Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Ethics and Corruption: A Shaky Start for the Democrats

Bookmark and Share

Democrats have not yet officially ascended to power in D.C., but the early headlines coming out of Washington are not flattering to a party whose national campaign this fall included ethics and corruption as one of its central features.

To begin with, House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi stumbled out of the gate in November by backing Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha for the House Majority Leadership post (Murtha lost to Maryland's Steny Hoyer). Pelosi seemed slow to learn that as Democrats rose to power in Election 2006 by taking advantage of the appearances of impropriety in various congressional ethics scandals (e.g. knocking out incumbents who seemed too close to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, such as Montana Senator Conrad Burns), that the media will now turn its lens more closely on the Democrats, the new majority party, to unearth any questionable ethical behavior of its members.

Murtha was linked and investigated (though never charged or convicted) in the Abscam bribery sting in 1980, and an embarrassing videotape with Murtha discussing (though ultimately declining) a bribe was recently unearthed. Though Murtha's own constituents made peace with this puzzling incident years ago, Murtha had to defend himself once again, this time on the national stage. This is not the sort of portrait the Democratic Party wanted to unveil just days after winning an important election, partially on the ethics issue.

The latest batch of bad news for the Democrats came this weekend out of Louisiana, where 8-term Democratic incumbent William Jefferson defeated State Representative Karen Carter 57% - 43% in a runoff election for the state's 2nd District seat. Jefferson is the target of an FBI corruption probe; the fruits of the federal investigation included $90,000 seized in a controversial search of the congressman's home and office. The national Democratic Party (as well as the Louisiana Democratic Party) steered clear of the congressman, but Jefferson's retail politics won over his constituents, despite a likely indictment looming over the incumbent.

Neither one of these incidents taken individually is going to hurt the Democrats in 2008, but it is a troubling start for a party that regained power by winning over many independents in 2006 who had been turned off by Republicans due to a series of individual ethical problems. If the Democrats wish to retain power in 2008, the time is now to make sure their House stays clean.

Previous post: MN vs. WI: Which State Is Most Likely to Vote GOP for President in 2008?
Next post: WI State Legislative Shakeup in 2006 At Near Historic Levels

1 Comment


  • A. I believe it was Jefferson's home freezer.

    B. Democrats did more than "steer clear" of Jefferson-- they stripped him of his seat on Ways & Means, they openly supported his opponent. I read somewhere that the reason Jefferson won was because one of his right-wing opponents threw his support behind Jefferson, knowing that if/when he is kicked out of Congress he would have another chance to run.

    C. In the end, Democrats voted for Hoyer by a pretty large margin, Pelosi's backing notwithstanding. When/if Jefferson is convicted, they will doubtlessly kick him out of office. Democrats are rejecting corruption, even if voters aren't... why did Tom Delay keep getting returned to office?

    You really can't compare the singular instances of corrupt Democrats to the widespread system of corruption under the Republican government. I hope it stays that way. I hope the Dems push for real ethics reform.

  • Leave a comment


    Remains of the Data

    Strange Bedfellows: A Historical Review of Divided US Senate Delegations

    Over the last century, states have been twice as likely to be represented by a single political party in the U.S. Senate than have a split delegation; only Delaware, Iowa, and Illinois have been divided more than half the time.

    Political Crumbs

    Haugh to Reach New Heights

    The North Carolina U.S. Senate race between Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan and Republican Thom Tillis may go down to the wire next Tuesday, but along the way Libertarian nominee Sean Haugh is poised to set a state record for a non-major party candidate. Haugh, who previously won 1.5 percent of the vote in the Tar Heel State's 2002 race, has polled at or above five percent in 10 of the last 12 polls that included his name. The current high water mark for a third party or independent candidate in a North Carolina U.S. Senate election is just 3.3 percent, recorded by Libertarian Robert Emory back in 1992. Only one other candidate has eclipsed the three percent mark - Libertarian Christopher Cole with 3.1 percent in 2008.


    Gubernatorial Highs and Lows

    Two sitting governors currently hold the record for the highest gubernatorial vote ever received in their respective states by a non-incumbent: Republican Matt Mead of Wyoming (65.7 percent in 2010) and outgoing GOPer Dave Heineman of Nebraska (73.4 percent in 2006). Republican Gary Herbert of Utah had not previously won a gubernatorial contest when he notched a state record 64.1 percent for his first victory in 2010, but was an incumbent at the time after ascending to the position in 2009 after the early departure of Jon Huntsman. Meanwhile, two sitting governors hold the record in their states for the lowest mark ever recorded by a winning gubernatorial candidate (incumbent or otherwise): independent-turned-Democrat Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island (36.1 percent in 2010) and Democrat Terry McAuliffe of Virginia (47.8 percent in 2013).


    more POLITICAL CRUMBS

    Humphrey School Sites
    CSPG
    Humphrey New Media Hub

    Issues />

<div id=
    Abortion
    Afghanistan
    Budget and taxes
    Campaign finances
    Crime and punishment
    Economy and jobs
    Education
    Energy
    Environment
    Foreign affairs
    Gender
    Health
    Housing
    Ideology
    Immigration
    Iraq
    Media
    Military
    Partisanship
    Race and ethnicity
    Reapportionment
    Redistricting
    Religion
    Sexuality
    Sports
    Terrorism
    Third parties
    Transportation
    Voting