When it comes to Rep. [tag]William Jefferson[/tag] (D-La.), there are two angles to consider: his individual [tag]criminal[/tag] [tag]scandal[/tag] and how (or whether) it fits into a broader system of [tag]corruption[/tag] in [tag]Congress[/tag].
On the prior, there isn’t much doubt that [tag]Jefferson[/tag] has to go.
It takes a particular kind of nerve to be filmed taking $100,000 in alleged [tag]bribe[/tag] money out of an FBI informant’s car, have the [tag]FBI[/tag] later find the same cold, hard cash wrapped in aluminum foil in your [tag]freezer[/tag] — and then adamantly claim that you have done nothing wrong.
Jefferson, remarkably, not only argued yesterday that he’s completely innocent, he also said he intends to continue to serve his constituents in Congress. He didn’t even rule out seeking re-election. From where I sit, Jefferson needs to [tag]resign[/tag], and if doesn’t, congressional Dems need to consider throwing him out.
And then there’s the larger corruption question and whether Jefferson’s problems undermine the Dems’ complaints.
Democrats’ plans to make Republican corruption a theme of their election strategy this year have been complicated by accusations of wrongdoing in their own ranks, leading the party to try on Monday to blunt the political effects of the unfolding case against Representative William J. Jefferson.
It’s only natural for Republicans to defend themselves against charges of having created a [tag]culture of corruption[/tag] by saying, “Look! They’ve got a corrupt one too!” but the comparison doesn’t hold up. As Rep. [tag]Rahm Emanuel[/tag] (D-Ill.) put it, “They are different scales. One is a party outlook and operation; the other is an individual’s action. They have [tag]institutional[/tag] corruption.”
Things clearly look bad for Jefferson and I won’t lift a finger to defend him. I also believe, however, that one guy’s serious lapse is in no way similar to the [tag]systemic[/tag] corruption issues that have dogged Republicans in recent years. In fact, I hope congressional Dems take the Jefferson incident as an opportunity to a) denounce him; and b) remind reporters and the public about the difference.
Matthew Yglesias explained this quite well.
Jefferson was a corrupt freelancer . . . a more-or-less random member of congress abusing his office for personal gain. Compare this to the case of [tag]Tom DeLay[/tag], the key mover-and-shaker in the Republican caucus for many years and an important one for years before that. His muck-worthy activities not only accrued to a more significant player, but also bore a direct relationship to the creation and sustenance of the GOP machine.
Beyond DeLay, the salient point about, say, the Dukester is that his cash-for-contracts scheme was in many ways continuous with standard operating procedure for the Republican Party. It was different. But a difference of degree, not of kind. Normally, the cash comes in as campaign contributions or lobbying jobs for yourself and your retainers rather than pocket money or boats. But the public policy auction is happening at all levels. Look at the energy bill, or the farm bill, or the Medicare bill. Legislation is for sale to the highest bidder in all cases. That — and not the fact that this or that Republican may or may not be under indictment — is the point. And it connects up with the pattern of executive branch lawlessness and malfeasance. The overall attitude is that the institutions of government are the property of the people who happen to be holding power; power that can be deployed without constraint on behalf of its holders or their paymasters.
I think this is exactly right. Moreover, I’d add that the response from the respective caucuses is noteworthy. When [tag]Duke Cunningham[/tag] was caught, several Republicans rallied to his defense. When Tom DeLay was about to be indicted, House Republicans initially backed a rule change that would have allowed to keep his leadership post. When it comes to the Abramoff and Wilkes/Wade/MZM scandals, the GOP has just denied, denied, denied.
Dems are taking the opposite approach. When Rep. [tag]Alan Mollohan[/tag] (D-W.Va.) came under scrutiny for allegedly steering aid to nonprofit organizations that he helped control, Dem leaders told him to give up his Ethics Committee seat. When evidence against Jefferson mounted, [tag]Nancy Pelosi[/tag] called for a full investigation and refused to defend his conduct.
For purposes of political rhetoric, the [tag]Republicans[/tag] have one (maybe two) House [tag]Democrats[/tag] they can criticize for alleged corruption. In reality, the two parties aren’t even close.