House Republicans Do / Don't / Do / Don't Value Ethics Rules

In a series of smoke-and-mirror moves designed to, at the very least, leave the public confused, the House Republicans have taken a stand on the House ethics rules: they don't care for them. This one's a bit hard to follow for me, so I'll outline it here before commenting.

Do - Eleven years ago, to dramatize their own higher standards (in comparison with the Democrats who had controlled the House for quite some time and were having some ethics problems themselves), the GOP set a standard for themselves that required House Republican leaders and the heads of the various committees to relinquish their positions if indicted for a crime that could bring a prison term of at least two years. This was a bit of political grandstanding, but it was also a good way to demonstrate their commitment to higher standards.

Don't - Current Republican House Leader Tom DeLay is facing an investigation in Texas that may lead to an indictment (and if he is indicted, the above rule would require him to relinquish his position). So after the November 2004 elections, as a gift to their leader and as a sign of how pleased they were with themselves, House Republicans voted to do away with that rule. But there was a bit of public outcry about this, mostly by the Democrats, so...

Do - The public outcry threatened to become a distraction from the agressive agenda the GOP hopes to accomplish, so yesterday they announced that they were reversing course and changing back to the original rule, apparently leaving DeLay vunerable should he be indicted in the Texas investigation. In fact, they did this with a bit of self-congratulatory fanfare, with Representative Zach Wamp (R- Tenn), saying "I feel like we have just taken a shower."

Don't - Today we learn that a clever little bait-and-switch has occurred:

House Republicans pushed through a significant change in the handling of ethics complaints over strong Democratic objections Tuesday as the 109th Congress convened with a burst of pomp and partisanship.

The House, on a vote of 220 to 195, enacted a change that would effectively dismiss a complaint in the event of a deadlock in the ethics committee, which is equally divided between Democrats and Republicans. Its approval came after a retreat by Republicans on Monday on other proposed ethics revisions.

At the heart of both actions were calculations about how far Republicans should go to protect the House majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay. Many party members were unhappy with the ethics committee for the three admonishments it delivered to Mr. DeLay last year.

This change, while touted as a way to keep politics out of ethics violation charges, actually does the exact opposite. It ensures that the already wobbly House Rules Committee has no tools to overcome partisan politics in doing its job.

Under the system instituted in 1997, if no action is taken on a complaint within 45 days, a preliminary investigation is started. The new approach would require an affirmative vote by the panel to begin an investigation, meaning at least one committee member belonging to the same party as the lawmaker at the center of the complaint would have to join in backing an inquiry or the complaint would die.

"If these changes had been in place in the last Congress, no ethics complaints would have seen the light of day," said Representative Louise M. Slaughter of New York, senior Democrat on the Rules Committee.

And that's clearly the idea. Again, in the last Congress, Tom DeLay was admonished three times by the ethics committee. This is remarkable, given that he controls the House GOP and they control the House, and suggests that the rules need to be strengthened, not weakened. The reason he was admonished in his own House has something to do with Joel Hefley, the current Chairman of the Committee, but the GOP's taking care of him too:

Speaker Dennis Hastert is also reported to be intent on purging the current chairman, Joel Hefley, a Colorado Republican who shocked his party by suddenly taking the job seriously. Mr. Hefley dared to sign off on the three admonishments of Mr. DeLay for cutting ethical corners by buttering up lobbyists, arm-twisting for floor votes and siccing federal agents on the Democrats who fled his gerrymandering intrusion into the Texas Statehouse.

The irony in all this is that yesterday's move was designed to wipe the ehtics question off the table and let the Republicans get to work changing the nation. But if The New York Times editorial today is any indication, this issue is only going to get more attention:

[T]he Republicans' belated realization that they needed to put limits on Mr. DeLay's demands for ethical sanctuary would have seemed more sincere if they'd done without the sleight of hand that makes a greater mockery of the ethics process.

Eleven years ago the Republicans created some tough guidelines for themselves designed to demonstrate that they adhered to higher standards. Now that they are in power, those standards apparently are not so important. If I were a Republican, I'd be a bit more than a little disappointed.

Comments

[cleek]

If I were a Republican, I'd be a bit more than a little disappointed.

nah. odds are, if you were a Republican, you'd think this was necessary to protect a fine upstanding member of Congress from the petty sniping of the demonRATs.

DeLay doesn't continue hold power because of the power of some magic ring he found one day in a crawlspace somewhere; he continues to hold power because Republicans allow him to.

[kenB]

Darn, they had me fooled -- I thought they had genuinely realized that protecting DeLay was going to be more costly than it was worth.

cleek, I'd suggest you ease up on those blanket accusations, unless you can point to a poll that backs it up. Most Republican voters have no say in whether DeLay holds power in Congress, and I'd be very surprised to find that a majority of them support him even knowing about his ethical lapses.

[liberal japonicus]

kenB,
I think in the context of Edward's post, it's obvious (at least to me) that in this case, Republicans mean Republican leadership.

[Slartibartfast]

Yes, do ease up on the mind-reading, cleek. Your telepathic skills are nearly as bad as mine are.

[Slartibartfast]

in this case, Republicans mean Republican leadership.

Cool. Guess this means I can whang away on Democrats, seeing as it's that unambiguous.

[Edward]

I mean that those who voted DeLay and his Republican colleagues into office, believing they adhered to a higher standard, are surely to be disappointed.

[Slartibartfast]

Those remarks were directed at cleek, Edward. Your comments were unambiguous.

