Corruption in the lower House is nothing new, but must extreme measures be taken to prevent it?
By Micah Hanks
It had been one of the most-used selling points for Democrats in 2006: end the corruption in the House. “Drain the swamp” had become a commonly-used catch phrase, attributed to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her vows to reduce corruption among her party’s political adversaries. It would be wrong to say the corruption didn’t exist then, at a time when Congressman Tom Delay was being questioned over his associations with the scandal pertaining to Jack Abramoff. Similarly, it would be hypocritical to argue that history hasn’t dealt an ironic blow to the Democrats: the stagnant waters are still rising within Pelosi’s own party, and they now threaten to soak her stockings as two counts of ethics violations are causing problems among the Democratic majority in Congress.
The widely-publicized scandals pertaining to Congressmen Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters, both facing charges involving violations of house rules and other unethical activity, have emerged just in time to land a sweeping play for the opposition prior to this November’s election. As these scandals emerge, we’re reminded of other past corruption that has occurred in the lower House, which at times has almost been encouraged thanks to provisions which protect Congressmen from arrest under most circumstances. For instance, in events that precipitated the closing of the House Bank, in 1992 the “Rubbergate” House banking scandal revealed that more than 8,000 bad checks had been written by House members, followed by another 4,325 that bounced after the problems were allegedly already being addressed. The House bank, essentially a clearing house, had granted a degree of leniency to Congressmen, who were overdrawing their House checking accounts. The scandal that ensued resulted in 77 representatives either resigning or failing to be reelected the following November election. None were arrested, although the House Sergeant-at-Arms was sentenced to twenty-four months in the aftermath.
Some argue that instating term-limits might help address the problems we face when elected officials aren’t performing reliably and ethically. This, of course, presents a situation that causes problems of its own: when the bad are removed as a measure of law, the best we have to offer suffer the same penalties, and the wisdom and experience provided by some of our most-trusted and best-loved members of Congress is removed from political influence in the House. Rather than to focus on ways to limit access to corruption (which in politics will almost occur inevitably), it would make more sense to hit the problem where it lies, and address the behavior that elicits concern when it happens; additionally, there shouldn’t be special exemptions that protect individuals in political office, hence giving them incentive to bend the rules even further.
As the saying goes, “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Absolutism applied to all, however, so as to weed out only the corruptible few, could be likened to tossing out the baby with the bath water. Those who become walking examples of a philosophy of corruption should be dealt with accordingly, but spare those who have served this country rightly with justice, honor, and dignity. It is their influence in positions of power that we, the people, need most.
