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

    Kevin McCarthy Becomes Least Tenured Floor Leader in US House History

    At less than four terms, McCarthy has served 423 fewer days in the chamber than any floor leader in U.S. House history and almost 10 years less than the average leader.

    Political Crumbs

    The Second Time Around

    Former Republican Congressman Bob Beauprez became the seventh major party or second place gubernatorial candidate in Colorado to get a second chance at the office when he narrowly won his party's nomination last month. Two of the previous six candidates were successful. Democrat Alva Adams lost his first gubernatorial bid to Benjamin Eaton in 1884, but was victorious two years later against William Meyer. Democrat Charles Johnson placed third in 1894 behind Republican Albert McIntyre and Populist incumbent Governor David Waite but returned as the Fusion (Democrat/Populist) nominee in 1898 and defeated GOPer Henry Wolcott. Gubernatorial candidates who received a second chance but lost both general elections include Democrat Thomas Patterson (1888, 1914), Progressive Edward Costigan (1912, 1914), Republican Donald Brotzman (1954, 1956), and Republican David Strickland (1978, 1986).


    How Are the Plurality Winners Doing?

    Nearly 40 percent of plurality winners of U.S. Senate elections lose their seat in the next election cycle. Will that happen to any of the three such incumbents on the ballot in 2014? Recent polling suggests Democrats Al Franken of Minnesota, Mark Begich of Alaska, and Jeff Merkley of Oregon all currently have an advantage over their nominated/frontrunning GOP opponents, but each is flirting with plurality support once again. Franken led endorsed GOPer Mike McFadden 48 to 42 percent in a new SurveyUSA poll while the polling group showed Merkley with a 50 to 32 percent advantage over Monica Wehby. Begich led each of the three major GOP candidates in last month's PPP survey: 42 to 37 percent over Daniel Sullivan, 41 to 33 percent over Mead Treadwell, and 43 to 27 percent over Joe Miller.


    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