K Street

K Street columnist Jeffrey Birnbaum was online to discuss the intersection of business, politics and government on Tuesday, Feb. 13 at 1 p.m. ET.

A transcript follows.

____________________

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Hi everyone.

Thanks for writing in.

Before we get started in earnest, I apologize about the headline in the politics section on washingtonpost.com's home page. My column today is not about the White House, as the headline suggests. It is about the House and its new ethics rules. Thank you to the readers who pointed that out.

But that said, let's chat about the loopholes that got into those House rules and anything else that's on your mind. A whole bunch of legislation is about to move through Congress and lobbyists are getting ready for the avalanche.

So, let's get started.

_______________________

College Park, Md.: I enjoyed the Post's article on how relatives of Members and senior staff are often lobbyist. Do you think this is a loop hole that needs to be closed?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: That's a tough one.

It's hard to make the case that relatives of lawmakers and their staffs should be deprived of a vocation. So a blanket prohibition doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

A narrower ban is clearly a good and reasonable idea, however. The relatives and spouses of lawmakers should be barred from lobbying those specific relatives and spouses on the government payroll. That is a rule that many individual offices on Capitol Hill have already, and it seems like a common sense one to me.

In addition, the case of leaders in either chamber, it also makes sense to have the Daschle rule, which I have named after the former Democratic leader in the Senate, Tom Daschle. His wife, Linda, is a prominent airline lobbyist but she did not lobby the Senate--or at least she said she didn't.

That makes sense for any other leader as well. Don't you think?

_______________________

Annapolis, Md.: Hi-

There has been considerable discussion regarding the revelation in Congressional hearings last week that 360 tons of $100 dollar bills were shipped to Iraq as part of the reconstruction effort.

I found it interesting that some political pundits, who normally espouse fiscal constraint and accountability for any type of government spending, quickly defended this wholesale dump of $12 billion in cash into a war-torn city.

And it is interesting that the billions of dollars approved for the reconstruction efforts in post-Katrina New Orleans are being bottlenecked, in part, by the numerous government accounting controls being placed on the funds.

So, it appears that for a war-torn city in another country, we can hand out $12 billion in cash. But it's an unacceptable practice for the reconstruction of New Orleans.

If we invaded New Orleans, would that help ease the rules on disbursing the reconstruction money?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Your comment is so beautifully argued, I hardly know how to improve on it.

Although I must say, invading New Orleans is probably not a good idea.

The question is, Was invading Iraq ever a good one?

What do you think?

_______________________

Fargo, N.D.: Since the recent revelations at the Libby trial have now opened the proverbial "can of worms," has anyone ever considered what really happened between the original parties of Ms. Plame, her husband, and her bosses? Why this happened in the first place is the real story if anyone dares venture in that direction.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: That is a worthy question, but it is not one that is likely to be addressed in court.

It seems to me a simple example of nepotism. The wife got the husband a gig.

It's hard to say he was not qualified to do the job, but it is a manner of recruiting that is usually frowned up, and for good reason.

_______________________

Herndon, Va.: Have you every been to Johnstown, Pa and driven around Congressman Murtha's district? Do you really think those government contractors made a sound business decision to put offices in that district or do you think it had more to do with getting "earmarks" from Murhta.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Clearly those defense contractors have made a very economic decision. By locating in the district of such a powerful appropriator they have obviously enhanced their ability to get him to earmark money for them in the federal budget.

Is that a savory or taxpayer friendly practice. Absolutely not. Is it worthy of a story. Yes, indeed, and versions of it have and will be written.

The best thing I can say about it is that it looks like Chairman David Obey of the House Appropriations Committee is screening would-be earmarks more closely than ever and cutting most of them in half compared to FY 2006, the last year that the budget was peppered with them.

Maybe Mr. Murtha will be forced to make those contractors' move to his home city a less economic decision.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: HI, Jeffrey, I love K Street gossip, but what's up with today's recycled news column? (Exhibit A: the winners and losers on the budget? Didn't I read all of that stuff a week ago?) I thought for sure you'd give us some good inside juice playing off the presidential campaigns that dominated the coverage this weekend or the debates coming up in Congress. I know every week can't be great and I'm not trying to give you too hard of a time, but I'm addicted to this stuff, so help us out.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I'm glad you like the column and that type of item. Thank you.

Last week's item was about the Senate-passed minimum wage bill. This week's is about President Bush's budget proposal.

They are two completely different measure and I gave them two completely different sets of winners and losers. No overlap at all.

The next time will be different, too. And yes, I will be getting deeply into gossip.

Anyone out there have any to share?

_______________________

College Park, Md.: Me again. An outsider like me thinks there are PLENTY of other vocations. Just because someone can make the most money trading in on their relationship to a member or staffer doesn't mean they can't do something that pays what is in line with their other skill sets.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I agree that people can find other things to do. And in some cases, they probably should.

But need they be barred entirely? The Senate voted to prevent spouses of senators from lobbying. I wonder whether that measure will make it all the way through the legislative process. My guess is, it won't.

So something in the middle along the way would be welcome in an otherwise lawless area. Don't you think?

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Is John Graham really that great or is it more his staff?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I don't know Graham--the Mr. Loophole in my column today--very well. But my reporting indicates that he did get the job done and with the help of very effective lobbyists.

Whether what he and the others did was "great" is a matter of opinion. Graham is convinced he made terrific strides as do a lot of interests on K Street. Self-proclaimed reformers think that Graham is more like a terrorist who has taken credit for a bombing.

What is your view?

