You are here
Taking Responsibility for Planting Rats
Monday, November 8th, 2010
Robert Wechsler
Former House majority leader Tom DeLay is currently on trial for
laundering
$200,000 in PAC contributions from corporate lobbyists through the
Republican National Committee to Texas candidates. In Texas, corporate
money cannot be used for political campaigns.
According to an article in today's New York Times, it is not these facts that are in dispute, only whether they actually add up to a crime. That will be resolved by the court, but the ethical misconduct involved in this matter is clear, and it comes in many shapes and colors.
The first sort of conduct is corporate lobbyists contributing to candidates on behalf of corporations. This is not a criminal issue. It's a problem because when corporate lobbyists not only lobby legislators, but give them lots of money, it looks like the legislators are being bought. This undermines trust in our representative form of government. But if DeLay had been concerned with trust, he wouldn't have looked for sneaky ways to undermine it.
Second, there is the matter of ethics laws being minimum requirements. Just because something is not expressly prohibited by an ethics law doesn't mean you can do it. In fact, it is often best to stop well short of the limit. As soon as you start looking for end runs around an ethics provision, you are acting unethically. The illegality of the act is irrelevant. But to DeLay, illegality is all that matters. Ethics is irrelevant.
Third, there is the matter of money laundering and DeLay's attitude toward it. He and his lawyers say that since the money was put into separate accounts, no laundering occurred. He is taking advantage of the fact that money is fungible, that is, there is no difference between the money put into one account and the money taken out of another account. Or, to look at it from DeLay's perspective, you can't prove that the money is the same. You have to prove intent that the laundering be done, and this is difficult. But evidentiary obstacles don't make it okay to take advantage of the fungible nature of money.
Fourth, there is the matter of the purpose for the contributions in the first place. DeLay's goal was apparently to make sure that Republicans took control of the Texas House so that they could pass "a Congressional redistricting plan that led to the defeat of several senior Democrats." As I've written before, there is a serious conflict of interest when partisan politicians redraw district boundaries in order to help members of their party get elected. Redistricting should be done not by partisian politicians, but by neutral individuals who seek, and are seen as seeking, the most appropriate boundaries, taking into account matters that do not involve who is most likely to be elected.
Fifth, there is the matter of DeLay's refusal not only to be held accountable for his acts, but to attack the other party for acting against him, even if this attitude undermines the public's trust in the criminal enforcement and judicial systems. He is quoted as saying, “I have been found guilty of nothing. Now I’m standing trial on a political vendetta brought by a rogue D.A.”
DeLay doesn't stop at attacking the D.A.'s character. He is also quoted as saying, “I have withstood 15 years of the Democrats’ frivolous attacks." So the D.A. has a vendetta and is a rogue individual, but the party has attacked him frivolously for fifteen years. Those two statements don't sound consistent to me. But DeLay doesn't care anything about consistency in his attacks. Attack is a way for him not to deal responsibly with his actions.
He thinks he is acting like a "man" in taking the offensive, but he is actually a coward afraid of seeming weak by acknowledging the value of government ethics rules and the value of dealing responsibly with one's ethical misconduct. He refuses to use the opportunity provided by his celebrity to teach others not to do what he has done. Instead, he is essentially telling every politician to find every loophole they can (and even to open loopholes) in government ethics laws, and use the loopholes to their personal advantage. He is effectively calling for the gutting of government ethics laws. It doesn't get worse than this.
Perhaps a metaphor based on DeLay's former profession would make more clear what he is doing. He was an exterminator, a job more respectable than politics, and equally necessary. Would DeLay publicly defend as perfectly legal an exterminator criticized for legally planting termites and rats in people's houses so that he could get more business? Would he attack anyone who criticized the exterminator as doing it out of a vendetta, of frivolously going after someone who had broken no law? And would he call for every exterminator to do whatever is legal in order to increase their business, thereby undermining the public's trust in exterminators?
Law and ethics are two different things. Defending yourself legally in a government ethics situation is no different than defending yourself legally in an exterminator ethics situation. The law in both cases is not intended to cover every possible way of acting unethically.
