REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Outsourcing Ethics
Proposed: The Office of Congressional Buck-Passing.
Congressional mores could certainly use an upgrade, but it pays to beware of reformers promising to clean up politics by letting someone else do the dirty work. Exhibit A is the strange new enthusiasm for an "independent" office of public integrity for Congress.
One warning sign is that the proposal is being marketed by the same folks who gave us "independent counsels" such as Lawrence Walsh and Ken Starr for the executive branch, as well as the glories of "campaign finance reform." Instead of the current practice of having complaints against Members vetted by the House and Senate Ethics Committees, the idea is to create a new outside body to do the work for Congress. To her credit, Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi hasn't let the browbeating by the usual goo-goo editorial pages intimidate her, and has suggested a task force to study the idea.
A better name for such an "independent" ethics body would be the office of public buck-passing, because it would allow Congress to spare itself the heavy political lifting of judging colleagues. Handing over that duty to outsiders would make Congress less politically accountable, not more, while creating a whole new set of political problems and disputes.
Supporters argue that only an outsider can hold Congress accountable because the Members won't discipline their colleagues. And true enough, sometimes Members don't. We can recall that long before Tom DeLay tried to stack the House Ethics Committee in 2005, Democrats slow-rolled the investigation into then-Speaker Jim Wright in the early 1990s. The Senate also tried to protect its own amid the Keating Five scandal of the 1980s, until Democrat Henry Gonzalez blew the whistle by holding public hearings.
But all three episodes created the opportunity for political opponents to turn ethics into a fruitful campaign issue. In the most recent case, as many as 10 Republicans who lost their seats last month did so in part because of ethics or corruption complaints. Losing a Congressional majority is the ultimate accountability moment, and it was just administered by a genuine group of "independent" outsiders"--namely, the voters.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department is still around and doing its job of probing public corruption. Duke Cunningham is already in jail and Bob Ney seems headed there. Jack Abramoff is also sitting in a federal prison, doing penance for his bribery schemes. Several other Congressmen are under investigation, including Democrats William Jefferson (Louisiana) and Alan Mollohan (West Virginia). The voters just returned the latter duo to Washington, in part because the GOP was under greater public scrutiny this time around. But in the new Congress, Democrats will have to show if they can do better than the GOP at disciplining their own.
By outsourcing ethical oversight, the Democrats would let themselves off the hook. They'd also be creating the potential for politicizing ethics without accountability because it is a fantasy to believe that any outside investigator or panel will be without political baggage. That's what reformers also said about "independent counsels" in the executive branch. Anyone who takes the job will himself be subject to political and media pressure, and will inevitably be accused of partisan motives. He'd also be accountable to no one for his decisions, however wise or foolish they might be. At least the Members of the Ethics Committee are accountable first to their colleagues and ultimately to the voters.
Another reason Members find this kind of "independent" ethical dodge so attractive is because it deflects attention from their own bad habits. The source of much recent corruption in Congress has been the proliferation of spending "earmarks," or special favors for friends or political allies. Duke Cunningham went to jail for trading them for personal financial gain; others may follow. But reducing earmarks, or making them more transparent to the press and public, would reduce Member clout. It is so much easier to call for an "office of public integrity" and hope the press corps forgets all that earmarking stuff.
Like campaign finance reform, the proposal to outsource ethics oversight is about the appearance of virtue. It would let the Members pretend to come clean while lifting the burden of actually enforcing their own standards of conduct.
