house Bill H.R. 2347
Should Federal Advisory Committees Face More Stringent Ethics Requirements?
Argument in favor
The public should have access to information about who the experts advising federal agencies are, and how they are chosen. Because their position carries significant influence, all advisory committee and subcommittee members should comply with federal ethics laws and conflict of interest rules.
03/01/2016
If they don't have ethics, then we don't need the committee/advisory board. You don't have to be brave, but you have to be honest.
···
03/03/2016
Has government become the morality police? It is not my impression that other than greed or religious ideology, most people who go into government service are particularly unethical. No one gets paid enough for it to be about $$. Power is another issue but do we want a religious police force like Saudi Arabia or Iran? HELL NO! It seems conservatives who are always harping on morality are either buggering little boys or nailing their female employees continue to obsess about ethics! Get your personal house in order & stay out of the policing of public morality!!!
Argument opposed
There should continue to be a distinction between advisory committee members and subcommittee members when it comes to compliance with federal ethics laws. Political appointees to advisory committees aren’t likely to allow political pressure to alter their recommendations.
03/01/2016
I am inclined to vote yes, but $70 million is far too much to demand for ethics. We the people should not have to fund ethical compliance. Perhaps these appointees should be required to take an Oath of Office under penalty.
···
03/03/2016
Dr. Ben Carson has taken the hippocratic oath… I believe the state and federal employees should do the same. To do no harm physically or emotionally or financially.
03/02/2016
I approve of the objectives of this bill. 70 million dollers however is a huge cost just require ethical compliance.
If they don't have ethics, then we don't need the committee/advisory board. You don't have to be brave, but you have to be honest.
I am inclined to vote yes, but $70 million is far too much to demand for ethics. We the people should not have to fund ethical compliance. Perhaps these appointees should be required to take an Oath of Office under penalty.
Has government become the morality police? It is not my impression that other than greed or religious ideology, most people who go into government service are particularly unethical. No one gets paid enough for it to be about $$. Power is another issue but do we want a religious police force like Saudi Arabia or Iran? HELL NO! It seems conservatives who are always harping on morality are either buggering little boys or nailing their female employees continue to obsess about ethics! Get your personal house in order & stay out of the policing of public morality!!!
Increase transparency at all levels of governance. We the People deserve a government we can trust.
Dr. Ben Carson has taken the hippocratic oath… I believe the state and federal employees should do the same. To do no harm physically or emotionally or financially.
An ethics process and monitoring for committees is long overdue. Transparency and accountability are critical to successful representation.
Tired of unethical behavior in our government. Get it out!
I approve of the objectives of this bill. 70 million dollers however is a huge cost just require ethical compliance.
Yes, We don't need this 5 Star Circus also known as the Clinton Foundation !
No one who wants to serve should have an agenda before their appointment begins.
Appointees to advisory committees aren't likely to allow political affiliation to alter their recommendations.
Ethics in Government now that would be a New and Radical Idea will it ever happen or will it remain a Fairy Tale
Everyone who has an influence on gov't policies should be identified, vetted and held accountable.
$70 million? Outrageous. How about people just do the right thing? Then again, they all have the DC bug which causes unethical behavior. I'm sorry, if it cost 70 mil - they can do their own research to make informed decisions or better yet, recuse themselves on the grounds of their own stupidity and laziness.