House leadership cancelled a scheduled vote last week on a
bill to create an Office of Congressional Ethics which would, for the first
time, provide for independent enforcement of congressional ethics rules.
The vote was canceled for lack of majority support and calls
into question those members who, as candidates, told voters they will work hard
to clean up the corruption in Washington.
The recent indictment of Rep Rick Renzi (AZ) provides fresh
evidence of the breakdown of ethics oversight in the House of
Representatives. Despite the reminder of the failed ethics enforcement
process, members of Congress picked apart a thoughtful proposal that has been a
year in the making with input from numerous academics and ethics experts, state
ethics commissions, advocacy groups, and former and current members of
Congress.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi who supports the proposal has indicated
that she will bring it back for a vote as early as this week. This
proposal would substantially change the way in which allegations of ethics
violations are handled in the House. It would send a clear message to
members that the rules will be enforced.
Just prior to a hearing on the bill, a troubling story was
published in Congress Daily. The story detailed a threat by senior
Republican staff members to use the new system to target 10 Democrats for
ethics violations if this proposal was passed. If these staff members have
credible evidence of real ethic violations then it is their responsibility to
file them irrespective of any legislative debates. If, on the other hand,
they are simply partisan attacks created to frighten members from pursuing
stronger ethics enforcement then it amounts to, in the words of one member of
Congress, “political extortion.”
It was disgraceful and highly effective.
The objections that followed showed a lack of understanding
of both the details of the proposal and the underlying problem. Several
member including Minority Leader John Boehner (OH), Task Force member Lamar Smith
(TX) and Rules Committee Member Jim McGovern (MA) and many others see the
problem only as one of public perception.
During a hearing on the bill on Wednesday, only three
members of Congress – Reps. Chris Murphy (CT), Zach Space (OH) and Chris Shays
(CT) recognized the inherent conflict of interest that exists in the current
process in which members – friends and colleagues – are responsible for
initiating investigations into one another’s’ actions.
In the upcoming floor fight, members will not vote against
the ethics proposal outright. Instead members in both parties are
threatening to hide behind a vote to block a procedural motion to bring the
bill to the floor. This parliamentary game playing only serves to further
the cynicism regarding Congress in the minds of the public.
The
public needs to know that a vote against bringing the bill to the floor for a
vote is the same as voting against the bill itself. The practical result
is exactly the same.