Op-Ed: Congress Should Welcome Change to Ethics Process
Speaker
Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) ethics enforcement task force is charged with
looking at how state ethics commissions, boards and offices operate and
how private entities ensure ethical practices. In its review, the task
force will find that 23 states have established independent oversight
panels for lawmakers. The experience in the states demonstrates the
efficacy of such panels and should soften even the most ardent
opposition.
While varied in participants and procedures, state
ethics bodies have several common features; all have: outside panelists
who oversee a professional director and a staff of impartial
investigators; clear and mandatory conflict-of-interest guidelines;
defined terms for panelists; the power to receive complaints from the
general public; and the authority to launch investigations without
legislative or outside approval. Two states provide guaranteed funding
to further insulate the process from partisanship.
But in
Congress, ethics committees are made up of colleagues who know and work
with one another and who rely on each other’s support to move bills or
raise campaign money, creating both the appearance and reality of a
conflict. The vast majority of Members are honorable and honest, but
the system does not include even the most rudimentary aspects of an
impartial process. Conflict-of-interest rules are advisory only. Panel
members have no guaranteed terms and have been removed for taking
actions that met with disapproval from their colleagues. Complaints in
the House can be filed only by Members, limiting the ability of outside
and more impartial observers to have their concerns reviewed.
The
current system is not only flawed, it lacks credibility with the
public. This winter, a post-election poll found that fewer than one in
six Americans gives Congress high marks for honesty and ethical
standards. Eighty-four percent support independent oversight for
Congress.
Skeptics of independent enforcement might consider
that the creation of an impartial panel better protects Members against
frivolous complaints. While not formally recognized by the House,
individuals and outside groups routinely send complaints to both ethics
committees. Because of absolute secrecy and in the absence of formal
action, these complaints hang over the heads of sitting Members.
Compare
that with state commissions that have clear timetables for action,
including reaching decisions in cases of frivolous complaints. Some
states allow for sanctions against individuals who file such
complaints. In West Virginia, no complaints are accepted or acted on
within 60 days of an election. These measures protect against smear
campaigns aimed at incumbents and provide necessary information to
voters.
Several Members have argued that the resolution of
last year’s scandals, which led to the conviction of two Congressmen
and top aides, is evidence that ethics enforcement in Congress works.
The actual facts leading up to the convictions, however, are more an
indictment of the current process than a testament to its success. A
whistle-blower who took his case to the media and the Department of
Justice — not to the ethics committees — uncovered the dealings of
former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Neither ethics committee is
allowed to publicly state whether it looked into the matter or
considered if other Members broke any rules, regardless of whether
outside laws were broken. The secrecy of the process encourages public
distrust and seeds doubt that Members take these scandals seriously.
The
best state oversight panels allow for reasonable disclosure of actions
taken. Several states report on each complaint filed and whether it was
dismissed or referred for further action. Investigations largely are
done under rules similar to those that surround grand jury proceedings.
The results of the investigations are then made public.
The
two proposals to reform the enforcement process that have been
introduced in Congress offer differing but workable and state-tested
models for ensuring the rules are enforced fairly and with integrity.
The Speaker’s task force and all Members should follow the lead of
almost half of the states and embrace the idea of independent ethics
enforcement.
Gary Kalman is the U.S. Democracy Advocate for Florida PIRG.
