33 Comments

1. chuck:

Roger,

The opportunity to endulge in graft and nepotism is an excellent reason to get into politics. Canada, France, Russia, China, the US — the urge to corruption in politics is universal in space and time. Those of us who merely vote should keep that in mind.

Apr 13, 2005 - 4:34 pm 2. David Thomson:

Tom DeLay seems to be a victim of slander. Iíve seen no hard evidence of wrong doing. He may have pushed the envelope, but where has he actually broken the law? Most of the accusations appear premised on innuendo and the veiled appearance of impropriety. So far, I believe the liberal establishment is merely trying to wound a top Republican lawmaker. Am I lying to myself? Do I want to run away from reality? Well, we do know that George Soros and his cronies want to destroy DeLay:

ìMainstream media portray DeLayís accusers as disinterested “public interest groups” ó non-profit organizations standing guard over public virtue, their judgment unsullied by corruption or party allegiance. In reality, of course, the “public interest groups” attacking DeLay have roots in the partisan struggle as deep as any in Washington.

Much evidence suggests that a hidden agenda lurks beneath the camouflage of this sudden outpouring of “ethics” charges. In certain cases, the organizations promoting these charges show a history and money trail bespeaking a highly specific allegiance.

The pattern of the attack suggests that DeLay may be confronting a political machine far wealthier, more ruthless and better skilled at media manipulation than the Democratic Party itself. When the hysteria subsides and the facts are examined, we may learn that DeLayís foe all along has been the Shadow Party ó a murky and inscrutable entity controlled by leftwing billionaire George Soros.î

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17686

Apr 13, 2005 - 4:46 pm 3. Terrye:

It is no small wonder that DeLay’s daughter is on his payroll, she actually works for his campaign. There was nothing under handed or sneaky about about it. In fact this is not at all unusual. Several politicians have family members working for them and pay them out of their own money.

One thing about DeLay, he lives very modestly.

Now Harry Reid actually sent millions of dollars in business his son in law’s way.

And didn’t Cheney’s daughter work on his campaign?

I can understand going after DeLay for politics, but this seems kind of tacky to me.

But then the Democrats are doing a lot of tacky things right now.

Apr 13, 2005 - 6:43 pm 4. richard mcenroe:

Hey, Hizzoner couldn’t keep the town textile mills open, he had to do something with the wife and kid…

Apr 13, 2005 - 7:39 pm 5. thibaud:

Couldn’t he have appointed them environmental watchdogs with a mandate for spot inspections of Ben & Jerry’s runoff? Could’ve kept ‘em employed for a decade at least.

Apr 13, 2005 - 8:39 pm 6. WichitaBoy:

I think John Moore is right: a fundamental and absolutely essential difference between our society and a snakepit like Mexico is the relative lack of corruption here. As chuck reminds us, this absence is contrary to human nature. It behooves us therefore to keep a vigilant eye on the politicians at all times. Even the merest hint of corruption should be punished harshly and hastily. Whether the law was broken is irrelevant; these people are breaking the spirit of the law and what they are doing is wrong, just as what Sandy Berger did was quite wrong. We all know that in our hearts. We owe it to ourselves to vote accordingly. It’s not all about which symbolic animal you prefer to stick in your lapel. Throw the bums out.

Apr 13, 2005 - 10:58 pm 7. richard mcenroe:

WichitaBoy ó Well, OK, but can we throw Diane Feinstein out first? She and her hubby siphoned off millions from the LA subway projects…

Apr 13, 2005 - 11:45 pm 8. David Thomson:

Enormous money and time has been spent investigating Tom DeLay. He has been nitpicked to death. DeLayís opponents are searching frantically for even the tiniest violation. So far, nothing conclusive has been found. I will concede, though, that suspicious activity took place during Texas redistricting battles. Still, a decent explanation has been offered. Some of the other accusations border on the ridiculousness. Has Tom DeLay perhaps violated the spirit of the law? Now we are getting somewhere. Even the friendly Wall Street Journal has a major complaint:

ìWhether Mr. DeLay violated the small print of House Ethics or campaign-finance rules is thus largely beside the point. His real fault lies in betraying the broader set of principles that brought him into office, and which, if he continues as before, sooner or later will sweep him out.î

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006479

The National Review also see problems with Tom DeLayís behavior:

ìConservative groups have rallied around DeLay, as they should when he is being unfairly attacked. But the Majority Leader should know that even if conservatives reject the Democratic effort to smear and oust him, they are disillusioned to find Republican leaders now so comfortable with the perks of power. You can always choose your friends, and DeLay’s supporters cringe to see sleazy insiders like Jack Abramoff profiting from their relationship with him. It is notable that DeLay’s lobbying of Representative Smith was part of an effort to pass a massive new entitlement that not too long ago would have turned DeLay’s stomach.

By all means, let’s defend Tom DeLay, but let’s also hope that we will see more of the old conservative insurgent Tom DeLay we used to know.î

http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/the_editors200504120914.asp

Apr 14, 2005 - 2:46 am 9. Charlie (Colorado):

Via Glenn, here’s an article detailing other member’s paid relatives.

