The Ethics of the House
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published January 4, 2007, 12:56 pm in Ethics, Morality, & Justice, Voting & Partisanship.
In my house, I have certain rules. Although my oldest daughter is only two and she doesn't quite understand logic, specious or otherwise, I fear I will end up using phrases such as "As long as you live in this house, you will..."
It's not uncommon to have rules in one's house. I remember when I visited my wife (nee girlfriend), I wasn't allowed upstairs. That's where all of the bedrooms were (four sisters), and I had no place being up there, at least according to her parents. As long as I wanted to date this girl and visit her in her parents' house, I had to abide by their rules.
It's no coincidence that it is called the "House" of Representatives. Congress has rules, and they can change those rules whenever they want. It's like my house. If I decide something is okay, I can change the rules because, well, it's my house. So if lawmakers decide that something is or is not acceptable, they can change the rules however they want. They make the laws, after all. And as long as the Supreme Court says they don't violate the Constitution, there's not much we, the voters, can do about it, except not vote for those slimy politicians next time around.
Ethics in the House is all the rage these days. The Democrats partially ran on a platform of reformation in light of all of the scandals of 2006, and their campaign promise to run the most ethical House in years is about to be addressed. Whether their reforms go far enough may be another story, but at least they're leaning toward more disclosure.
Let's get some things straight here, though. General members of the House of Representatives (not including the leaders of both the majority and minority parties) make $165,200. That's a decent salary, but I know quite a few people who make more than that doing jobs that are much easier. So these Representatives must get some other income from their representativeness or they do it because they love it. Let's hope they do it because they love it, and it's not really all about the Benjamins, but there has to be some financial incentive there, as well.
We all know that certain things are wrong, such as accepting money or other cushy things to vote a certain way or push for a specific agenda. That's wrong no matter which way you slice it, and it's the definition of corruption. When the FBI has someone on tape soliciting a bribe and then finds $90,000 in that person's freezer, only a jury is needed to determine guilt. That kind of action should not and is not (in general) allowed, except when the member is highly influential like those discussed here.
But isn't that what lobbyists do? They send lawmakers on expensive vacations to vote their way, right? Is that really any different from accepting a bribe? Maybe.
Consider two real-life situations. Several of my family members are MDs, and they tell me that representatives for drug companies invite them out to eat all the time. Why? Because they want to convince them to start prescribing their drugs. Another friend is a sales representative for a company that makes expensive medical equipment. His budget for wining and dining is probably more than I make in a year. Why? Because it's about name recognition. If people remember the product's name, due to factors such as its superior performance or perhaps even the fact that the steak it was discussed over was really good, then a sale can be made or a prescription can be written. It's all par for the course.
By the way, I don't mean to pick on the medical community; it's just an example that I happen to have some familiarity with. I'm sure it goes on in a lot of situations.
Is what sales representatives do in these instances ethical?
Or this example: a friend of mine is the CEO of a major corporation. He makes more in a year than I will make in my entire lifetime. If I happen to be a lawmaker or Representative in Congress, and I go out to eat with this friend, can I allow him to pay? Does that become unethical? Or what if my friend has tickets to some wonderful (expensive) opera that he can't use one night, so he offers them to me? Can I accept them without qualms? If I weren't a lawmaker, I certainly would.
But Congress doesn't allow such things. And I'm not sure whether it should. In fact, I think lawmakers are often held to standards that wouldn't apply to them if they weren't representatives. Maybe that's a good thing.
The changes the new Congress is going to implement are discussed in several recent articles in the Washington Post, and I don't need to go over all of them. What they do that's good is they ask for full disclosure, both in terms of gifts as well as earmarks.
So any Congressman who accepts travel from a private source must disclose the funding for that travel as well as provide the rationale for it.
Likewise, any earmark must be fully disclosed, not hidden away in bills. The recipient of the earmark must be named, and the Congressman sponsoring the earmark must be listed. No more guessing where the earmarks are, and no more wondering who is going to benefit. All of it must be specifically listed out in the open, open for discussion.
But remember what I discussed yesterday? Who is going to get the credit for these things? In large part, it will be the new Democratic Congress that was elected in response to the culture of corruption. But a small victory can go to George Bush himself. By speaking on these things the day before the new Congress convenes, his preemptive strike gave him a nice position. He's above it all, after all. Nevermind all of those gifts from Enron. Those were campaign contributions, and that's another story. One that needs to be addressed, too.
But if you're reading this, you probably want my take on the culture of corruption. Welll, here it is: evil is obvious, but the appearance of evil can be even worse. Campaign finace reform is not a separate issue, even though the House may like to think of it that way. Representatives should accept no gift more than $50 from any individual or organization that isn't family. That includes dinner, trips, Christmas gifts, money to be kept in the freezer, whatever. The cap already exists, believe it or not, but there are too many exceptions. When I say $50, I don't care what the amount is, but make it low enough to make it sticky yet high enough to allow leeway. And the gift in this case applies to campaigns, as well. PACs are tricky, sure, but they allow contributions that get around the main ethical issues. My view: put a lid on it and make it stick.
And that applies to industries as well as representatives. Call gifts what they are, whether in the gasoline industry, the medical industry, education, or our government. Such things are dangerous and all appearances of evil need to be curtailed.
That would be the rule in my house...
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...
Leave a comment