By: Cliff Smith
Anybody remember how Democrats took control of Congress less than four years ago? Yes, it had a lot to do with the pre-surge Iraq War, which we seemed to be losing. Yes, some of it had to do with the incompetence (either perceived or real) of the federal government’s response to Hurricane Katrina. Yes, part of it was just the natural swing after some good Republican cycles. But a big portion of it had something to do with the “culture of corruption” that Rep. Nancy Pelosi kept prattling on about following the 2004 elections.
What was the “culture of corruption”, exactly? Well, it’s a little hard to tell since it was a concept Pelosi never nailed down. Yes, there was the infamous lobbyist Jack Abramoff who unquestionably had some illegal and shady dealings. But while a number of Republican lawmakers accepted campaign donations from Abramoff, only Rep. Bob Ney was actually found guilty of wrongdoing. (Abramoff’s largest donee, Sen. Harry Reid, was among those absolved).
Then there was Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham’s admission to bribery and tax evasion. But there was no evidence that his scandal was anything more than a personal scandal. There was also Rep. Tom DeLay’s indictment, of which nothing has ever come to fruition – although it did chase him from Congress. And of course, right before the ’06 elections, Rep. Mark Foley was caught making dirty-old-man advances to young male pages.
These scandals underpinned Pelosi’s wide narrative of kickbacks, undue lobbyist influence and a general lack of accountability. “Democrats are leading the effort to turn the most closed, corrupt Congress in history into the most open and honest Congress in history,” Pelosi said in 2006. “The American people have been paying the cost for the Republican culture of corruption with a confusing, special-interest Medicare prescription drug program, higher gas prices at the pump, and skyrocketing home heating bills. Democrats will restore truth and trust to our government, and put the priorities of the American people first.”
Pelosi did not just single out a few corrupt members of the Republican Party. It was broader than that. She was attacking a Republican-led Congress vulnerable to kickbacks, special deals, and corruption. After winning back control of Congress in the ’06 elections, Pelosi reiterated, “The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history!”
So, how’d that turn out? In terms of individual members, the Democrats wasted no time finding their own troubles. In fact, while Pelosi was condemning Tom DeLay, Democrat Rep. William Jefferson was trying to explain to the feds why he had a freezer full of cash. Jefferson, defeated (barely) in his ’08 reelection race, was eventually convicted of accepting bribes.
Also shortly after the ’08 election, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was caught trying to sell President Obama’s vacated senate seat. Roland Burris, eventually appointed to the seat, proved to be less than forthcoming on just how he got the appointment and the nature of the communications between himself and the Governor.
Recently, this corruption problem has really come to a head for Democrats. Rep. Charles Rangel, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and a fixture in the House since the early 70’s, was formally found in violation of ethics rules after failing to report corporate sponsored junkets to the Caribbean and for failing to pay taxes on some apartments he owns. There’s also the PMA lobbying scandal involving a defense contractor and the late Rep. John Murtha and Rep. Alan Mollohan (and possibly Republican Jerry Lewis).
Even worse for the Democrats, Freshman Rep. Eric Massa, who barely won his seat in ’08 in a strong Republican district, is already resigning from Congress. At first, Massa said it was because of his health. But he later admitted his resignation is because the Ethics Committee had been investigating charges that he sexually harassed a male aid. This district now becomes heavily favored to swing back Republican.
Individually, it might be true that these scandals are not as bad as the Republican scandals – as some Democrats have argued. Indeed, Massa, unlike Foley, apparently kept his sexual adventures aimed at adults instead of teenagers. Rangel left his position as Chairman while Republicans changed the rules temporarily to let Tom DeLay stay on as House Majority Leader. Similarly, William Jefferson was stripped of his committee assignments and is now facing jail. (Of course, actions against Jefferson were taken after the Republicans had paid for their sins with the loss of their majority).
But what about the overall picture, the “culture of corruption” that leads to confusing Medicare drug benefits and skyrocketing home heating bills and gas prices? What about the corrupt earmarks to political allies?
The Democrats passed a $787 billion stimulus bill that was largely nothing more than earmarks to Democrat constituents and didn’t seem to create many, if any, jobs. We had the Omnibus Spending bill, which was exactly the kind of logrolling bill that Pelosi denounced. Most egregious, the Democrats have crafted a health care bill with the so-called “Louisiana Purchase” that includes tons of special money to buy Sen. Mary Landrieu’s vote and the so-called “Cornhusker Kickback” that exempts Nebraskans from having to pay their fair share.
What will be the electoral consequences of this boomeranging “culture of corruption”? Well, Rep. Massa’s seat will very likely wind up falling to Republicans, but that’s purely because of the district and the limited nature of the scandal. Beyond that, it’s difficult to say.
On one hand, the personal issues and the “culture” appear on the surface very similar to the issues that brought down Republicans. On the other hand, Republicans had control of Congress for twelve years. The public still remembers the Republican scandals. “Why throw the Democrats out when we’ll just get Republican corruption and kickbacks and shady deals again,” some might say. Indeed, the “pox on both your houses” attitude that seems popular today is in part a reaction to this reality.
Yet again, Pelosi’s broken promise to deliver the most honest, open and ethical Congress is certain to have some effect in November. We’ll have to wait to see how much of one.
A Seattle, Washington native, Cliff Smith worked for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Senate Committee on Finance. He also worked on numerous campaigns in his home state. Cliff holds a law degree from Catholic University, a Master's in Public Policy from Pepperdine and a BA from Washington State. 
Cliff,
Interesting article as always. You and I take different approaches, of course, but I can generally understand where you’re coming from. For instance, I think you downplay the difference between how Democrats have (generally) responded to allegations of ethics violations, and how Republicans behaved when in the majority. But if I wrote a column like this, I think your criticism would be that I made too much of relatively minor differences. And you might well be correct.
Anyway, I’m curious about your characterization of the stimulus as a massive porkbarrel handout that “didn’t seem to create many, if any, jobs”. “Seem” may be critical here — do you mean that the stimulus’s effect on the economy, which was real and significant, didn’t “seem” that way to people because of how the media talked about it? If so, then we’re agreed but I think your phrasing’s hard to follow. But if you really feel that the stimulus did little to help the economy, how do you take that position when economists of every stripe (including the folks at the American Enterprise Institute, who are never quick to defend liberal spending in my experience) agree that it had a meaningful effect?
And I’m wondering — if Democrats do use reconciliation to remove the ugly payoffs to Louisiana and Nebraska, would you agree that they’re doing something meaningful to try and turn the ship, ethics-wise? What kind of behavior would you consider acceptable to meet a standard of “ethical”? (I’ll warn you up-front, given that your guys are likely to get a majority back soon, I’d like to see a definition that will be upheld by the Republican majority once they’re in power again.)
Lastly, I have to say, I think Jefferson’s old news — I think you’re right that Massa, Rangel, and the rest will play a role this year (at least in regional ways, if not nationwide), but I’m not sure anyone is still talking about Jefferson. And you have to admit, whether or not Pelosi moved fast enough, the Democrats did strip him of his seat on Ways and Means before the 2006 election, and refused to give it back once they were in the majority. The voters of his district were foolish enough to re-elect him in 2006….I’m not sure I want the House to reject their will by casting him into the outer darkness (would you?). And if we agree that the House shouldn’t kick out a member who just seems to be corrupt (assumed innocent until proven guilty, however hard it is to assume), I don’t know what else you feel Pelosi failed to do that warrants an attack on her ethical rectitude. Maybe there’s a lot more she can do — you know Congress and the powers of the Speaker better than I do.
Anyway, thanks as always for making me think!
James
Re: the stimulus – You’d have to show me where people at AEI said it created any meaningful amount of jobs. I mean, it had an “impact” certainly, but that doesn’t mean it created jobs or even that it helped the economy. I know that I’ve done enough looking into the effects of the stimulus while I was working for the Finance Committee that any numbers the WH throws up are totally bogus. The system as it stands of how you report jobs created/saved is the definition of a faith based system. It basically asks the recipients of grants to self-report how many jobs it saved/created and to trust their numbers to be accurate. There is zero accountability in the system and zero ways to check the accuracy of the numbers. And that’s assuming that there is no “crowd out” effect, as economists have feared dealing with Govt. spending for decades. Even Keynes feared this if government spending exceeded certain % of GDP, and we’ve long since passed that point.
And even this applies only to Government grant money. It doesn’t count aid to state and local governments to merely keep operating as usual, which essentially aren’t creating jobs or wealth by definition. This is particularly true of states like California which are near systematic collapse because of structural governmental and political spending problems. It just staves off the inevitable at a high cost.
In any event, best case scenario, , I think the stimulus probably “created” a few temporary jobs with an outrageous price tag. And the long term effect is to saddle the future generations with more debt then they should have to handle, as well as the likelihood of inflation in the not-so-distant future.
In regards to the ethics issues, I wasn’t really passing judgment on which ethics violations were “worse” or anything of that nature. I think things of that nature are very difficult to parse short of egregious differences.
Insofar as procedure and such goes, do I think that special interest sometimes trumps good legislation? Obviously. Do I think that procedures in Congress, closed rules and the like, and abusive uses of power by Congressional leadership make this easier? Yes. Do I think it’s gotten worse in recent decades? Maybe. In any event, it hasn’t gotten any better since the ’06 elections. They haven’t even given the pretense of trying.
To answer one direct question, no, I don’t think removing the Cornhusker Kickback or the Louisiana Purchase would show any meaningful action on the part of the D’s. These are the sorts of provisions that usually go unnoticed but are outrageously unpopular because they are so blatant and because the bill its self is unpopular. Removing them now and trying to take credit for it is like a bugler getting caught in the act and then trying to take credit for sweeping up the broken glass from the window he came in.
I do give the Democrats some credit for policing their own members better then Republicans, at least a little bit better. But even this seems to me to be purely driven by politics. Jefferson was removed from his committee assignments only six days after DeLay resigned from Congress. Jefferson was screwing up their narrative, particularly after the DeLay resignation. And Jefferson had taken bribes for personal gain. DeLay had supposedly broken obscure and arcane campaign finance laws in order to help other candidates. One is quite a bit more egregious in my opinion. Similarly, they removed Rangel from his chairmanship only first after vowing to protect him and well after they had seen what happened to Republicans when they backed up their senior members at all cost.
It’s not to say that politics doesn’t drive a lot of such considerations, only that similar to Republican rule, these decisions are being driven by politics, not accountability and good government, and thus they are likely to last for as long as they are politically expedient. This might not be all that unusual or horrifying, but it isn’t the kind of thing that the D’s ran on in ’06.
I think the biggest difficulty for the D’s is that they didn’t run against specific corruption allegations or specific fixes to the system they wanted. In fact, they didn’t even really pretend to want to change the process. Instead, they ran on some sort of nebulous “culture of corruption” that included things like a “confusing” medicare bill. That’s something that gets flipped on you on a second, particularly when, at least on the surface, things look very similar. And I think it’ll hurt them.