You planted the rats, Mr. DeLay. It's time to take responsibility for them, rather than encouraging others to plant rats, as well.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
According to an article in today's New York Times, it is not these facts that are in dispute, only whether they actually add up to a crime. That will be resolved by the court, but the ethical misconduct involved in this matter is clear, and it comes in many shapes and colors.
The first sort of conduct is corporate lobbyists contributing to candidates on behalf of corporations. This is not a criminal issue. It's a problem because when corporate lobbyists not only lobby legislators, but give them lots of money, it looks like the legislators are being bought. This undermines trust in our representative form of government. But if DeLay had been concerned with trust, he wouldn't have looked for sneaky ways to undermine it.
Second, there is the matter of ethics laws being minimum requirements. Just because something is not expressly prohibited by an ethics law doesn't mean you can do it. In fact, it is often best to stop well short of the limit. As soon as you start looking for end runs around an ethics provision, you are acting unethically. The illegality of the act is irrelevant. But to DeLay, illegality is all that matters. Ethics is irrelevant.
Third, there is the matter of money laundering and DeLay's attitude toward it. He and his lawyers say that since the money was put into separate accounts, no laundering occurred. He is taking advantage of the fact that money is fungible, that is, there is no difference between the money put into one account and the money taken out of another account. Or, to look at it from DeLay's perspective, you can't prove that the money is the same. You have to prove intent that the laundering be done, and this is difficult. But evidentiary obstacles don't make it okay to take advantage of the fungible nature of money.
Fourth, there is the matter of the purpose for the contributions in the first place. DeLay's goal was apparently to make sure that Republicans took control of the Texas House so that they could pass "a Congressional redistricting plan that led to the defeat of several senior Democrats." As I've written before, there is a serious conflict of interest when partisan politicians redraw district boundaries in order to help members of their party get elected. Redistricting should be done not by partisian politicians, but by neutral individuals who seek, and are seen as seeking, the most appropriate boundaries, taking into account matters that do not involve who is most likely to be elected.
Fifth, there is the matter of DeLay's refusal not only to be held accountable for his acts, but to attack the other party for acting against him, even if this attitude undermines the public's trust in the criminal enforcement and judicial systems. He is quoted as saying, “I have been found guilty of nothing. Now I’m standing trial on a political vendetta brought by a rogue D.A.”
DeLay doesn't stop at attacking the D.A.'s character. He is also quoted as saying, “I have withstood 15 years of the Democrats’ frivolous attacks." So the D.A. has a vendetta and is a rogue individual, but the party has attacked him frivolously for fifteen years. Those two statements don't sound consistent to me. But DeLay doesn't care anything about consistency in his attacks. Attack is a way for him not to deal responsibly with his actions.
He thinks he is acting like a "man" in taking the offensive, but he is actually a coward afraid of seeming weak by acknowledging the value of government ethics rules and the value of dealing responsibly with one's ethical misconduct. He refuses to use the opportunity provided by his celebrity to teach others not to do what he has done. Instead, he is essentially telling every politician to find every loophole they can (and even to open loopholes) in government ethics laws, and use the loopholes to their personal advantage. He is effectively calling for the gutting of government ethics laws. It doesn't get worse than this.
Perhaps a metaphor based on DeLay's former profession would make more clear what he is doing. He was an exterminator, a job more respectable than politics, and equally necessary. Would DeLay publicly defend as perfectly legal an exterminator criticized for legally planting termites and rats in people's houses so that he could get more business? Would he attack anyone who criticized the exterminator as doing it out of a vendetta, of frivolously going after someone who had broken no law? And would he call for every exterminator to do whatever is legal in order to increase their business, thereby undermining the public's trust in exterminators?
Law and ethics are two different things. Defending yourself legally in a government ethics situation is no different than defending yourself legally in an exterminator ethics situation. The law in both cases is not intended to cover every possible way of acting unethically.
You planted the rats, Mr. DeLay. It's time to take responsibility for them, rather than encouraging others to plant rats, as well.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
