<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rss [<!ENTITY % HTMLlat1 PUBLIC "-//W3C//ENTITIES Latin 1 for XHTML//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml-lat1.ent">]>
<rss version="0.92" xml:base="http://www.campaignmoney.org">
<channel>
 <title>Public Campaign Action Fund - Outsourcing Oversight - Comments</title>
 <link>http://www.campaignmoney.org/blog/2006/12/13/outsourcing-oversight</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;Outsourcing Oversight&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Outsourcing Oversight</title>
 <link>http://www.campaignmoney.org/blog/2006/12/13/outsourcing-oversight</link>
 <description>Among the reforms being considered by the Democratic leaders of the incoming 110th Congress is an independent &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/washington/13ethics.html?_r=1&amp;amp;hp&amp;amp;ex=1165986000&amp;amp;en=f2ccfe747e6c76b8&amp;amp;ei=5094&amp;amp;partner=homepage&amp;amp;oref=slogin&quot;&gt;ethics oversight panel&lt;/a&gt;,  an apparent acknowledgement that Congress is no longer able to police itself.  Yet, despite this interest in investigating new ethical breaches no major overhaul is being considered that would mitigate existing conflicts of interest.</description>
 <pubDate>Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:37:35 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
