House GOPers consider ‘political extortion’ over ethics panel

February 27, 2008

After watching congressional Republicans, during their run in the majority, embrace a fairly transparent culture of corruption, congressional Dems are still anxious to help clean up the mess. Right now, Dems are weighing a proposal to create an independent panel to consider ethics complains against lawmakers, creating a system whereby members would no longer be responsible for policing each other.

It hardly comes as a surprise that Republicans oppose the creation of an independent panel, but what is surprising is what the House GOP is prepared to do about it. CongressDaily reported today (no link available), “Senior House Republican aides are drawing up a list of Democrats to target” if the House approves the creation of an independent ethics office.

In a move that one top Democratic lawmaker called “political extortion,” House GOP aides said Tuesday the names of more than 10 Democrats are likely to end up on the list and that investigations would be pursued against all of them.

It is not clear how much support House Republican leaders are giving to the staff effort, but several GOP leadership aides who were asked about the list said they were aware of it. […]

Rep. Michael Capuano, a Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the ethics task force, said the leaking of a list of possible Democratic targets amounted to “political extortion.”

“If they have legitimate ethics concerns about any member, why wouldn’t they bring it forward now?” Capuano asked. “They don’t need this entity to do that. It wouldn’t have anything to do with that. Member complaints would still continue to go to the Ethics Committee.”

Can we just pause to appreciate the fact that House Republicans are relying on unethical means to oppose an independent ethics office? The irony, it seems to me, is rich.

As for what happens next:

Capuano and Majority Leader Hoyer have predicted the task force will be approved on Thursday, despite an uncertain level of support from rank-and-file Democrats.

The leak of the GOP’s plans could impact the vote. Capuano briefed Democratic lawmakers on the proposal at a closed-door meeting Tuesday and several lawmakers continued to raise concerns about groundless charges being filed with the panel. After the Caucus meeting, freshman Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, D-N.H., said she is still looking at the issue because of concerns about transparency and the panel being used to target lawmakers.

“I want to make sure everything we do here has to do with issues and not the politics of it,” she said.

Another freshman Democrat, Rep. Zack Space of Ohio, who won former GOP Rep. Bob Ney’s seat in 2006 with a platform of ethics reform, said the outside body was “a step in the right direction.” The proposed ethics office would consist of six people jointly appointed to four-year terms by the speaker and minority leader who would serve four-year terms and be served by a nonpartisan professional staff. Lawmakers and lobbyists would not be eligible.

If House Republicans have a reasonable case to make against an independent ethics panel, great; let’s have a debate. But true to form, they’ve instead decided to oppose the measure by relying on threats and intimidation. In effect, they’re arguing, “If you’re prepared to take ethics complaints seriously, we’re prepared to punish you with a series of baseless complaints.”

“Political extortion” may sound harsh, but I can’t think of a more appropriate description.

Typical Repubs
They follow Reagan’s 11th commandment = Speak not ill of a Repub.
It is more important than any of the original 10 given to Moses.
It is more important than the Sermon on the Mount and Do unto to others.
The result is
All Dem misdemeanors at to be treat as major Federal felonies or worse.
All Repub activity is to be dismissed as less than a traffic ticket.

A possible solution is to have any and all compliants be private until an initial investigation phase is completed and a preliminary report can be compiled so that the report can advise if there is any substance to the original complaint.

Jim

  • Another option to minimize inappropriate complaints would be to require the filing party to post a $50,000 bond with any complaint. There are ways to make a new system work much better than the existing while still building in protection from abuses.
    Jim

  • Has anyone mentioned to “the Boneheads” that their “list of 10” could easily be countered by Dems producing a similar list? How big would the list of “dirty GOPers” be? 40? 50? 75, perhaps? Possibly enough to suggest the House going two-thirds Dem in November?

    Dems are beginning to learn that they can push back against the dirty tricks. This should be seen as a furtherance of that learning curve. It’s time to dust off the old mantra:

    Attack. Attack. Attack.

  • It certainly makes sense. The Republicans are at an extreme disadvantage any time you depoliticize an agency and make merit or fact-based. No even-handedness, no false balance, just investigations base on evidence of abuse. If such an agency were professional, the entire conservative movement would be wearing stripes. As things are now, guilt is determined by working the media and shouting through the bullhorn.

    Spin, they win. Facts, they lose.

  • “If you’re prepared to take ethics complaints seriously, we’re prepared to punish you with a series of baseless complaints.”

    Why do we think they would be baseless?

  • If the cost of ethical oversight is purging a some crooked Dems, too, I say bravo!!! America wants change, and this is as important a part of it as any.

  • “Political extortion” may sound harsh, but I can’t think of a more appropriate description.

    I would call it enthusiastic support!
    A way of saying “It’s about time we cleaned house!”

    The Democrats should accept this resounding huzzah from the GOP.

    10 Democrats is a very very small price to pay to clean up Congress, don’t you think?
    The GOP clearly thinks so.

  • If they have evidence of wrongdoing and don’t report isn’t that obstruction of justice ?

  • I’m with #6. This whole story hinges on the assumption that Democrats are squeaky clean and that any such list would be only of unfounded accusations.

    You could just as easily say that the Republicans’ position is “well, fine, but we’re damned well not going to be the only ones investigated,” which is a fair position.

    To the extent that there are dirty Democrats — and, let’s face it, there are — I am fine with having them investigated. And, to the extent that this is “extortion” and the charges are baseless, then the submission of the list itself is likely to lead to ethics charges.

    So, my advice to Democrats would be to call the bluff. If your house is clean, it just makes matters worse for the Republicans. If there are some ethics challenged Democrats, it is good for the party to get them out of there.

  • #11,

    It’s very easy to know which party is clean here. One wants ethics investigations, while they’re in power, to be independent. The other party wants to keep it biased and politicized.

    Why do you oppose an independent investigation more isolated from the political process? Because you think it will hurt your party. Why do you support independent investigations run by non-hacks? Because you think merit based investigations will benefit your party.

    From a pure self-interest standpoint, Dems and Republicans agree: fair investigations based on the evidence will help Dems and hurt Republicans.

  • I say BRING IT ON! If there is a dirty elected official, I don’t care what their affiliation is; they need to go! I am tired of the horrific politics that has become America. Get rid of all the goopers and the dems who are like them.

    Buh bye, see ya. Don’t let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.

  • It’s very easy to know which party is clean here.

    That would be neither. Let’s have the investigations. Let’s get rid of all crooked politicians.

  • I agree with those who have commented that we need to rid ourselves of all crooked politicians.

    Beyond that, I see the Rs as wanting to “clog” the new panel with investigating Dems so that the Rs themselves can’t be investigated.

    A possible solution to keep this from happening is for the rules to state that the requesting party agrees to pay for any investigation where the complaint is found to be baseless. Jim mentions posting a $50K bond (how about from their re-election campaign fund?). If the congressman is guilty, so be it. If the panel finds no evidence of guilt, bill the complaining party an hourly rate (of all hours spent on the investigation) and costs (copies, and the like) to be paid from the bond. Otherwise you just know that the Rs will send the panel on a wild goose chase. And taxpayers will be dinged for it.

  • I don’t care which party they belong to. If they betray the public trust, hang them from the highest tree. Personally, I will vote against any incumbent irrespective of their party affiliations.

    • Comments are closed.