Coburn doesn’t care about congressional ethics either

March 31, 2005

For nearly 20 years, members of Congress have been prohibited from “moonlighting.” That is, ethics rules forbid lawmakers from working outside of their official responsibilities while serving in Congress. Sen. Tom Coburn knows this, but has decided that he can ignore ethics rules he doesn’t like.

While he’s back home in Muskogee, Okla., for the spring recess, Republican Sen. Thomas Coburn is doing what he always does: tending to pregnant patients and delivering babies.

But Coburn, an obstetrician and gynecologist with a thick mane of salt-and-pepper hair, is practicing medicine in violation of the very strict rules of the Senate. Those rules prohibit senators from earning outside income from their professions or businesses after they are sworn in as members of the upper chamber of Congress.

I can appreciate that there’s a legitimate debate about whether lawmakers should be able to work outside of the Hill. In fact, while serving in the House, Coburn remained a practicing obstetrician after crafting a deal with the House Ethics Committee whereby he wouldn’t profit financially from the work.

But what’s interesting is that Coburn isn’t waiting to be cleared by the Senate Ethics Committee — he’s just going ahead and doing what he wants to do, rules be damned. It’s as if Tom DeLay’s condition is contagious.

For that matter, I’m still not sure why Coburn is still practicing medicine after allegedly filing a fraudulent Medicaid claim and allegedly sterilizing a woman without her consent. Ethics violation or no, this guy should probably be investigated before getting near another patient.

You know, I love your stuff, but I think you’ve gone off the deep end here.

Here’s a guy who arguably has a skill in great need, who’s willing to spend his time helping people for zero money.

The malpractice claims against him have been aired in the press, yes, but should he really have his license suspended without due process? This sounds awfully partisan.

As far as the rules about moonlighting: I don’t think he’s in violation of the spirit of the law, and there doesn’t seem to be any possible conflict of interest. I would rather see the Senate give him a pat on the back and official approval, but lacking any evidence that there’s something wrong with him being a doctor when he’s not a senator, I think “but those are the rules!” is a pretty lame complaint. And bad politics, to boot.

  • Money clarification: Coburn wouldn’t be working for free, he would be working at cost. According to the article, Frist volunteers as a doctor during recesses, which is okay because he covers his own malpractice insurance and other costs. While I think being a Senator should be a full-time job (allowed recesses sure, but no outside work), I can’t argue too much if he would be volunteering like Frist. I still don’t like it because often it has been when people don’t see a potential conflict of interest, that is when a conflict of interest arises. Everyone should follow the rules.

    Has anything been done to investigate the sterilization/will there? The only fact is in dispute is whether there was vocal consent from the woman. He said/she said, so we can’t be sure, but a doctor sterilizing without a written consent sure seems, mmm, negligent if not straight malfeasance. I don’t know if there are more facts, but that is what I read.

    Maybe if Coburn wasn’t such an ass about it people might give him more benefit of the doubt. He knew the rules(I guess I shoudl say he “should’ve known the rules” since ignorance has become an acceptable excuse for everything), and instead of discussing it or doing the same thing as Frist(though I don’t think he has enough money), he just went and decided what he would do, everything else be damned. There is no respect for the rules/authority, a recurring theme among Republicans these days. People think these things are small, but if you disrespect your “peers” and the established rules, when will it stop? This is nothing but arrogance.

  • Eric, I see what you’re saying, but we may have to agree to disagree here.

    I didn’t say he should lose his license, but rather that the questionable problems in his background should be looked into. By all means, afford him the rights under due process. The charges raised against him are serious, but as far as I can tell, there hasn’t been an official review of their merit. That’s why I wrote that I believe Coburn “should probably be investigated.”

    As for the ethics rules, your point is well taken. You’re right, Coburn’s medical practice isn’t exactly a stop-the-presses scandal. My concern, particularly after what we’ve seen recently with Tom DeLay, is that congressional ethics simply lack meaning lately. Lawmakers don’t expect to be punished, and as a result, don’t feel obligated to act within Congress’ guidelines.

    Coburn’s decision to ignore ethics rules in this case strike me as a symptom of a broader problem — too many lawmakers look at ethics rules as mere suggestions that they can ignore whenever convenient. I think it’s a dangerous pattern.

  • I agree. But jumping all over Coburn for a minor violation actually gives cover to the Delays of the world – “Look at the kind of stuff we get investigated for!”

    If it’s minor and ought to be legal, then I’m not going to be upset over it because it’s technically an ethics violation. There’s plenty of nasty stuff going on, and getting upset over the minor stuff only distracts from the big problems.

  • Eric,
    I agree that this seems minor at this point, but where would this grow from here?
    We pay our legislators a substantial sum of money, about $150,000 a year if memory serves me correctly plus all kinds of benefits and expense accounts just so they don’t have to moonlight. If Coburn is working on the side he isn’t giving either his constituens or his patients his full undivided attention, thus serving neither one fully.
    Plus if we allow this, next we’ll have the president of Phizer being elected to Congress and saying that it is okay to simultaneously working for Phizer. Who would be his real constituent. Phizer or the residents of his district?
    In my hopelessly utopian set of ideals I like to believe that our elected officials are supposed to adhere to a very high set of standards. Believe me, I am constantly disappointed.
    Personal disclaimer, I already don’t like Coburn based on this blog and seeing him C-SPAN.

  • Hey Carpetbagger, I think you’ve been too soft on poor ‘ol “Eric, who says Coburn in not in violation of the “spirit of the ethics rules.” The real ESSENCE of an ethical impropriety is the APPEARANCE of the violation! Ethics means adhering to both the LETTER of the rules, but also the SPIRIT of the rule. If you want to talk about the spirit of a rule, then you have to first have complied with the letter of the rule. It’s not an either-or proposition; you don’t get a choice of meeting EITHER the letter of the law (which Coburn clearly has not) OR the spirit of the rule (I’m not sure what Eric thinks this is, but to me it means having knowledge of the purpose for the rule and then going the extra mile to avoid even appearing to be in violation or doing anything that could be considered as such).

    Think of it as this way: a male school principal is authorized by shcool policy to conduct physical searches of students for drugs and weapons in exigent circumstances, but only of MALE students; only a female administrator may search a FEMALE student. When a female administrator is not available after a female student is suspected of being under the influence, a male administrator conducts the search of the female student himself. Does this violate the letter of the rule? Of course! Does it violate the spirit of the rule? Who knows; if the male administrator had his female secretary present during the search, does that change your answer? The point is this: if the administrator had adhered to the rule and called the police instead (that is, followed the letter of the rule), then it would not be necessary to look at his intent and what the “spirit” of the rule might be.

    Many rules are of a strict construction nature, which means that ANY violation, regardless of one’s intent, results in a violation (either you had time on the parking meter or you didn’t). Other rules, especially those involving the exercise of judgment, require reference to one’s intent to determine whether a violation has occurred. It is only in these latter cases that “the spirit of the rule” might be a factor in determining whether a violation has indeed occurred.

    It’s clear that the Senate’s outside work rule is a strict construction type, fashioned after many abuses of power and position by past members of the Senate. So, Coburn knows — or by accepting the oath is charged with knowing — that continuing his medical practice is indeed a violation of the rules. The rules are designed to protect the public from the Senators, not the other way around.

    Just another sign of hubris, this time from someone who has not yet been there long enough to have “earned” any right to have it — except, of course, he is doctor, and we all know how arrogant most of them are!!

    • Comments are closed.