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: Re the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson question: It would seem to me that Joe Wilson would have been just about the first person one would have picked to go to Niger to investigate the "yellowcake" question, given that Wilson had done a stint as U.S. ambassador to that fairly obscure African country and would therefore likely know people who could answer that question. He went, found out there was no trafficking in uranium and came home. Then he had the temerity to actually discuss his findings in public!

Jeffrey Birnbaum: One opinion.

Is there another out there?

_______________________

Long Beach, Calif.:

It should be against the law for any congress person to accept ANYTHING of ANY value outside of their government compensation. PERIOD. No vacation money or travel. No gifts of ANY kind. No campaign contributions of ANY kind. Further, it should be illegal for congress people to accept legislation written by any lobbyist. Let them hire staffers who know more than how to run a campaign, hire more staffers to write legislation if needed, but today nearly all legislation is written by a special interest group lobbyist team.

Finally, third-party lobbying should be illegal. Let the corporations and interest groups hire these people directly so we know which group is in the open sunshine asking for favors when they feel the need to.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Your view is shared by other reformers. But the legislators who make these decisions are not willing to deprive themselves.

Voters don't seem willing or even interested in punishing lawmakers for filling their politically motivated bans with loopholes.

As long as that's the case, ethics will be a sometime sort of thing on Capitol Hill.

_______________________

They did what?, Va.: I think one of the problems these days is people have no shame or capacity to be embarrassed. Even if things are not technically illegal, people doing them should not be able to look themselves in the mirror or hold their heads up. But they do, shamelessly, and profit like the dickens. I guess that makes those of us who are not that shameless the fools?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: To be fair, many lobbyists believe in the causes they work for. That they also make money advancing those causes is a bonus.

John Graham believes strongly that a travel ban is a bad idea. He worked to alter it and succeeded. That is what lobbyists do.

You may disagree with his point of view and how he accomplished his end.

But what Graham and his allies did is repeated many, many times every day in the nation's capital.

That's why I wrote the story about him.

_______________________

Buffalo, N.Y.: Hi Jeffrey,

Thoughts on Romney getting into the race? My own take is that he isn't "black enough" but perhaps this won't be an issue if people look past color and at experience.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: If by that you mean that Romney is not conservative enough, that is possible. He was once an advocate for gay rights and abortion rights. Now he is the opposite.

If the conservative base of the Republican Party does not believe that Romney is a sincere conservative then he might be rejected by them.

But he is a very intelligent, charming and able politician. He should not be counted out, certainly this early in the campaign.

In fact, it would not be wise to count anybody out this soon.

Better to sit back and enjoy the show. And it will be a good one!

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Hi Jeffrey,

Tim Russert asked Steny Hoyer and John Boehner about all those loopholes on Meet the Press, on Sunday. It was painful to watch those two guys -- who minutes before were trading barbs like the old political pros they are -- trying to explain it all away. Neither made any sense at all. Did you see it?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I did, and it certainly is hard to justify in a public setting. Behind closed doors where the deals are cut, like these, such accommodations seem to make excellent sense. In the light of day, in front of the public, not so much.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Will there be an ethics bill this year?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: That's the plan, I know.

But last year, the same plan was in place and nothing happened.

The House and Senate last year passed separate lobbying/ethics bills and didn't reconcile them. In the end, therefore, no bill made it through final passage. Nothing changed.

This year, the Democrats in charge say they will not let that happen. They say a bill will become law.

I, for one, will wait and see.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: How many lobbying firms are actually on K Street? I know that the educational lobbies are scattered although they are referred to a Dupont Circle as a collective description.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I don't have a good number on lobbying firms. The number of registered lobbyists is about 31,000 according to the Senate's number keepers.

I was amazed to learn about how many educational associations there are in town and how many individual colleges have lobbying offices. There are hundreds, for sure.

Dupont Circle is only one of many gathering places for them.

_______________________

Fargo, N.D.: Regarding the Libby-Plame scenario and your comment about nepotism. She was by no means a final decision maker, which everyone seems to forget. Their marriage was "the key" in an attempt to force her husband "to go along" with their disinformation and cover-up campaign which was her job i.e., "intelligence fixing."

Jeffrey Birnbaum: I stand corrected then. I think.

I'm not sure that Mrs. Wilson will concur with your description.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Will campaign finance reform be addressed this year by Congress?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: It doesn't look like the campaign finance system will even be touched by lawmakers this year.

That will be a problem for the lobbying legislation, in my view.

As I have written a few times in the paper in and in my column, almost everything that the lobby legislation in Congress would curtail or ban would be allowed in the guise of a campaign fundraiser.

That means that almost everything being considered in the ethics bills--except perhaps the enhanced disclosure, which is a healthy idea--would be trumped and overwhelmed by lawmakers' eagerness to shake down lobbyists for campaign contributions.

That's the short version of my tirade. More later.

_______________________

RE: They did what?: Now wait a minute. A lobbyist says "I strongly believe that it is OK for me to fly a congressman to Tahiti" and that makes it all right? The lobbyist is shamelessly misusing our system for personal gain. That is wrong, no matter how you look at it.

Jeffrey Birnbaum: A lobbyist-paid trip to Micronesia would be prohibited by the new House rules (unless it lasted no longer than a couple days, which I doubt).

Then again, if the lawmaker held a fundraiser in that exotic land, that would be perfectly legit.

Amazing isn't it?

_______________________

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Well, it looks like I've run out of time today.

Thanks for writing in. We'll do it again in a couple weeks!

Cheers!

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.