Scandals over the last year have revealed a number of cases of overt corruption. Former Congressmen Duke Cunningham (CA) and Robert Ney (OH) were caught trading votes for campaign contributions and other bribes.  Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff landed in jail for masterminding efforts using campaign contributions to steer public funds to his pet projects. Rep William Jefferson (LA) is under investigation after the FBI found $90,000 in cash in his freezer and former Rep.Tom DeLay is still defending himself against corruption charges.  Several top legislative and White House aides have already pled guilty to corruption charges and this may only be the tip of the iceberg.
 

Scrutiny by the press and others has shown grossly inadequate rules and lax enforcement of the rules in Congress covering ethics and lobbying practices. While Congress operated in a state of denial, voters were clear about how they felt. Election day exit polls cited corruption as the top issue motivating voters. Polls throughout the year (USA Today, Gallop, CNN) showed corruption in Congress tied as a top tier concern among voters.  And a post election USA Today/Gallop poll found that Americans continue to be skeptical of Congress.  The poll found only 15% of Americans gave U.S. Senators high or very high marks for honesty and ethical standards. Only 14% did so for U.S. Representatives.

House answers skeptics; takes first important steps on ethics changes  

The new Congress in its opening session took its first critical steps in changing the way business is done in Washington . The overwhelming support (the measures passed 430 to 1) for new restrictions on lobbyist-funded trips and gifts sends a powerful message that the new Congress is taking the need for reform seriously.  This is a sea-change from the ill-conceived and ineffectual bill considered and passed by the House during the scandal plagued session last year.   There is more to be done and topping the list is the establishment of an independent enforcement entity.

Key is enforcement

Jack Abramoff’s fall from power cannot be credited to an aggressive House or Senate ethics enforcement process.  He was turned in to the Justice Department by a competitor turned whistle-blower. After the initial details of the case came out, the House and Senate Ethics Committees sat on their hands.  They initiated no probe nor asked any questions nor made any attempt to see if members had violated the rules and the public trust.  The House Ethics Committee was so paralyzed they failed to even convene a meeting for most of the 109^th Congress.  

The current system is broken.  Overseeing one’s own colleagues is difficult under any circumstances, but oversight in a partisan-charged environment like the U.S. Congress is, as we have now seen, impossible.  This is not to say that members of Congress are any less capable than others to self-police, no one self-polices well.  In the Executive Branch there is an Office of Government Ethics. Businesses have outside auditors. Congress needs independent and professional oversight and enforcement of the rules.  

Several proposals, such as the Office of Public Integrity put forth in the House by Reps. Shays (CT) and Meehan (MA), or an independent ethics commission as detailed in a bill by Reps. Castle (DE) and Platts (PA) create workable models of how such entities would operate.  Regardless of the specific model there are a number of important principles that U.S. PIRG and other reform groups have developed to ensure a fair professional process.

• The enforcement office should have the authority to receive and investigate outside complaints and to initiate and conduct investigations on its own authority, where the office determines that a matter requires investigation. The office should have the powers necessary to conduct investigations, including the authority to administer oaths, and to issue and enforce subpoenas. The subject of any investigation should have the opportunity to present information to the Office to show that no violation has occurred. The office should have the authority to dismiss frivolous complaints expeditiously and to impose sanctions for filing such complaints.
   
• The office should be headed by a Director or by a three-member panel, should have a professional, impartial staff and should have the resources necessary to carry out the office's responsibilities.
  
  
• If the office is headed by a Director, the Director should be chosen jointly by the Speaker and Minority Leader. If the Office is headed by a panel, the panel should consist of three members, with one member chosen by the Speaker, one member chosen by the Minority Leader and the third member chosen by the other two members.
  
  
• The Director or panel members should be individuals of distinction with experience as judges, ethics officials or in law enforcement, should not be Members or former Members, should have term appointments and should be subject to removal only for cause by joint agreement of the Speaker and Minority Leader.
  
  
• The office should have the authority to present a case to the House Ethics Committee for its decision, based on the same standard that is currently used to determine when a case should be presented to the Committee. The Ethics Committee would be responsible for determining if ethics rules have been violated and what, if any, sanctions should be imposed or recommended to the House. A public report should be issued on the disposition of a case by the Ethics Committee. The office should have the authority to recommend sanctions to the Committee, if the Committee determines an ethics violation had occurred.
  
  
• The office should receive, monitor and oversee financial disclosure, travel and other reports filed by Members and staff, to ensure that reports are properly filed and to make the reports public in a timely and easily accessible manner. The office should have the same authority for lobbying reports filed under the Lobbying Disclosure Act.

Beyond the highly touted “first 100 hours,” the 110^th Congress must move to create outside, professional oversight to ensure the new rules will not be paper tigers and assure the American people that the new Congress will different from the last.