I suspect some Americans who don’t follow the political process closely are under the impression that political corruption in Washington is like an old movie — a shady lobbyist, in the middle of the night, meets a congressman in a clandestine location. Confident no one is looking, the lobbyist hands over a bag money (usually with a dollar sign on the side) in order to buy some special favor for a fat-cat client. One, if not both, invariably has a cigar and maybe a handlebar mustache.
In 21st-century DC, this is a pretty silly caricature, but it’s also what makes Duke Cunningham’s corruption so noteworthy. His chosen sleaze wasn’t just outrageous, it was cartoonish. Roll Call reported yesterday that the “steady flow of gifts and cash payments … will likely go down as one of the largest instances of corruption ever seen in Congress.” The Hill has seen its share of disgrace, but this is nevertheless an entirely fair description.
Yes, Cunningham delivered an emotional apology yesterday, and yes, his written statement accepted responsibility for his crimes with all the right words. But before anyone feels sorry for this crook, take a moment to consider the breadth of Cunningham’s corruption. It’s truly breathtaking — and includes bribes we didn’t know about until yesterday.
There are plenty of reports out there detailing the loot, but some of my personal favorites include Cunningham’s Rolls Royce, a 19th-century Louis-Philippe commode, several pieces of expensive furniture, silver candelabras, a couple thousand for his daughter’s graduation party, two Laser Shot shooting simulators, lavish vacations, yacht club fees, multiple cash payments, and, of course, the home sale and the yacht. The WaPo said, “The bribes are breathtaking in their scope, audacity and sheer greed.”
Also note, despite his admission yesterday, Cunningham spent the better part of 2005 insisting that he was innocent of any wrongdoing and encouraged his Republican colleagues to back him up publicly.
Cunningham faces up to 10 years in prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and forfeitures. Since he’s promised to cooperate with prosecutors and testify against anyone they want, his punishment won’t be nearly as severe as it should be.
Post Script: After the shock of Cunningham’s conduct wares off, I hope there will be interest in answering the question raised by this WaPo editorial.
The court papers filed in the case, jaw-dropping as they are, don’t address a critical question: How could this happen? To some extent, it’s hard to guard against out-and-out corruption and criminality by someone bent on breaking the law; as the court papers describe it, the congressman and his co-conspirators worked to “conceal and disguise” their activities “by directing payments through multi-layered transactions involving corporate entities and bank accounts.” Mr. Cunningham also lied on his financial disclosure forms and filed false tax returns.
But there are also indications that the system failed. Mr. Cunningham’s ability to pull off this caper was helped by the fact that lawmakers don’t need to list their homes or mortgage debt on financial disclosure forms; such a listing might have provided an earlier clue to the wrongdoing. More fundamentally, the papers say that Mr. Cunningham used his influence in the congressional appropriations process to benefit the contractors and “took other official action to pressure and influence” Defense Department personnel to give contracts to his co-conspirators. This case ought to spur an overhaul of the congressional appropriations process, which has become infected with the kind of earmarks that breed corruption. The Pentagon, in its turn, may need to strengthen its processes to withstand the pressure of an influential congressional appropriator.
It sounds like a good idea — that could become part of the Dems’ campaign against the GOP “culture of corruption.”