And yes, I am disappointed.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

What is so good about DeLay that Republicans would care about protecting him. Much like protecting Trent Lott, I don't see what is so good about him that would even suggest tarring yourself with scandal. I at least understood why Democrats wanted to protect Clinton at all costs--he was one of the most dramatically successful Democrats in decades. What is so 'good' about DeLay?

[Slartibartfast]

My comments were directed at cleek, Edward. I believe you were pretty clear about who you were talking about.

[CaseyL]

"What's so good about DeLay" is his fundraising and enforcement tactics.

I remember, back in 1997 or thereabouts, when DeLay walked down the aisles of the House, while Congress was in session, handing out campaign contributions from tobacco companies. (I think this was shortly before a vote important to the tobacco industry, possibly having to do with FDA oversight of tobacco. Or mayne it was about the multi-billion dollar lawsuit.)

DeLay's playing Santa Claus got some wee attention at the time, not only for the brazenness of the payouts, but also for DeLay's positioning himself as the person who decides who gets the money. He has only solidified his status as the Money Man since then.

DeLay is also adept at using intimidation to threaten wayward House members. I'm not precisely sure what he uses to intimidate House members, whether it's mundane stuff like office space assignments and committee chairmanships, or truly horrifying stuff like blackmail. I suspect the latter: DeLay is the fellow who alluded to a secret room of evidence showing what a rotter Clinton was, and invited select Republicans to go have a gander.

DeLay is also a tactical innovator: he's the one who drew up the Texas redistricting plan, and then sent federal marshals out to round up Democratic legislators to drag 'em back for the vote on the redistricting.

He's not called The Hammer because he runs around dressed up like Thor, y'know?

Anyway, DeLay is too power a GOP leader, and too useful to the GOP generally, for the Party to let something trivial like ethics deprive them of his talents.

[eb]

Sebastian asks What is so good about DeLay that Republicans would care about protecting him?

His power. Delay and his PAC have given money to almost every Republican member, just for starters. His history of punishing those who cross him (where did you think his nickname "The Hammer" came from? He is an intimate, ideological member of the little circle around Bush and Rove at the top of the Republican Party.

Are you really so naive, Sebastian?

[Anarch]

I at least understood why Democrats wanted to protect Clinton at all costs...

Uh, no we/they didn't. Some costs, yes; all costs, not even close. Had Clinton done any of the things that DeLay had done (or, to be frankly partisan about it, most of the things Bush has done), he'd've been run out of town on a rail and rightly so.

[st]

sebastian: What's so 'good' about DeLay?
Might have something to do with the fact that DeLay (and ARMPAC) has raised more money for more candidates than any other other Republican House member (including Hastert, his boss). DeLay's ARMPAC is not just an engine for his own campaign, but a significant donor to many house republicans' campaigns - including 4 out of 5 of the Republican members of the Ethics committee. Might have something to do with that.

Or maybe I'm just cynical, and these people are all genuinely concerned about the actions of rogue state prosecutors. Bleah.

[st]

Jeez, that was quite a feverish little lefty dogpile, all of us frantically typing away at once. Guess you just struck a nerve, Sebastian. Not surprising - DeLay is a cancer on American politics, and a major-league scumbag, and he's one of the most powerful, ascendent, and favored Republicans in the Party. He is, in short, one of the reasons I like conservatives so much more than I like Republicans. Conservatives can defend what they believe, even if I disagree with it. So much of modern Republicanism is just indefensible.

Not that you were defending DeLay at all, Sebastian - quite the opposite. But many, many in your party do.

[cleek]

cleek, I'd suggest you ease up on those blanket accusations, unless you can point to a poll that backs it up

if DeLay's actions were repugnant to even a large minority of Republican House members, he'd be out of power. yet he has the solid backing of his party, even in passing rules that shield him from punishment or even admonishment, and in punishing party members who speak unkindly of his actions. that's all the poll we need.

[Jadegold]

Cleek: 'S Okay. Our friends on the right just don't like being reminded how sausage is made.

I find it curious, though, how many conservatives on ObWi--who vote GOP--seem to distance themselves from so many issues (and personalities) representing the bedrock of today's GOP.

Makes one wonder..

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Makes one wonder.."

Show me a good party, and I'll vote for it.

[CaseyL]

I'm not at all sure I know what you consider to be a "good" party, considering what you consider to be a "good enough" party.

[kenB]

if DeLay's actions were repugnant to even a large minority of Republican House members, he'd be out of power.

Sure, but the text you quoted was referring to rank-and-file Republicans, not House members, thus your comments seemed to be directed at Republicans in general.

[cleek]

...thus your comments seemed to be directed at Republicans in general.

well, it was, because i believe people are responsible for the people they vote into office. but, you're right; many people don't know who DeLay is or what he does.

though i don't think that negates this: he continues to hold power because Republicans allow him to.

[Slartibartfast]

considering what you consider to be a "good enough" party.

Careful. This might lead you to what he considers to be a "not good enough" party.

though i don't think that negates this: he continues to hold power because Republicans allow him to.

Oh, I voted against him. Didn't count, though, because I don't live in Texas.

[sidereal]

Did you vote for someone that voted for him as Majority Leader?

[Eric Farnsworth]

Show me a good party, and I'll vote for it.

Well, if you ask me, that's a lot of the problem: voting for parties instead of candidates. The Dems are maybe going to figure that out one day. Or disappear.

[Slartibartfast]

Did you vote for someone that voted for him as Majority Leader?

I have no idea. Is the vote on record, anywhere?

[Ravi]

I think sidereal's question can be simplified: Did you vote for someone whose election would help ensure that DeLay would be *Majority* Leader?