Congressional
scandals last year have revealed a number of cases of overt corruption. Former
Representatives Duke Cunningham (CA) and Robert Ney (OH) were caught trading
votes for campaign contributions and other bribes. Disgraced lobbyist
Jack Abramoff landed in jail for masterminding efforts to use campaign
contributions to steer public funds to his pet projects. The investigation into
the activities of Rep William Jefferson (LA) continues following the FBI’s
discovery of $90,000 in cash in his freezer. And yesterday, Representative John
Doolittle’s home was raided by the FBI in connection with allegations stemming
from his involvement with former lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Several top
legislative and White House aides have already pled guilty to corruption
charges and this may be only the tip of the iceberg.
Scrutiny by
the press and others has shown grossly inadequate rules and lax enforcement of
the rules covering ethics and lobbying practices in Congress.
While Congress operated in a state of denial, voters were clear
about how they felt. Election Day exit polls cited corruption as the top issue
motivating voters. Polls throughout the year (USA Today, Gallup, CNN) showed
corruption in Congress tied as a top tier concern among voters.
Congress
answers skeptics; takes first important steps on ethics changes
After two
years of foot-dragging, excuses and even refusals to acknowledge the problems,
in its opening session the new Congress took its first critical steps toward
changing the way business is done in Washington. The
overwhelming support for new restrictions on lobbyist-funded trips and gifts (House
vote: 430 to 1; Senate vote: 96 to 2) sends a powerful message that the new
Congress is taking the need for reform seriously. This is a sea change
from the ill-conceived and ineffectual bill considered and passed by the House
during the scandal-plagued session last year.
However, there is more to be done and topping the list is the establishment of an
independent enforcement entity.
Enforcement is the key
to meaningful ethics reform
Jack
Abramoff’s downfall was not the result of an aggressive House or Senate ethics
enforcement process. He was turned in to the Justice Department by a
competitor turned whistle-blower. After the initial details of the case came
out, the House and Senate Ethics Committees sat on their hands. They
initiated no probe nor asked any questions nor made any attempt to see if
members had violated the rules and the public trust. The House Ethics
Committee was so paralyzed they failed to convene a meeting for most of the 109th
Congress.
The current
system is broken. Overseeing one’s own colleagues is difficult under any
circumstances, but oversight in a charged partisan environment like the U.S.
Congress is impossible. This is not to say that members of Congress are
any less capable than others of self-policing-- no one self-polices well.
In the Executive Branch there is an Office of Government Ethics. Businesses
have outside auditors. Congress needs independent and professional oversight
and enforcement of the rules.
The task
force would do well to review existing models.
Twenty-three states have created independent enforcement entities for
their legislatures. I have attached a
copy of our report detailing state models. Several proposals, such as the
Office of Public Integrity proposed in the House by Reps. Shays (CT) and Meehan
(MA) or an independent ethics commission as detailed in a bill by Reps. Castle
(DE) and Platts (PA) create workable models of how such entities would
operate. Regardless of the specific model, there are a number of
important principles that U.S. PIRG and other reform groups have developed to
ensure a fair professional process.
·
The
enforcement office should have the authority to receive and investigate outside
complaints and to initiate and conduct investigations on its own authority,
where the office determines that a matter requires investigation. The office
should have the powers necessary to conduct investigations, including the
authority to administer oaths, and to issue and enforce subpoenas. The subject
of any investigation should have the opportunity to present information to the
Office to show that no violation has occurred. The office should have the
authority to dismiss frivolous complaints expeditiously and to impose sanctions
for filing such complaints.
·
The
office should be headed by a Director or by a three-member panel, should have a
professional, impartial staff and should have the resources necessary to carry
out the office's responsibilities.
·
If
the office is headed by a Director, the Director should be chosen jointly by
the Speaker and Minority Leader. If the Office is headed by a panel, the panel
should consist of three members, with one member chosen by the Speaker, one
member chosen by the Minority Leader and the third member chosen by the other
two members.
·
The
Director or panel members should be individuals of distinction with experience
as judges, ethics officials or in law enforcement, should not be Members of
Congress or former Members, should have term appointments and should be subject
to removal only for cause by joint agreement of the Speaker and Minority
Leader.
·
The
office should have the authority to present a case to the House Ethics
Committee for its decision, based on the same standard that is currently used
to determine when a case should be presented to the Committee. The Ethics
Committee would be responsible for determining if ethics rules have been
violated and what, if any, sanctions should be imposed or recommended to the
House. A public report should be issued on the disposition of a case by the
Ethics Committee. The office should have the authority to recommend sanctions
to the Committee, if the Committee determines an ethics violation had occurred.
· The
office should receive, monitor and oversee financial disclosure, travel and
other reports filed by Members and staff, to ensure that reports are properly
filed and to make the reports public in a timely and easily accessible manner.
The office should have the same authority for lobbying reports filed under the
Lobbying Disclosure Act.
Beyond the
highly touted “first 100 hours,” the 110th Congress must move to
create outside, professional oversight to ensure the new rules will not be
paper tigers and assure the American people that the new Congress will
different from the last.
