By Janet Domenitz
Imagine
going into court to testify against someone only to find the
prosecutor, judge and jury were all friends or colleagues of the
defendant. You might think you were caught in an elaborate April Fools’
Day prank. Yet this is how ethical misconduct is handled in Congress.
And far too many of our elected officials do not see any problem.
High-profile
scandals in the 109th Congress were, unfortunately, not a joke. As
ex-Congressman Duke Cunningham of California was steering defense
contracts to the highest bidder, the House ethics committee sat idle.
Committee members were likely skittish after colleagues were removed
for having previously taken action against one of their own. The same
could be said about the committee’s response to the actions of Ohio
Congressman Bob Ney, recently convicted for trading favors for campaign
contributions. And then there’s the ongoing investigation of Louisiana
Rep. William Jefferson for allegedly taking $100,000 in bribes, $90,000
of which the FBI reported recovering in the congressman's freezer.
Those
stories may be the extent of the corruption or may be the tip of the
iceberg. It is unlikely that we will know because the current
congressional rules that should prohibit friends and colleagues from
having sole responsibility to hold one another accountable are
voluntary and routinely overlooked. Conflict-of-interest rules that
mandate impartial juries in civil and criminal matters — a cornerstone
of our judicial system — are “advisory” in Congress.
The
current system is riddled with partisan bias and internal pressures
that belie the notion that ethics oversight in Congress is anything
near fair and impartial. Members of Congress whose careers may depend
upon the party’s political and financial support or an appointment by
the leadership to a choice committee to more readily deliver for
constituents are obviously cautious about launching ethics
investigations of their own colleagues. It is difficult to see how
members could vote to launch an investigation into a colleague’s
actions one day and ask that same colleague to co-sponsor bills
important to their constituents the next day. But members in Congress
defend the current system.
Congress
should stop pretending that the ethics process works and act to fix it.
Twenty-three states, Massachusetts included, have established
independent ethics enforcement bodies to oversee state legislators.
Workable, state-tested models across the country operate professionally
and without partisan interference. These citizen panels have clear
conflict of interest rules, set terms, and reasonable disclosure
requirements to assure the public that they are acting to impartially
enforce the rules. And the rules do matter.
Mention
“congressional ethics” in public and you are likely to hear cynical
laughter, but violating the public trust is no joke. Congressional
corruption is about more than whether an individual has crossed the
line from public service to personal enrichment. Wrong as that is,
corruption is also about influencing how scarce resources are divided
and who benefits from important public policy decisions. Hearings in
Congress are now raising questions about the billions of dollars in
open-ended and no-bid contracts allocated for those displaced and
injured by Katrina and for similar contracts awarded to Halliburton.
While Congress has taken positive steps to question executive branch
decisions, are they equally willing to question their own members if
that is where the investigation leads? If history is any guide, that’s
not likely.
Speaker
Nancy Pelosi has appointed a special task force to make recommendations
on changes to the House ethics enforcement process. Massachusetts’ own
Congressman Michael Capuano has been named chair of this task force.
How many congressmen does it take to change bad ethics enforcement?
Let’s hope our Congressman Capuano can turn this bad joke into
recommendations that would be make us all proud.
Janet S. Domenitz is the executive director of MassPIRG and is a resident of Alpine Street.
