Problems with the "Throw the Bums Out" Approach
<br>The headline of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/us/politics/voters-oust-lawmakers-acc…; target="”_blank”">a
New York <i>Times</i> article today</a> is, "Ethics
in Play, Voters Oust Incumbents Under Inquiry." One's first
impression upon reading the article is that people are throwing
unethical politicians out of office. The system is working. But upon
further thought, it doesn't seem to be working very well at all.<br>
<br>
The article lists congressional representatives who were not
re-elected this year, at least partly because they were being
investigated for misconduct of some kind. One of them was actually
reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee. But in all the other
cases, the public depended on allegations alone. In effect, the
public acted as an ethics commission, without any due process.<br>
<br>
What this does is suggest to candidates that all they have to do is
make ethics allegations in order to win. This doesn't mean that the
system is working. It means that instead of dealing responsibly with
ethics allegations against congressional representatives in a
trusted ethics program (it has improved, but it is still far from
trusted), our country is dealing irresponsibly with ethics
allegations in highly negative congressional races.<br>
<br>
In any event, of the 31 members of Congress listed in the last two
years in Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington's <a href="http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/mostcorrupt" target="”_blank”">Most Corrupt
list</a>, only 11 were either not re-elected or retired. That
means that the public re-elected over 2/3 of the supposedly most
corrupt representatives. If you believe that throwing out
politicians accused of being corrupt is a good thing, the system
doesn't actually seem to be working very well.<br>
<br>
I was in New Orleans for a government ethics conference the day a
congressman was re-elected after $90,000 in marked money (a bribe)
was found in his freezer. But the reasons for his re-election were
not that he was being given the benefit of the doubt, or that people
didn't care. Elections are complex things, involving multiple
candidates and issues. They are not a good way to hold accountable
officials who have engaged in ethical misconduct. And loss of office
is hardly the most appropriate way to handle most instances of
ethical misconduct, which fall far short of taking huge bribes.<br>
<br>
And why should we depend on each district's voters to keep our
government institutions clean? It is in everyone's interests to
prevent and enforce against corruption, and corruption is usually
not a matter of bad apples. Why then should we depend on each
representative's voters, that is, those who have the most to lose if
they vote out someone who brings a lot of federal money into their
district? Is this really the best way to deal with congressional
corruption?<br>
<br>
The "throw the bums out" approach is used all over the country, at every level of government, to prevent the
creation of effective government ethics programs. Why waste money on ethics programs when you can throw the bums out? What needs to be recognized is that it is politicians more than
anyone else who insist that they be held accountable at the polls.
You don't hear too many good government groups saying this. That is
because it is not the effective approach articles like this make it
out to be. It is simply all there is when there is not an effective
government ethics program. That is nothing to be proud of.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---