Taking Responsibility for Planting Rats
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.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/us/politics/07delay.html" target="”_blank”">an
article in today's New York <i>Times</i></a>, 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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." <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/556" target="”_blank”">As I've written before</a>, 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.<br>
<br>
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.”<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
You planted the rats, Mr. DeLay. It's time to take responsibility for
them, rather than encouraging others to plant rats, as well.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---