Believe it or not, leadership of both parties was able to find people willing to sit on the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE). Although we would have preferred that fewer than half the nominees be former members, this is another step toward finally having an independent body involved in investigating ethics complaints in the House. Hopefully, the appointees can make the OCE into an effective investigative body free from partisanship.
Ethics complaints in Congress were at one time used as political weapons. Then we had the ethics truce. The idea behind the OCE is that it will finally allow ethics complaints to be taken seriously by individuals who aren't in some way connected with the accused. At the time of its passage, Common Cause noted that the success of the new office depended entirely on the appointment of individuals who would aspire to being as non-partisan and objective as possible. Hopefully, these distinguished nominees will fulfill that goal in their service on the OCE.
Unfortunately, the Senate chose not to create a similar body in that chamber, even though the Senate Ethics Committee has hardly been any better at investigating possible misconduct of its members. As we have said before, unethical behavior does not have to rise to the level of illegal behavior. Nevertheless, Senator Ted Stevens has been indicted on seven criminal counts of possible corruption in a case that has been in the news for some time. Yet, the Senate Ethics Committee hasn't weighed in on any of that. Hopefully the OCE will be a more proactive than the Ethics Committees in the House and Senate have been so that it doesn't take a criminal indictment to get its attention.
Passing Ethics Where it Counts - Connecticut Steps Up to the Plate
ByKim Hynes Posted on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:17:59 AM EST
Imagine getting a note from your bosses' go to guy requesting a donation - to a favorite charity, to the bosses' bonus fund, to his or her kid's school. The note said, "You'd better pony up for this!" What would you do? Well, in all likelihood, you would whip out your checkbook and start writing. In this economic climate especially, no one wants to put their job in jeopardy.
But how would it make you feel? Somewhat used, I imagine. Perhaps resentful. What if your boss was an elected official, and the chief of staff was hitting you up for a contribution to the bosses' campaign fund? You can't say no and expect to get a good job review ever again, and your boss gets a guaranteed flow of funds into his or her campaign coffers. Oh well, that's the way the game is played, right?
This past week's news includes another cause for celebration: Minnesota is now the 38th state with a Common Cause chapter.
Politicizing NASA
Josh Zaharoff posted on June 2 the results of an investigation by the NASA inspector general's office. The inspector general found that political appointees in the space agency's public affairs office worked to control and distort public accounts of its researchers' findings about climate change for at least two years.
From the fall of 2004 through 2006, the report said, NASA's public affairs office "managed the topic of climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public." It noted elsewhere that "news releases in the areas of climate change suffered from inaccuracy, factual insufficiency, and scientific dilution."
Josh points out that "the reason we have career staff at government agencies is to handle such issues without political interference -- the exact opposite of what's happening now, as this story shows."
ByJosh Zaharoff Posted on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:23:21 AM EST
We'll be talking more about the big win soon, but a couple quick notes on the remarkable passage of an independent Office of Congressional Ethics last night in the U.S. House.
First, the widespread editorial support was critical. We kept a growing list of the papers that penned the reasons that Congress needs independent enforcement of its ethics rules, although I suspect we missed a few. But getting USA Today, the New York Times, LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Boston Globe, Philadelphia Inquirer, Roll Call and others in the span of just over a week -- that's not easy. And it's critical because we needed to create an environment in which Congress could not ignore the proposal without repercussions.
Second, the Speaker deserves whatever credit she gets for this and probably more. If Nancy Pelosi hadn't initiated the ethics task force, decided that her caucus had to implement its suggestion of an independent enforcement body, and most importantly twisted arms of her fellow Democrats, this wouldn't have happened. Plenty of members of the Democratic and Republican caucuses wavered on this and hoped it would go away. Pelosi wouldn't let that happen, and neither would we. And thank goodness it didn't.
Third, as much as I liked our Roll Call ad and suggestive YouTube video (below), I'm relieved that major league baseball will NOT have to investigate Congress. As great a player and personality as David Ortiz is, I'm not sure how well Big Papi would adapt to being an enforcement officer, plus the Red Sox need his bat in the lineup.
And fourth, let's not be under any illusions: we'll still need to be vigilant as watchdogs and to make sure that the proposal is enacted and the office functions properly. The mission doesn't end, but this is a big boost and a landmark victory. Thanks to those who helped make it happen.
Voters have made their dissatisfaction with the status quo clear by giving Democrats a working majority. The new House leaders must act swiftly to win approval for the task force recommendation and demonstrate that they are committed to ethics reform rather than business as usual.
What we said: “There is no reason to trust Congress' ability to police itself. An independent watchdog commission should be established as a complement to any reforms. History has shown, beyond a doubt, that power corrupts without regard to whether someone has an R or a D after his or her name.
I haven't seen or heard of anything from prominent TV pundits like Keith Olbermann (yet) on this, and I also haven't seen anything from prominent bloggers. Hopefully they'll jump on board for this final push -- if you know we've missed something, drop it in the comments.
...
Just trying to keep up with all the editorial support for an ethical Congress with independent oversight....
When Congress judges itself, ethics fall by the wayside
Anyone who's been called for jury duty knows that one of the first questions a judge asks prospective jurors is: Do you know the defendant? A "yes" answer is almost always disqualifying, which makes perfect sense.
After all, how can people objectively sit in judgment of someone they know? Even if they could, the public would rightfully question the verdict.
Somehow, though, Congress has never been able to grasp that common-sense concept.
Members should face up to a vote that tests their mettle -- and most recent campaign promises -- as upholders of ethical reform for the peoples' House. We suggest lawmakers fight their anxiety by quietly repeating the name Jack Abramoff, Jack Abramoff -- the imprisoned superlobbyist who corrupted House members -- as a prevote mantra.
And AlterNet ran my piece today on the strange contradiction of Congress hectoring Major League Baseball about the league's lack of independent oversight when Congress itself has a lack of... you know.
Common Blog
