

No Facts? No Problem!

If you are a cable news consumer, (talk-radio listener, blog reader,) you may have recently heard about a Web site called Insight, "the last remnant of a defunct conservative print magazine owned by the Unification Church led by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon," as the New York Times describes it this morning.

If not, a recap: A Jan. 17 article on the Web site said that Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign was "preparing an accusation that her rival, Sen. Barack Obama, had covered up a brief period he had spent in an Islamic religious school in Indonesia when he was 6." The report was quickly discredited. "Other news organizations have confirmed Mr. Obama’s descriptions of the school as a secular public school. Both senators have denounced the report, and there is no evidence that Mrs. Clinton’s campaign planned to spread those accusations."

Nonetheless, that didn't stop the story from popping up for the past 11 days ("and counting," says the Times) in the news cycle. The Web site's proprietor, Jeffrey T. Kuhner, still thinks of the article as "solid as solid can be." Whatever that means.

Nonetheless, the Times takes note of what will likely be a highlight of the 2008 campaign: "Mr. Kuhner’s ability to ignite a news media brush fire nonetheless illustrates how easily dubious and politically charged information can spread through the constant chatter of cable news commentary, talk radio programs and political Web sites."

Sunny Iraq

Sunday saw "fierce, day-long gun battles" near Najaf, which Iraqi security forces say killed approximately 250 suspected insurgents and resulted in the detention of 40 people, reports the Washington Post.

The news gets front page attention in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times as well.

The NYT wrote that it "appeared to be one of the deadliest battles in Iraq since the American-led invasion four years ago," while the LAT said similarly that the fighting (near Najaf and elsewhere) "was extraordinary, even by Iraq's bloody standards…" The paper also noted that the "deaths outside Najaf would constitute the highest daily casualty toll inflicted by U.S. and Iraqi forces since U.S. troops arrived in Baghdad shortly after the March 2003 invasion."

A NOTE TO READERS: The Skinny is now available via e-mail for those of you umbilically attached to your blackberries and whatnot. Click here and follow the directions to register to receive it in your inbox each weekday morning.

[hillaryin08]

HILLARY 2003: There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I've followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision. I would love to agree with you, but I can't based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation.

HILLARY: With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I just do not believe that, given the attitudes of many people in the world community today, that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems, were it not for the United States leadership, and I'm talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. And so I see it somewhat differently. So forgive me for my experience and perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rOjmDsPg_s

[kesac4650]

The more you try to pin some things down, the more exceptions you manufacture. No Congressman will sell their vote for a free meal. For a Congressman to see the facts on the ground, he needs to get there. Who would sell there vote for a free ride? It seems that some will re-elect a person with $100 grand in the deep freeze, and some will pay $8 million for a ghost written book to the wife of a President facing bankruptcy, and here we are worrying about whether or not they eat with their fingers.

[mattcat25]

President Bush's response to Hillary Clinton's criticism of his handling of the Iraq war was an attack on Clinton's patriotism and accusation that her partisan comments "hurt our troops".

When will this administration answer criticism with positive results and actual progress in Iraq? Improvement is what all Americans would like to see, it has been almost 5 years since Bush stood on that aircraft carrier.

[random_radar]

As a corporate consultant, I follow a simple rule about the ethics of accepting gifts: don't take anything. I won't accept a ball point pen or a coffee mug or a side order of fries from vendors.

In my business I am anxious that there be no questions about my integrity. If you accept anything there is an unspoken assumption of quid pro quo. If you turn everything down, there is an unstated understanding of independence. I know some people don't like me because I can't be bought or manipulated, but my clients respect my independence.

Too bad congressman don't have to show integrity to their clients (the People) to keep their jobs. Instead they have a pretence of ethics while asking "How far can I go and still look honest?" That is not integrity.