Scandal. Betrayal. Illicit secrets uncovered and juicy details
revealed. Oh, if only the drama taking place in Congress was as
inconsequential as the soap operas it mimics.
Unfortunately, the stories on the news do affect us. It is
hardly surprising that in the latest edition of the Daily
Bruin’s “Speaks Out” (Jan. 19) every student
reported feeling distrustful of Congress.
Although “Speaks Out” is hardly a scientific study,
the results do reveal that at least a portion of the public is
suspicious of our representatives’ actions.
The recent guilty plea of Jack Abramoff, a Congressional
lobbyist, to charges of fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe
public officials certainly does not inspire any faith in the
legislative system. Among his many offenses, one of the most lavish
was a golfing trip he took with Rep. Bob Ney ““ to Scotland.
In exchange for the $100,000 experience, Ney introduced legislation
for at least one of Abramoff’s clients.
To receive a reduced sentence, Abramoff agreed to testify about
members of Congress and other officials involved in the crimes.
This sent a wave of panic through the GOP, as Abramoff’s
dealings appear to be mostly restricted to conservative
lawmakers.
The most notable impact of Abramoff’s guilty pleas on the
GOP was the withdrawal of Tom DeLay’s re-election bid for
House majority leader. Once subpoenas were issued to dig up
evidence of fundraising ties between DeLay and Abramoff, DeLay
realized his longtime charade of integrity was finally over.
The Republicans have a right to be nervous. Abramoff is the same
individual who happily e-mailed “Yawzah!” to a friend
after defrauding an American Indian tribe. He followed up that
comment with an e-mail declaring, “I’d love us to get
our mitts on that moolah!”
This is not good PR for the Republican Party, if for no other
reason than Abramoff’s embarrassingly outdated slang.
The Bush administration has refused to release photos of the
president with Abramoff, and is even claiming Bush does not
remember meeting him. Ouch.
Even his casual acquaintances are abandoning the poor guy.
Abramoff’s rampant corruption was allowed to occur in the
first place because the House Ethics Committee, which regulates
what is considered ethical behavior for its members, is run by the
House members themselves.
Much like President Bush declaring that he’s the only
person who needs to approve his own spying policies, the
House’s assertion that the corrupt can regulate themselves is
quite comical.
I am not implying that the committee did not make an effort.
Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.) and his committee members voted twice to
“admonish” DeLay in 2004 for violating ethical
codes.
Sensing the beginnings of reform like a shark catching a whiff
of blood in the water, House Speaker Dennis Hastert promptly
removed the three committee members from their posts.
“As far as I’m concerned, there is no House Ethics
Committee,” said Tom Fitton, the president of government
watchdog group Judicial Watch, in the Tacoma (Wash.) News Tribune.
According to Fitton, “It hasn’t been operational in a
year.”
If only people like Fitton understood that for Congress members,
actually doing the jobs appointed to them might have terrible
consequences. Our legislative process might become trustworthy or
““ even worse ““ effective.
Conservatives have been trying to cover this fresh political
wound with Band-Aids ““ attempts to enact more strict
regulations.
In an effort to cover his tracks, Hastert himself made a few
suggestions about new limitations on the interaction between
Congress members and lobbyists.
But if the Democrats succeed in proposing better rules and
assert their positions as the white knights rescuing the nation
from the evildoings of the villainous GOP, they could possibly win
back the House and Senate.
They have a few kinks to work out in their strategy, though.
Not that such an action would produce any results, but at least
it would make for some good publicity. Unfortunately for both
parties, the efficacy of laying down a whole mess of new rules when
no one seems to be obeying the first set is somewhat
questionable.
One possible solution is to establish a commission, independent
of the House, to regulate ethics and investigate violations.
As Dennis Thompson, a professor of government at Harvard
University, explained, “Whether any new rules will be
effective depends on whether they will be enforced.”
So who should keep tabs on the House? Maybe the Senate. Maybe
the FBI. Perhaps a class of preschoolers could spare some time.
At this point, any outside regulation would improve the desolate
view the American people have of those who are supposed to be
defending and protecting their liberties, not violating them.
If you can spare a preschooler or two, e-mail Strickland at
kstrickland@media.ucla.edu.
Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.