House Considers Weakening Ethics Rules

[Sazar]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&ncid=703&e=2&u=/ap/20050101/ap_on_go_co/house_ethics

a continuation of the deLay factor in the house...

sort of a slap in the face of the "values" vote in a manner of speaking...

this is one law brought into being by the republicans which should be held intact...

Republican leaders are considering a change in House ethics rules that could make it harder to discipline lawmakers.

The proposal being circulated among House Republicans would end a general rule against any behavior that might bring "discredit" on the chamber, according to House Republican and Democratic leadership aides. House members would be held to a narrower standard of behavior in keeping with the law, the House's rules and its ethics guidelines.

Other proposed changes to the ethics committee's rules being circulated in a "Dear Colleague" letter from House Rules Chairman David Dreier, R-Calif., would let House members respond to any admonishment before a letter goes out from the committee, and would end an investigation if there is a tie vote.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., plans to bring the proposal before a meeting of all House Republicans next week "and see what they think," said Hastert spokesman John Feehery.

The broader ethics rule in question was used this year to admonish Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, though the committee said he did not break House rules.

Democrats and government watchdog groups denounced the proposed change.

"It would lower the standard of official conduct, and if that's the case, it would be the first time that it has been done since 1968, and it would be done on a completely partisan basis," said Jennifer Crider, spokeswoman for House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, on Friday.

Pelosi, D-Calif., also plans to huddle with Democrats next week to discuss a strategy for defeating the proposal.

"Members of the House should be kept to the highest ethical standard, not the lowest," Crider said. "Now, the code is higher than the law. This would say you've only violated the code of ethics if you've violated the law."

The committee has a long history, dating to the first recorded disciplinary action in 1798, when a Vermont lawmaker spat on a Connecticut colleague during a vote. Despite an apology letter, the committee nearly expelled the Vermonter, but fell two votes shy.

In the DeLay case, the committee said he had created the appearance of linking political donations to a legislative favor and improperly gained intervention of the Federal Aviation Administration (news - web sites) in a Texas political dispute. It also said DeLay had improperly offered support for the House candidacy of Michigan Republican Rep. Nick Smith (news, bio, voting record)'s son in return for the lawmaker's vote for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Smith voted against it.

After helping craft that admonishment, the committee's chairman, Rep. Joel Hefley (news, bio, voting record), R-Colo., may be replaced with another chairman by Hastert. Feehery said that is being considered because Hastert believes rules limit Hefley's tenure on the commission, not because of his leadership on the DeLay case.

Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a watchdog group, said the House Republican leaders' proposal "would fundamentally undermine and damage the House ethics rules, and would constitute the biggest backtracking we have ever seen on ethics standards in the House."

"If House Republican leaders are allowed to prevail, they will have gutted the single most important ethics standard in the House and turned House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's multiple ethics transgressions into acceptable conduct for all House members," Wertheimer said.


if delay indeed has nothing to worry about than why indeed bring this forth and consider proposing the change?

[Son Goku]

Bush already pardoned DeLay last Thanksgiving, so as they said the fat lady already sung. The case couldn't be brought up again in the legal system without it constituting "double jeopordy", something prohibited by the US Constitution, and court's can't over-turn presidential pardons.

From the impressions I was left with, I'm not convinced that this policy as is, was necessarily the best of ideas in our current political climate, though the Dems are now looking to adopt it.

It is true that government mis-conduct/corruption is a condition endemic in the realm of politics. But false accusations which could be leveled against another as a means to "bring a political opponent down" can be just as endemic. Though not related to Congress in the specific, not all the count's of impeachment against Richard Nixon dealt with Watergate. One of the counts dealt with his abuse of the IRS's tax auditing system to audit "political enemies" for purely political reasons that had nothing to do with them having not paid their taxes. J. Edgar Hoover, when he was the head of the FBI also had a reputation for keeping detailed dossiers on his political enemies and being somewhat frightful in his means of dealing with them.

In more recent times, Karl Rove has used his pet FBI agent "Greg Hampton" to investigate/harass opponents to his political candiate, buged his own office and had all the news papers blame it on the other side, and even got a man in jail under questionable circumstances for having "crossed Rove". He's also sought not only to destroy people's political careers, but continued going after them so they couldn't find work in the private sector also.

Though something needs to be done about political corruption, if political intrigue can be made more possible as a result, not necessarily a good thing. Official sanction can also be used to harass for purely personal reasons (AKA Nixon's abuse of the IRS tax auditing system), just as easily as for a legitamate response to actual wrong doing.

Some standard of evidence should be necessary (rather then the mere accusation being uttered), else such a proposal could itself be abused by those who see it as an effective means to deal with political enemies or opponents.