An ethics course for Congress — maybe

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, apparently aware of the fact that too many of his colleagues have ignored congressional ethics rules, reportedly suggested that lawmakers get more extensive training on what’s allowed and what’s not.

House members and aides said Mr. Hastert broached the subject in a closed-door session with House Republicans while they discussed former Representative Randy Cunningham, the California Republican who pleaded guilty last week in an extensive corruption case that has stunned colleagues.

“The speaker wants members on both sides of the aisle to understand the nuances of House rules,” Ron Bonjean, a spokesman for Mr. Hastert, said about the plan.

Mr. Hastert’s proposal indicates that senior Republicans, who have previously dismissed criticism of House conduct and links to lobbyists as politically motivated, are taking the question more seriously.

On its face, ethics lessons for members of Congress sounds like an inherently good idea, but there are two counterpoints that come to mind.

First, ethics training may be a decent start, but ethics enforcement should be a higher priority. Many of the members of Congress who’ve been accused of the most serious transgressions have been on the Hill for decades. It’s not that they knew the rules and forgot them; it’s that they just didn’t care about following them in the first place. Tom DeLay has been admonished by the House Ethics Committee five times, not including other instances in which he was investigated but not punished. Does anyone really think an “ethics training” seminar would set DeLay straight?

Second, this training may not actually happen.

Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean said later that the Speaker did not intend to recommend an ethics seminar but had “emphasized that it is important for members on both sides of the aisle to thoroughly understand the House ethics rules.”

There goes that idea.

You’re so right. It’s not as if these crooked Republicans just made mistakes. They broke the law. It’s all about enforcement. They’ve got a sweet double unbind (what’s the opposite of a bind?): they don’t approve of government so they don’t have to follow its rules. These guys think they’re John Galts but they’re really all Wesley Mouches.

  • Whatever. Ethics rules are only important when they can be used against Democrats.

    I’m glad to see that the Repubs haven’t managed to to so corrupt the judiciary that they can sleaze out of the criminal charges as readily as they do the ethics ones. Not yet, anyway.

  • Coming from a party leader that basically gutted (by way of putting a crony/hack in charge of the committee) that is really funny and also not likely to happen to any meaningful way. This is just lip service to make it look like they are doing something to stem the rising tide of bi-partisan corruption. UGH.

  • I don’t like what the idea of ethics classes implies– that the recent ethics violators somehow didn’t know they were doing something unethical. Does anyone else worry it might give them some cover to feign ignorance?

    That being said, everyone should have to take a test on ethics before they get the keys to their office on The Hill. If they don’t pass the first time around they have to study and repeat the test until they do.

  • Maybe I’m being overly simplistic but how bad is it when our lawmakers need training in the difference between right and wrong? Training isn’t going to make them MORE ethical. We, the people, their bosses, need to replace them with more ethical leaders. People who don’t need to be taught the difference between right and wrong after they’ve been put into office. Our standards ought to be much higher than this.

  • “Some people are so false that they are no longer conscious that what they think is the exact opposite of what they say.”

    Marcel Ayme

  • “The speaker wants members on both sides of the aisle to understand the nuances of House rules,” Ron Bonjean, a spokesman for Mr. Hastert, said about the plan.

    *nuances*? like it’s not polite to take money for your votes or influence?

    jesus wept.

    your pal,
    blake

  • Comments are closed.