One of the tragedies of humanity is that people who have power are tempted to abuse it. It is equally true in democracies, even if the public good is the official goal of politicians. People who complain about this reality make no point. The only solution is to acknowledge that universal truth and to think about possible regulations to power. The San Antonio Express News (February 14, 2006) wrote:
As the current scandals have played out, Congress has proven incapable of policing itself
This problem is very linked to ethics. Let us take an example. In 2005, Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) bought a piece of land and sold it less than one year later for double the price. What is the matter with that, one might say? The matter is that the increase in the value is mostly due to federal projects (a commercial center, a highway interconnection...) that were funded by Congress resulting from his own earmarks. This Congressman has violated basic ethical code, by making law not in order to promote public good, but to serve his private interest.
This is a telling example that current ethics controls needs to be rethought. Currently, there is an Ethics Committee in the House and Senate. I personally would not want to be one of its members. Their task is to judge their fellow Congressmen’s morality. They need to forget the ties that they have with them, their political agreements or contentions and their rivalries. With such a dilemma, I would suggest the creation of a second ethics committee to watch the ethics committee! This idea was well explained in the Lexington Herald Leader (February 5, 2007).
When Kentucky legislators were debating the creation of the independent ethics commission, the most effective proponents of the idea were legislators who had served on the old ethics committee. These legislators understood how difficult it can be to sit in judgment of colleagues on ethics issues, then walk out of the meeting and ask those same colleagues for support on a bill or amendment
Ethics is too serious to be left to a committee, which cannot really act, and that meets very rarely. It should be committed to an institution that guarantees more neutrality. Many proposals in this spirit have been made. The issue is a bipartisan one. Indeed, 70% of Americans wish to have an independent ethics commission. Both Republican and Democratic voters are supportive of this measure. It is not surprising to see that both conservatives and liberals have expressed their wishes to see an independent commission. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) have taken engagements.
Several conditions are necessary to make this commission work:
- It should be independent: it should not be constituted of current members of Congress.
- It should be bipartisan: Democrats and Republicans should have the same weight, no matter which party has the majority.
- It should make its conclusions public: People have the right to know what their representatives are doing on their behalf
- It should be a permanent commission, meeting on a regular basis. With 535 people, there will always with be somebody whose attitude will be worth watching!
- It should be diverse in the background of the members. Former Congressmen are welcome, but other people should be there, too. Citizens, lobbies, political scientists, and lawyers: the more diversified the best. Yet persons who are nominated should not have been in violation of ethical rules themselves.