Jon Stewart had it exactly right with his pithy Daily Show summary of Clinton's tortured answer at YearlyKos on lobbying reform.  Clinton basically announced, "Lobbyists are real Americans, but don't worry, after thirty-two years of service, I don't listen to them."  In the same breath, she both recognized it as a problem and dismissed it as an issue.  

Given the ease with which she could have taken a symbolic first step and refused contributions from lobbyists and PACs, I believe questions can be raised about her willingness to stand behind tough lobbying reform.  We need the candidate who can make the most convincing case that Democrats will change the way politics is done.  Clinton has consistently lagged on this issue.

This isn't just for the sake of our democracy.  As I posted about earlier, when Americans grow cynical about politics, they grow cynical about the role of government in society.  Making our case on health care reform or on education relies on our ability to push through ethics reform.

A disengaged electorate leads not just to a bitter political divide but to bad policy.  Republicans have an interest in making not only government but politics as dysfunctional as possible.

Ethics reform has become the defining issue for Obama's candidacy, as it was during his tenure in the Illinois state senate and in his time in the US Senate.

Obama's Record on Ethics Reform in the US Senate

This year, the Senate passed the "Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act," which incorporated many of the proposals Feingold and Obama laid out in January of 2007:

•  strict bans on receiving gifts and meals from lobbyists;
  
•  new rules to slow the revolving door between public and private sector service;
  
•  and an end to the subsidized use of corporate jets.

The January 2007 Feingold/Obama bill in turn mirrored the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act" in January of 2006, to which Obama contributed and which unified Senate Democrats around a series of proposals.

Specifically, the bill the Senate passed this year included Obama's amendment that political campaigns be required to disclose their bundlers.  This provision, which has met with skepticism from some key House Democrats, is considered by many to be the most crucial in the bill:

The New York Times called this provision "the most sweeping" in the bill, and the Washington Post said: "No single change would add more to public understanding of how money really operates in Washington."

Bold Proposals

But Obama's leadership on ethics reform didn't start this year.  Obama has consistently pushed the envelope on ethics reform packages, remaining a tough and consistent advocate.

In the Senate, Obama stood behind bold proposals:
(1) to create an independent ethics watchdog to replace the current role of the House Ethics Committee back in 2006:

For years now, it's been common knowledge that [the House Ethics Committee] has largely failed in its responsibility to investigate and bring to light the kind of wrongdoing between Members of Congress and lobbyists that we're now seeing splashed across the front pages. And the sad truth is that neither the House nor the Senate ethics process inspires public confidence that Congress can serve as an effective watchdog over its own Members.

All of this means that in the coming weeks, we can pass all the ethics reforms we want - gift bans, travel bans, lobbying restrictions - but none of them will make a difference if there isn't a nonpartisan, independent body that will help us enforce those laws. You don't crack down on crime by hoping criminals will turn themselves in, and you can't clean up corruption by trusting Congress to police itself.

Complaints could be filed with any member of the public, though with the safeguards against political manipulation that a complaint could not be filed within "30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election."  Second, "any person filing a complaint that they knew to be false would be subject to a fine and/or imprisonment."

(2) On February 8th, 2006, Obama also proposed the "The Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act," pressing for transparency on the arcane and vast sea of earmarks included in federal legislation.  Obama's legislation targeted not only the secrecy of such earmarks but would require them to be made public well before being voted upon.  He also advocated prohibiting senators from having a financial interest in the project and requiring recipients to disclose their lobbyist connections:

Under the bill, all earmarks, including the name of the requestor and a justification for the earmark, would have to be disclosed 72 hours before they could be considered by the full Senate. Senators would be prohibited from advocating for an earmark if they have a financial interest in the project or earmark recipient. And, earmark recipients would have to disclose to an Office of Public Integrity the amount that they have spent on registered lobbyists and the names of those lobbyists.

(3) Obama has also put an emphasis on requiring pending legislation and earmarks to be public by being posted on the internet.  On January 18th, 2006, Obama also proposed "The Curtailing Lobbyist Effectiveness through Advance Notification, Updates, and Posting Act (The CLEAN UP Act)," which would require pending legislation to not only be given to legislators but to the general public by being posted on the internet.

In 2006, Obama also wrote and passed 'Google for Government' legislation that would create a central, searchable database "that will allow regular people to track approximately $1 trillion in federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans online."

Obama's Leadership on Ethics Reform as a Presidential Candidate:

His plan for ethics and civil service reform was one of the earliest and is still the most comprehensive.  Vermonter offered a run-down of these proposals here.

As a candidate for president, Obama last week renewed his support of an independent watchdog to investigate ethics abuses and made clear that he would continue to support the public financing of elections:

One of the things I've argued is the necessity of an independent entity to enforce ethics rules in Congress. Because no matter how well we police our own conduct, so long as we're our own prosecutor, judge, and jury, the public will never have complete trust in our decisions. So far, that's a fight I've lost, but I'll continue to support independent enforcement because I believe it's in our nation's best interests.

I also believe that if we're serious about change, we need to have a real discussion about public financing for congressional elections. Because even if we can stop lobbyists from buying us lunch or taking us out on junkets, they'll still be able to attend our fundraisers - and that's access the average American doesn't have.

In our democracy, the price of access and influence should be nothing more than your voice and your vote.

Via the AP, he today unveiled an additional series proposals for curbing the influence of lobbyists.  See lovingj's summary here.