TPMDC

Nothing To See Here! Supporters Of Plan To Handcuff Ethics Panel Lay Low


Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Independent watchdog groups remain up in arms about a new proposal to limit the powers of an ethic panel that oversees and investigates members of Congress. But they'll have to wait a bit longer to hear back from supporters of the plan, who have been largely silent

The watchdogs say that a resolution introduced last week by Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH), and cosponsored by 19 members of the Congressional Black Caucus, would leave the Office of Congressional Ethics without any teeth: unable to initiate investigations on their own, and barred from considering most complaints filed by outside groups.

And, they say, there are conflict of interest issues as well. Many of the cosponsors of Fudge's legislation have been OCE targets. And the panel once faulted one of Fudge's top aides, Dawn Kelly Mobley, for facilitating an ethically questionable Carribean junket for CBC members several years ago, when she worked for Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones. Fudge insists she began working on her resolution before she knew Mobley was the target of an investigation.

The stated goals of the plan, according to Fudge's office, are to prevent the ethics panel from investigating frivolous claims, and to protect people under investigation by keeping the inquiries sealed until the House Ethics Committee has determined that wrongdoing has occurred.

But critics say the new rules would be much farther reaching--effectively neutering their ability to file complaints unless they have first hand knowledge of wrongdoing by members of Congress.

On Friday, I contacted the offices of all 19 co-sponsors of the Fudge resolution to ask why they support the proposal, and how they respond to their critics. Few responded and those who did would not comment.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi proposed creating the OCE after Democrats retook Congress, but the panel wasn't launched until last year, and has only recently begun issuing reports based on its investigations. Her office is not commenting on Fudge's plan either.

Comments (8) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

June 8, 2010 1:02 PM   

What an apt name!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

LAB

user-pic

June 8, 2010 1:29 PM   

Look, if you don't do something unethical, they won't be knocking at your door! Surely the CBC doesn't want to give anymore impression of impropriety?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 1:30 PM   

I do think some of the things that are pointed out are handy. Because there is always the chance of abuse by one or both party. And it's not completely unfair to ask for investigations only if the accuser has first hand knowledge. Basically, you can't go to the police and say, I think my neighbor has been stealing my newspaper, unless of course you have video. Which is first hand knowledge.

It sounds to me, like they are trying to prevent the right wing groups from opening up frivolous investigations, though the left can be just as guilty of this.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 2:25 PM    in reply to vasu

Or... and this is just a stab in the dark... this is a garden variety example of elected leaders trying to escape punishment for breaking the rules. I know that sounds outer space. I'm just saying it's possible.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 2:26 PM    in reply to vasu

You have any examples of the left trying to open up frivolous investigations?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 4:08 PM    in reply to markg8

Not that I can remember, but I am sure there are some in the past... Might have to dig though...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 3:52 PM    in reply to vasu

I'm unfamiliar with the process by which the Ethics Committee approves certain items for investigation or adjudication, but it's been unimpressive before now (e.g., Tom DeLay's golf junkets to Scotland about eight years ago, funded almost entirely by Indian gaming interest, followed by him voting against his Speaker and most of his party for those same interests; William Jefferson's entire career).

Frankly, it seems like a waste of time, because the only ethical problems that have any repercussions for Congress are the ones which have criminal penalties attached. Either give the Ethics Committee power to investigate and levy real sanctions on these members, or abolish it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 8, 2010 6:00 PM   

Might as well do away with it now because neither mob would EVER vote for a plan which would actually penalize their members when caught being mobsters... IMHO

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on