The personal attack on Chris Bell, Representative from Texas.
As I watched the self righteous speech from yesterday by Tom Delay, surrounded by his corrupt retinue, it really made my blood boil. The House majority is playing some serious hardball, and the Democrats better be up for this challenge, or it's gonna get ugly. The ethics charge against Delay that was filed by Chris Bell is now being turned against him, citing the fact that his filing of the complaint itself "violated Committee Rule 15(a)(4) in a number of respects". The idea is that since the committee has officially decided that Delay was not in clear violation of the rules, only in appearance of violation, that the filing of the complaint is then post-facto improper and subject to rebuke. It is founded on the notion that the complaint filed by Bell was motivated strictly by "political purposes".
Just a month and a half ago, the tables were turned. In a great synopsis regarding the admonishment given at the time, written on October 6 in
The Hill Newspaper the seed of the Delay counteroffensive can be seen taking roots as the absence of a "reprimand, censure, fine, or other penalty" is spun by Delay's staff to indicate "dismissal of Bell's complaint".
The tactic here is obviously to send a clear signal to any other potential do-gooder-wet-behind-the-ears representative that sees impropriety in action and has thoughts about filing a complaint against it. It is putting in place a first line of defense via this post-election rule stretching that shields corrupt congressmembers from inquiry while providing for them to remain in their positions of power while being indicted in case this first defense fails.
The drama is given more passion by the fact that the latest decision was made with "bipartisan unanimity" and co-signed by a ranking democrat, Representative Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV). Let alone the fact that we have lost representation. With friends like Alan Mollohan, who needs enemies?
Here are some highlights from the memoranda and letters:
Statement of the Committee regarding disposition of the complaint filed against Representative Tom DeLay exerpt:
Review of the materials presented in the complaint on this matter reveals a significant gap between the violations alleged against Representative DeLay, on the one hand, and the information offered in support of those allegations, on the other. The major violation alleged could hardly be more serious: that Representative DeLay solicited a bribe from Westar in the form of campaign contributions. However, the information presented in the complaint on Westar's reasons for making the contributions at issue here - specifically, the Westar documents that are attached hereto as Attachments B and C - includes no reference whatsoever to any solicitation by Representative DeLay or anyone acting on his behalf.
The fact that the letters contain no ACTUAL reference to solicitation is used here as a grounds for dismissal of the charges. Message: go ahead and make backroom deals. Just make sure that you don't leave a very obvious paper trail, so that, when you are out-ed, we can get you off on this technicality.
The slap on the wrist exerpt:
On the basis of the information before the Committee, the Committee concluded that your participation in and facilitation of the energy company golf fundraiser at The Homestead resort on June 2-3, 2002 is objectionable in that those actions, at a minimum, created such an improper appearance. As a general matter, fundraisers directed to a particular industry or to others sharing a particular federal interest are permissible, and at such events Members are free to talk about their record and positions on issues of interest to the attendees. In addition, of course, a Member has no control over what the donors at a fundraising event spontaneously say to or ask of the Member with regard to their legislative interests. Nevertheless, there are a number of considerations regarding this particular fundraiser that make your participation in and facilitation of the fundraiser objectionable under the above-stated standards of conduct.
In particular, there was the timing of the fundraiser, i.e., it took place just as the House-Senate conference on major energy legislation, H.R. 4, was about to get underway. Indeed, one of the communications between organizers of the fundraiser that you provided to us - an e-mail of May 30, 2002 from Mr. Maloney to Mr. Perkins that notes the legislative interests of each of the attendees - includes a specific reference to the conference. That legislation was of critical importance to the attendees. In addition, there was the fact that you were in a position to significantly influence the conference, both as a member of the House leadership and, by action taken about a week and a half after the fundraiser, your appointment as one of the conferees.
Ok, so why not issue a formal admonishment? Why no censure or fine?
Evidence cited by memo for those who want first sources:
complete list of attachments to memorandum