Something’s rotten in Washington, D.C. The American
political system is drowning in a pool of bull. The ways in which
our country is dominated by wealthy special interests are numerous
enough to fill a dozen books, and The Bruin doesn’t pay me
enough to write that much (Actually, I don’t get paid at
all.) So here’s just one example.
Several former members of Congress have been offered positions
to serve as lobbyists for industries they played a major role in
regulating. In some cases, the offers to accept these positions are
made while members are still active in Congress.
These lobbying practices harm the interests of the American
people as a whole and must be stopped.
The close relationship between politicians and special interests
should be understood as a case of greed and opportunism ““
things Americans are as used to as celebrities with conspicuously
flimsy outfits and presidents who lie. But that doesn’t make
it OK.
Perhaps the most egregious example of this can be seen in the
job offers made to Rep. W. J. “Billy” Tauzin. Tauzin is
a Louisiana Republican who has been serving as head of the House
Energy and Commerce Committee. As head, Tauzin was in charge of
numerous issues relating to the drug industry.
The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a
group that lobbies on behalf of drug companies, made an offer to
Tauzin to head the association once he retires. For those who
don’t know how lucrative such positions can be, let’s
just say I bet the job involves more money than the combined
student fees of everyone sitting in the College Library CLICC lab
right now.
Just months before this offer was made, Tauzin was busy writing
a prescription drug coverage bill that was seen as highly favorable
to large drug manufacturers. Now, the same companies that benefited
from Tauzin’s legislation want him to come work for their
trade association.
It makes one think there could be a conflict of interest there
““ did a hope of future employment with drug companies
influence Tauzin’s actions when drafting legislation? Such a
situation leaves tremendous potential for abuse, as a congressman
may write a bill favorable to his future benefactors rather than
one in the best interests of society as a whole.
Fortunately, as members of his own party had a rare burst of
conscience and raised questions, Tauzin stepped down from his
position as chair of the committee and announced he won’t be
seeking reelection. (I shed a tear upon hearing our nation is
losing such a valuable beacon of integrity.)
Fellow Louisianan Rep. J. Bennett Johnston and former House Ways
and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer are just a few of the
other congressmen who lobby on behalf of interests they worked on
in Congress.
Having detailed knowledge of the legislation that affects the
interest they lobby for, these men know ““ probably better
than almost anyone else ““ what the loopholes are in the
legislation they crafted. They also know how legislation can be
used to benefit the industry for which they lobby.
Even worse, for a politician who is retiring, there is little
incentive to really be concerned about what his or her own
constituents think when presented with a crisply folded stack of
American greenbacks.
Part of the problem is that the official rules governing this
type of behavior are too weak. The regulations for House members
seeking employment while in office merely state that House members
should not allow “the prospect of future employment” to
influence actions while in office.
However, such a stipulation is about as effective as a teacher
placing the answers to an exam right next to you, urging you not to
peek at the academic salvation within your grasp and then leaving
you alone with the exam while he or she leaves to get some coffee.
Would you even think of cheating? Of course not.
A similar situation exists with members of Congress. Members of
Congress who know they soon will be vacating office have every
reason to please a potential new employer without worrying too much
about a nebulous clause on “future employment.”
To correct this, the House must pass stricter, more specific
rules governing the pursuit of employment while in office. Any
member who wishes to pursue such opportunities should face life
imprisonment.
Actually, perhaps that is a little harsh. A severe fine and
public censure might actually do the job. (You know, hit the egos
and pocketbooks). Anyone troubled by Tauzin’s situation or
that of numerous other elected officials should actively encourage
Congress to pass such legislation.
For those who argue that House members need employment
immediately upon leaving office, perhaps elected officials should
learn to budget their expenses better ““ the same way the
masses of suffering common folk must tighten belts in tough times
and save for the future.
Until then, fax Congress as frequently as possible with a simple
message: Flush the toilet.
Bhaskar is a third-year political science student. E-mail
him at sbhaskar@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu