The Myth of Congressional Ethics

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own
governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.
James Madison

Letter to W.T. Barry (1822-08-04), in Gaillard Hunt, ed., The Writings of James
Madison vol. 9 (1910), p. 103.
Congress is broken. There seems little doubt about that, what with the Congressional
approval rating hovering around 16 percent. As divided as our nation is on many issues, this is
something on which we all Democrat, Republican, or otherwise can agree. We all know
theyre doing a terrible job, but we seem to be at a loss to figure out what to do about it. We are
apathetic and discouraged, and, for the most part, rightly so, because we have no confidence that
anyone we would vote in to office to replace them would be any better. Ask yourself whether you
have any confidence that anyone you could vote into Congressional office would truly have your
best interests at heart. Im willing to bet the answer is a resounding no. I know mine is.
Im also willing to bet that, even as fed up and tired as you are of all the gridlock,
partisanship, and political grandstanding that passes for governing these days, you still believe
that your Congressional representatives are subject to at least a minimal ethical standard. For a
long time, I thought so too. Until I did some digging, that is, and Im here to tell you that
Congressional ethics are a myth a complete sham. Why? Its quite simple really: the inmates
are running the asylum.
In both the House of Representatives and the Senate ethical violations are handled by
their own internal committees. Thats right. Congress decides for itself whether its members have
committed any ethical violations and, if so, what to do about it. Whats worse, in many
situations, the information is completely confidential or, if it is made public, it isnt until long
after the violation occurred following a cumbersome and secretive investigation.
The Senate Select Committee on Ethics, chaired by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and
Johnny Isakson (R-GA), is charged with investigating and punishing ethics violations committed
by senators. When do you think the committee last acted on any ethical violation alleged against
any senator? This year? Last year? Try more than three years ago. Thats right, the last time the
committee publicly acted on an ethics violation was in May of 2012, when it issued letters of
qualified admonition whatever that means to Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and an aide for
former Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) regarding the Ensign scandal.
Even in those two cases, there was no sanction imposed, only an admonition, and a
qualified one at that. So lets get this straight. Sen. Ensign, among other things, has an affair,
which he then tries to cover up with the help of his good friend Sen. Coburn, who tries to broker
a bribery scheme with the adulteress and her husband, and the only punishment imposed on Sen.
Coburn is an admonition. In a nutshell, they said, You know, Sen. Coburn, bribery really isnt
consistent with the integrity we expect from senators. Please dont do it again. I wish this was
a joke, but whats worse is that theyre completely serious. Another job well done by the Senate
Ethics Committee; pats on the back all around everyone.

What happened with the other complaints investigated by the committee you might
ask? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The committee dismissed every other complaint submitted to
it in 2012 (44), 2013 (26), and 2014 (45). Apparently, not a single senator has committed a single
ethics violation in over three years. Im fairly certain that most , if not all of you, dont believe
that for a second.
As if this isnt bad enough, the committees investigations are completely confidential.
Theres no transparency whatsoever. The committee doesnt have to, and doesnt, tell us the
people Congress supposedly represents anything. We dont know what the allegations were,
what investigation was conducted, what the evidence was, or why the complaint was dismissed.
All we know is that an allegation, of some sort, was made. We dont even know against whom
the allegation was made. And, because Congress isnt subject to the Freedom of Information Act,
they dont have to tell us. Thats right neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, has any right to any
information regarding any of these investigations.
All we get are statistics released in a one-and-a-half page annual report telling us the
number of complaints received and other meaningless information about what was done with
those complaints for example, the number of complaints dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or
for which the staff conducted a preliminary review.
However, even the sparse information in those reports tells us something is gravely
amiss. Of the 45 complaints the committee received in 2014, it dismissed 27 for lack of
jurisdiction and 17 because they failed to provide sufficient facts as to any material violation of
the Senate rules beyond mere allegation or assertion. The staff conducted a preliminary
investigation into only two alleged violations, including one carried over from 2013. So, in
reality, they preliminarily investigated only one of the 45 complaints received in 2014. Of the
complaints the staff investigated, none were sent to the committee for adjudicatory review. In
fact, the committee has not conducted an adjudicatory review of any alleged violation since
before 2007, the last year for which a public report is available on the committees website. In
fact, of the 71 complaints received in 2013 and 2014, only one made it passed the staffs
preliminary review and was even reviewed by the committee itself, and that complaint was
dismissed for lack of substantial merit again, whatever that means.
The House of Representatives Committee on Ethics, while slightly more transparent, is
really no better. Ultimately, the result of their investigations are made public, but only after a
lengthy and cumbersome investigation, the end result of which is that, by the time the
investigation is completed, no one is paying attention anymore. Who cares if a representative is
publicly admonished three years after committing an ethical violation? By the time the
committee gets around to doing anything, the media and the public have moved on. And, guess
what? Thats what theyre counting on.
Understanding the process, like everything else in our government these days, is a bit
complicated, so bear with me. In 2008, in an apparent attempt to improve ethics, the House voted
to create the Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent board of members half appointed
by the House speaker and half by the minority leader is charged with investigating complaints
of ethical violations against members of the House. After receiving a complaint, the board

conducts a two-step review a preliminary review and, if necessary, a secondary review.

Following those reviews, the board decides whether to refer the matter to the committee. This is
where things get interesting.
After receiving a referral from the board, the ethics committee can do whatever it wants.
It can investigate or not investigate and is not bound in any way by any of the findings or
conclusions made by the board during its investigation. In short, the Office of Congressional
Ethics a very authoritative and weighty title that one would assume belongs to an important
and powerful agency is in fact an impotent board with no real power but to politely suggest that
the ethics committee conduct an investigation. Im certain that those who created the Office and
who sit on the board had and have their hearts in the right place, and I applaud their efforts, but
Im sure it will come as no surprise that, since the House voted for the Offices creation, it has no
real power or authority over them. If you think for one second that the House would vote to give
up control of its ethics policing to an independent outside group, youve been duped and youre
not alone.
As an example, lets look at the most recent investigation made public by the House
ethics committee. Its the case of Rep. Tom Petri (R-WI) and his actions on behalf of a defense
contractor in which he owned a substantial amount of stock. Petri first purchased stock in
Oshkosh Corporation sometime in 2006. (Doesnt purchasing stock in a constituent company
seem like a conflict of interest at the outset?) According to Petris 2006 financial disclosure, he
owned stock valued between $100,000 and $250,000. By the end of 2008, Petri reported that his
stock was worth only between $15,000 and $50,000, as Oshkoshs stock price dipped from a
high of $63.30 per share in July of 2007, to $6.89 by December 1, 2008. The stock reached its
lowest point of $6.09 on March 2, 2009. Enter the Department of Defense and its 5-year contract
to build tactical vehicles for the Army.
The DOD began soliciting bids in February of 2009 and Oshkosh bid on the project. The
DOD awarded the contract to Oshkosh in August, 2009. Between July 1, 2009, and September 1,
2009, Oshkoshs stock rose from $18.67 to $33.21 per share. The losing bidders filed a protest
with the Government Accountability Office, alleging a number of problems with the bidding
process. Between September of 2009 and February of 2010, Petri took a number of official
actions in an effort to help Oshkosh secure the contract.
http://archive.postcrescent.com/interactive/article/99999999/WIS08/140206021/Timeline
-Rep-Tom-Petri-s-financial-political-history-Oshkosh-Corphttp://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/investigations/2014/07/16/legal-fees-tom-petriethics-probe/12745979/
http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/US_Rep_Petri_among_richest_Wis_Congress_me
mbers_159081095.html
https://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/summary.php?cid=N00004426&year=2005

http://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/APPENDIX%20A%20Part
%201_0.pdf