CBSNews.com:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised four years ago that Democrats would lead "the most honest, most open, most ethical Congress in history."
But as her party defends its record with its majority in jeopardy, two prominent Democrats await ethics trials. Two other party members gave Congressional Black Caucus Foundation scholarships to relatives. Most importantly, lobbyists, corporations and special interests still have unimpeded ways to buy access to members of Congress.
Take House Majority Whip James Clyburn's annual charity golf tournament, which provides college scholarships for needy students in his South Carolina district and funds the endowment he established at South Carolina State University.
It sounds like a worthy cause, but it's a stretch to believe that national companies which sponsored the event randomly chose students in the 6th District of South Carolina as a priority for charitable giving.
"It really doesn't matter what the money is used for," says Fred Wertheimer, who heads the Congress-watching private group Democracy 21. "If you're asked to provide a large amount of money for something that is important to a member, you are doing a financial favor for the member. That benefit buys influence."
Wertheimer credits Pelosi with going far beyond previous speakers, saying she changed what Democrats once called a "culture of corruption" under Republican rule.
Yet, her reforms didn't touch access-buying opportunities like campaign fundraisers, corporate-sponsored events for informal lawmaker organizations, or sports tournaments held by members' charities.
Posts
Grey Ghost,
ReplyDeleteYou hit the nail on the head. There are two themes. One, the fox is guarding the hen house when any party much less comrades-at-arms are holding each other accountable for ethical concerns. Saying that is almost ironic when I say it in context of Congress, but really, I'm not trying to be funny, It is just plain painful that we think those bought by special interest and access will hold their friends accountable. Secondly I think this is an issue beyond party but really an issue about elected officials in general. What is so hard about being a decent human being and living by various social contracts with them? You and I are pay our taxes (Rangel). We are faithful to our spouses (Clinton/Sanford/Edwards/Kennedy/should I continue?), and certainly we know that hiring prostitutes (Spitzer), and hitting on male staffers (Massa/Foley) is illegal and bad for your image, respectively. I don't get it. The only explanation I have is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Many of these people get used to having what they want when they want it. Someone telling them 'no' is an anathema to them b/c I believe many feel they are above the law/rules. Can't we elect better people than that?
-G.S.