Congress
needs new office to maintain ethics
Katie Plourd
It does not surprise me the public approval rating of Congress has dropped below
the 30 percent mark. Aside from the partisan bickering and blatant finger pointing
we so often see in Congress, the recent decision to neglect to address an overwhelmingly
legitimate issue in the way our government proceeds proves why the public has
come to frown upon our legislature so adamantly.
Last week a committee in the U.S. Senate rejected a proposal to create the Office
of Public Integrity, an independent group that would investigate the ethical
conduct of lawmakers.
Sen. George V. Voinovich, R-Ohio, the chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee,
not only led the opposition, but reasoned there was no need for such an agency.
He contended, “The Office of Public Integrity is a solution in search of
a problem.”
What rock has Sen. Voinovich been living under for the past year? Countless colleagues
of his have been indicted or convicted of wrongdoings and were forced to resign
from their positions as lawmakers. Do the names Delay, Frist or Cunningham ring
a bell? Not to mention the countless lawmakers, and our own president, who returned
contributions made by Jack Abramoff after he pled guilty to conspiracy, fraud
and tax evasion. Search no further, Voinovich.
Instead, Congress’ solution to the misconduct recently brought into light,
which they say is just a case of a “few bad apples,” is to require
lobbyists to report in detail their activities and compile annual lists of campaign
donations and fundraising events.
The problem being avoided here is not the wrongdoing of lobbyists, but the ethical
decisions lawmakers must formulate. How U.S. representatives, whom citizens elect
to represent the community and make laws, are going to act is something in dire
need of regulation and oversight.
An independent panel to create such oversight is a more logical solution than
the current committees in both the House and Senate, which have the ability to
investigate members upon notification of the committee. The action, or lack thereof,
these committees take upon their colleagues has been rather halfhearted considering
neither the House nor Senate ethics committees took action against a representative
in over two years (Tom Delay was the last reprimanded representative in 2004).
Think about it. How likely are you to rat out a co-worker or colleague you consistently
work with? I’m sure many people know what it’s like to be in that
situation. You know someone is doing something wrong, but he or she is your confidant
or friend. What do you do?
This issue is nothing new. Every day citizens are faced with ethical dilemmas.
What is worse, outing your friend who is committing a crime, or maintaining that
relationship?
For Voinovich to deny such a problem exists at the level of some of the highest-ranking
officials in the country is ridiculous. For example, a mere two days after the
decision to knock this committee to its feet, the longest prison sentence ever
given to a member of the House (eight years and four months) was doled out to
former Rep. Cunningham, R-Rancho Santa Fe, who accepted $2.4 million in bribes
and evaded $1 million in taxes.
Ethics is a huge issue in government right now. To deny there are ethical problems
in the legislature is unreasonable. To strike down an effort to reduce the problem
makes our legislature look more dubious than the actions of Delay and Cunningham
lead the public to believe.
As the upcoming election draws near I would only hope the legislature gets its
act together or else its concerns will fall closer to searching for a new job,
rather than someone searching for ethical issues in congress.
Katie Plourd is a senior journalism major and the managing editor
of the Daily Forty-Niner.
|
