Posted November 25, 2008 by Meredith McGehee
Too Busy and Too Big to be Bothered 
All this nettlesome paperwork about financial holdings, gifts, trips and campaign contributions! What’s an above-reproach public official to do? In some cases, it seems the answer is to treat the gift rules and the whole disclosure process with contempt.
That was certainly the way a jury saw it in the case of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK). Even his constituents, who have benefited mightily from “Uncle Ted’s” legendary earmarks, couldn’t quite stomach his latest shenanigans and just barely voted him out of office after he was convicted.
Stevens’ response to being called out for gross failures to properly disclose gifts and income was to throw his spouse and staffers under the proverbial bus, blaming then for his failure to report tens of thousands of dollars worth of gifts - including the renovation of his Alaskan home by a major recipient of his generosity as an appropriator. Obviously, that didn’t work. Stevens, who doles out dollars by the billions as a member of the Appropriations and Commerce Committees, was found guilty of filing incomplete and inaccurate reports.
The financial mess surrounding Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), chairman of the House tax-writing committee, raises similar questions about a senior Congressman’s cavalier attitude toward gift rules and financial disclosure laws. He has apparently neglected to report and pay taxes on income from a Caribbean vacation home, and failed to disclose the no interest loan used for its purchase. He cites his own poor Spanish skills and also blames his wife and a staffer for bookkeeping discrepancies and incomplete disclosures to the House. His case, which does not involve criminal sanctions as of this moment, is pending before the House Ethics Committee.
The Stevens and Rangel cases provide an opportunity to review why congressional financial disclosure requirements are important and why they were adopted as law to begin with.
Since the passage of the Ethics in Government Act (EIGA) in 1978, members of Congress have been required to file personal financial disclosure documents, providing certain information about their financial holdings as well as the holdings of their spouse and dependent children. EIGA was enacted in the wake of the Watergate scandal as part of the larger effort to establish a certain code of conduct and ethics in government. These standards of ethics were created with intentions of: (1) clarifying what the appropriate standards of conduct are, (2) providing increased transparency and accountability for public officials as part of an effort to enhance public credibility and faith in the governing process, and (3) helping ensure honest public policy-making.
The Senate Ethics Manual states that financial disclosure “is often considered the key component to an effective code of conduct for legislative ethics” and that the drafters of the Senate’s Code of Official Conduct considered it to be “the heart of the code of conduct.” Because of this public disclosure, most Members and staffers are not required to divest themselves of holdings or recuse themselves from votes affecting their personal holdings.
Financial disclosure also provides “the additional benefit of necessitating a close review by each government official of the possibilities of conflicts of interest represented by his personal financial interests,” according to the 1988 Report of then President Bush’s “Commission on Federal Ethics Law Reform.”
The financial disclosure filings reveal lawmakers’ personal finances – assets, transactions, liabilities, earned and unearned income – and also includes the gifts and travel provided for them by outside organizations. These documents give the public relevant information about their Representatives’ financial dealings while in office and demonstrate to the public that officeholders have no hidden agendas, nor are they privately profiting.
At a time when Americans’ faith in the competence of their public institutions has been shaken by a series of perceived failures – from the Wall Street meltdown to the botched response to Hurricane Katrina - it is critically important for citizens to have faith that their public officials have the interests of the American people, not personal gain, foremost in their minds. Financial disclosure goes a long way toward this goal. It also allows Members to be held accountable for accepting things like free home renovations without prosecutors having to prove an explicit quid pro quo exchange of a vote for a gift.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has been working on a bill to strengthen anti-corruption statutes and help restore accountability and public confidence. The Committee Report on S. 1946 further stresses that public corruption “creates negative economic effects by distorting the playing field for government contracts, reducing the need for compliance with rules and regulations, and diminishing the quality of government services.”
Thirty years ago, the Ethics in Government Act was passed to address similar concerns arising from the constitutional crisis around the Watergate scandals. There was a broad consensus about the need to restore faith in the democratic process.
Today, the imperative embodied in these laws is stronger than ever. When it comes to financial dealings of people in power, sunlight remains both an effective deterrent and important disinfectant. Transparency through financial disclosure serves as a reminder to lawmakers and an assurance to the public that official decisions must not be motivated by anything other than the public’s interests.
The case of Sen. Stevens as well as the allegations surrounding Rep. Rangel should serve as reminders to those in power that the hubris they have demonstrated -- the attitude that they are somehow bigger than the law and shouldn’t have to dirty their hands with these petty disclosure requirements – is a dangerous path to follow, both for the public official and for our country. Even the most powerful and senior lawmakers on Capitol Hill must obey the laws on the books.
