Ethics? Who Needs That? Not Some Democrats

A couple of key decisions made by Congressional Democrats this week have shed light on where the leadership truly stands on ethics in our government. Though many Democrats campaigned on the case that they would return ethics to Capitol Hill after the Republican leadership had thrown it out, now that the Democrats are in the majority, some are starting to like those ill-gotten perks that Republicans enjoyed for quite a while.

Although some top Democrats are pushing to install ethics reforms in Congress, some members of Congress have said that such reforms go too far. The New York Times outlines the divide that has shown that not all Democrats are eager to tackle ethics reform.

The Democratic leadership was forced to scrap a plan that would extend the length of the ban on former congressmen from lobbying after leaving Congress from one year to two.

One of the congressmen opposed to that reform, Michael Capuano (D-MA), nominated himself for Crybaby of the Month in his defense to keep the ban at one year. Given his language, it looks like he would favor doing away with the one-year ban altogether, greasing the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street.

Others say they do not see the point of doing more. “I didn’t make any of those campaign promises,” said Representative Michael E. Capuano, a Massachusetts Democrat who questions the bundling disclosure proposal and also opposed the extension of the so-called “revolving door” ban on lobbying by former members.

“I made a career change 20 years ago to be a full-time elected official,” Mr. Capuano said, explaining his position. “I am no longer qualified to be a tax attorney. It is like saying to people, ‘Please, come into public service, give it your all, and when you are done you are completely unqualified for anything else.’ ”

Surely if Mr. Capuano were able to make that career change 20 years ago, there isn't a reason why he could not make another change now if he were to retire (or be fired) from Congress. Since members of Congress often vote on measures that deal with tax law, there is no reason to believe Congressman Capuano could not re-qualify himself as a tax attorney. Furthermore, leaving Congress does not make a person "completely unqualified for anything else" and the claim that there is no line of work that a former Congressman could enter except for lobbying is patently ridiculous. Congressman that "give it their all" are not supposed to be doing that while salivating at the offices on K Street. If Capuano is "completely unqualified for anything else," one has to wonder how the hell he's qualified to actually be in Congress.

Apparently, Capuano is of the mind that people would only go to Congress to get a crack at becoming a lobbyist down the road. He must be speaking from his own experiences.

From a Boston Globe editorial:

Representative Michael Capuano of Somerville, who is close to Pelosi but opposed the revolving-door prohibition, told a Washington Post reporter in a moment of breathtaking candor that preventing politicians from becoming lobbyists -- even if only for 24 months -- would discourage good people from seeking office. "What you are telling me is I cut off my profession," he said. Funny, we thought Capuano's profession was public servant, not lobbyist-in-training.

Capuano's statement was puzzling because Pelosi is counting on him to deliver on another reform promise; she appointed him to chair a task force aimed at creating an independent new entity to enforce ethics rules on House members. "I love the speaker," Capuano said in an interview yesterday, "but I can respectfully disagree with her."

It's a damn shame that the chair of a task force to create an independent entity to enforce ethics has come out against ethics.

That bundling disclosure proposal did manage to pass the House (and was already passed in the Senate). Now, lobbyists are required to disclose the campaign contributions that they collect and deliver to politicians, and act known as "bundling." Such disclosure would show how much sway the lobbyists have over members of Congress (say, by showing that they're able to collect $500,000 in donations for Congressman X), though this new mandate does not actually curtail such activities.

Opposition to this proposal came from members pressed to meet their fundraising dues for the Democratic Party.

Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, supported the proposal:

“We laid down a marker and said we want to change the way business is done in Washington,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and a main sponsor of the rule requiring disclosure of “bundling” by lobbyists. “Now we need to follow through and take the next step of passing a strong lobbying reform bill.”

However, although Congressman James Moran (D-VA) supported the proposal, he voiced the complaints of those that opposed the measure:

Others grumbled that Mr. Van Hollen, whose Democratic campaign committee duns each member for contributions, was pushing a measure that would make it harder to tap the easiest sources of such money — lobbyists.

“We have dues that we are supposed to raise of several hundred thousand dollars, and in the same breath we are informed that this is something we will have to vote for,” Representative James P. Moran, Democrat of Virginia, said. “I don’t know what we are supposed to do, except cold call all the people in the phone book in our districts.”

Mr. Moran expects to vote for the disclosure rule because, he said, after his party campaigned on ethics reform “we have to be holier than Caesar’s wife.”

