Senate Votes to Ban Fees for Speeches : Politics: Accepting money for outside speaking reduces lawmakers to ‘the level of used-car salesmen,’ one senator says.
- Share via
WASHINGTON — The Senate voted today to ban outside speaking fees, a custom Sen. Robert C. Byrd said puts lawmakers “at the level of used-car salesmen” in the public’s esteem.
The 77-23 vote on an amendment by Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) attached the honorarium ban to a campaign finance reform bill. The ban would take effect next January. Senators are now allowed to accept up to $27,337 a year in honorariums.
“When a significant part of our salaries comes from hustling, and that’s what it amounts to, we denigrate ourselves,” Dodd said. “As public servants, our salaries should come from the public alone.”
The House voted last year to give up honorariums effective Jan. 1, 1991, but also boosted the salaries of its members from $98,400 to $124,000 then. Reluctant to vote themselves a 25% pay boost, the Senate had skirted the honorarium issue up until today.
“The scandals of the past two years have put a black mark on public service and raised public cynicism to an all-time high,” Byrd said, citing $9 million in honorariums senators have accepted over the last decade. “We’re about at the level of used-car salesmen” in the public’s esteem.
Dodd’s amendment won the support of 53 of the Senate’s 55 Democrats and 24 of it 45 Republicans. Both California senators voted for it.
In 1989, senators accepted nearly $3 million in honorariums and kept more than $2.1 million, with the balance donated to charity, according to their financial disclosure forms. Dodd, the sponsor of the ban, reported accepting $15,000 in 1989.
GOP Leader Bob Dole of Kansas, one of the largest recipients of honorariums, said he agreed with Dodd on the need to eliminate senators’ honorarium income but not on the strategy of doing it without a pay raise.
“In January, House members will be getting paid about $22,000 more than senators . . . and we could be getting about $22,000 less for years to come,” he said.
More to Read
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.