There is a solution that could come to that problem uttered by Congressman Moran. However, it would require politicians to not just look tough but to actually be tough. Instead of complaining about the system forcing you to bend the rules of ethics to raise funds, now that you're in the majority, why not try to change the system so that members of Congress don't have to spend half their time downing cocktails with lobbyists to meet the fundraising quotas from the leadership?

As the Times said in its editorial page this morning:

Voters should still keep in mind the House Democrats’ refusal to slow the revolving door by requiring former lawmakers to wait two years — rather than the current one — before they can cut out the middleman and become lobbyists themselves. That self-interested failure is one more reminder of why the House still needs to create an independent agency to help enforce the promised ethics reforms.

There is but one more issue this week that has led to a defeat for ethics in Congress.

From the Times:

Other House rules changes this year appear to have done little to alter business as usual on Capitol Hill. House Democrats voted along party lines on Tuesday to block the censure of one of their most powerful members, Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania. He was accused of violating a new ethics rule that prohibits lawmakers from swapping pork for votes.

Murtha, well known for having bent ethics rules to the point of breaking them during his long tenure in the House, gained stature as he declared himself in favor of withdrawing from Iraq. He ran, and lost, in the race to be the House Majority Leader against Maryland Congressman Steny Hoyer after the 2006 election.

From the Times:

Republicans cited the accusations against Mr. Murtha as evidence that the Democrats were already in breach of their own earmarks rules.

Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan, filed a motion accusing Mr. Murtha of threatening to punish him for trying to delete a $23 million earmark for a drug intelligence center near Johnstown, Pa., Mr. Murtha’s home base.

Mr. Rogers said Mr. Murtha, chairman of the military spending committee, had tried to intimidate him by promising that he would not receive any military earmarks “now and forever.”

Mr. Murtha did not dispute the accusations but said in a statement that the Appropriations Committee considered all requests fairly. Famous as a political horse trader, he has boasted of his skill at doling out or withholding earmarks to prod lawmakers into passing legislation.

When Republicans ran the House, however, they were just as adept at dispensing federal projects as a tool to keep their members in line. Mr. Rogers has sought and received his share. And on Tuesday even some Republicans wondered at his professed shock at Mr. Murtha’s tactics.

“Earmarks are part of the process around here,” Mr. LaHood, the Illinois Republican, said. “That should be no secret to anyone.”

There is no reason for the Democrats to play the "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" card on this matter. At least an investigation on the accusations should have been done, even if Murtha would face no censure. However, the problem facing the Democrats if they took action against Murtha is that he has become a darling for the very liberal wing of the party since he came out forcefully in favor of withdrawal. With the more moderate wing of the Democratic Party at odds with the liberal base over various issues, including how to handle the war in Iraq, taking action against Murtha would only gain them more enemies amongst their own party. It may be politically smart to protect Murtha, but it does not help them look as if they were serious on cracking down on unethical behavior.

The Democrats remain the best hope for reforming Congress and increasing its standards for ethics. Why? Because we've already seen how the Republican leadership behaved in previous years and their attempts to cover up all unethical behavior or even support it in the open. Unless the Republican leadership has fresh faces that could speak credibly on ethics reform, they cannot hope to realistically challenge the Democrats on that platform. Not with their track record. Not with Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, John Boehner, Jack Abramoff, and all the rest. That and the Democrats still have a year and a half in the current 110th Congress, so there will be no change in Congressional control until 2009 at the earliest, so hope can only be placed in the Democrats' hands right now.

The hope in the Democratic Party lies within their newly-elected members, many of whom campaigned fiercely on ethics reform and provided the Democrats with crucial pickups in Republican-held districts that paved the way for the change of control on Capitol Hill.

Congressman Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) nails it:

Some newly elected Democrats say they worry about potential perceptions that their party has failed to deliver its promised cleanup. “Many of the freshmen ran on a campaign of, as Speaker Pelosi would say, ‘draining the swamp,’ on ethics and ethics enforcement,” said Representative Ed Perlmutter, a first-term Colorado Democrat.

Although their record on ethics reform is mediocre at best, toothless at worst, it is still more than the Republicans have offered when they enjoyed free reign in Congress. It is extremely disappointing to see the Democrats throw away this opportunity and the comments from some Democratic lawmakers in opposition to ethics reform are just plain outrageous and scandalous. However, the Democrats have approximately 17 months to clean up their act (and the act of Capitol Hill as a whole) before the November 2008 election.

Nancy Pelosi, it is time to support those new representatives that allowed you to become Speaker of the House. Support them with ethics reform. "Drain the swamp."