Two things strike me: first, the way the article is spun — DeLay is first, and they write the total amount of four years, which means they can write “over $500,000″. But that’s $63K per year each, which is what, a GS-9? They’re not exactly making themselves rich, here, and it’s by far not the most anyone is getting paid on an annualized basis.

Second, there are an increasingly large number of these folks who have family members on the payroll. Besides this list, we just heard about Bernie Sanders, and others. The point of this isn’t to just pull a tu quoque, but … well, it’s not illegal, and if this many Congress members have family members on the payroll, the notion that it’s against the spirit of the law seems pretty poorly supprted (if anyone would know, wouldn’t they?)

Tom DeLay is far from my favorite pol, but until they start going after Bernie Sanders and Jerry Lewis, it’s real hard to see this as being anything but malice.

Apr 14, 2005 - 6:53 am 10. Charlie (Colorado):

Uh, one other point: why is putting a family member on the payroll ipso facto “graft and corruption”? My first job was vacuuming the piano room in the family music store; I was probably paid more than I was worth, especially to start. Was that corrupt?

My mother worked on the books. Was that?

If not, what makes it corrupt for DeLay to put his family to work on the family business?

Apr 14, 2005 - 6:58 am 11. ed:

From the Washington Times via the Note:

Q. Have you ever crossed the line of ethical behavior in terms of dealing with lobbyists, your use of government authority or with fundraising?

Mr. DeLay: Ever is a very strong word.

Ouch

Apr 14, 2005 - 7:53 am 12. erp:

Tom Delay will be a great majority leader and that’s what Democrats are afraid of. He’s not corrupt and they know it.

However, if corruption is the topic, check out the last couple of majority leaders from Texas like LBJ (came to congress a pauper, went home with gazillions) or Jim Wright (less said, the better). They’re liberal icons whose corruptions didn’t seem to matter. One of them even went on to higher office under somewhat unusual circumstances. Didn’t make much of a go at it though, I hear.

Apr 14, 2005 - 8:04 am 13. WichitaBoy:

Richard,

Wouldn’t that be grand!

Apr 14, 2005 - 9:07 am 14. flenser:

Provided that the politicians relatives are not being paid by the taxpayer, I don’t see what grounds there are for public complaint. It may be the the Democrat and Republican parties should enact internal rules on the issue. But it’s really no business of the public at large.

ed

Have you ever, in your life, possibly crossed the line of ethical behavior? I suspect that not many of us could answer with a conclusive “No”.

Apr 14, 2005 - 10:24 am 15. chuck:

Charlie (C),

I think it is quite natural for a family to employ their children. Connections, connections, and why go looking when the potential employee is already at hand. It is also a given in family stores or restaurants because they *are* a family businesses. It becomes more problematical in such places as the national labs, where the children of former employees are perhaps over represented: these places are supposed to be more or less pure meritocracies. It is even more questionable in government, where public moneys are dispensed.

Last year I reread the U.S. Constitution, long overdue, I admit. One of the things that struck me as an adult was the evident care taken by the founders to deal with corruption in government. Oh, it was a far better thing they did to deal with the devil rather than put their hopes in the “new man.” Our relatively clean government is not just an accident of culture.

Apr 14, 2005 - 10:36 am 16. Pat Curley:

“Whether the law was broken is irrelevant; these people are breaking the spirit of the law and what they are doing is wrong, just as what Sandy Berger did was quite wrong.”

I couldn’t disagree with that more. The law is an electrified fence; touch it and you get zapped, but you can go right up to the edge of it and nothing will happen. Don’t like that? Then change the law.

What Berger did was different. He did break the law, apparently deliberately.

Apr 14, 2005 - 10:57 am 17. Kyda Sylvester:

Has Tom DeLay perhaps violated the spirit of the law? Now we are getting somewhere.

I thought that concept was tossed out of government during the Clinton administration.

DeLay will survive. As more stories, like the SFGate piece linked above, shine light on Congressional nepotism and junkets paid for by third parties, they’ll all start to button it up. They can’t stand up to that much scrutiny.

Apr 14, 2005 - 11:17 am 18. Kevin P:

Roger:

Should family members be allowed to work for their spouses or parents? No.It looks bad even if the intention is good. Did Tom Delay violate any law in paying his wife or child? Absolutely not.The laws that are in place right now allow it. Barbara Boxer paid her son to run her campaign. Is the the New York Times running a campaign to bring her up on ethics charges? Of course not because she did nothing illegal. Would I vote for a law that stopped this practice? Yes. But when the Times breathlessly reported that Delay had paid family members from his PAC they knew that it was legal and they gave the impression that DeLay was in violation of the law.54 members, that we know of, in the California State House pay family members for political services. It is completly legal.

The fact that the Times allowed the impression that DeLay was violating the law by paying his family members for political work out of his PAC shows that they had political motives in running Delay out. I’m am not a big fan of him and he is not ethically pure but this was a witch hunt from the start. They throw out the 500,000 amount but they don’t note that this was over a 10 year period. If they were trying to get the law changed they would have listed all of the other pols who practice the very same LEGAL activities that Delay did. And when you consider the fact that they ignored the oil for food scandal in their own backyard and continue to downplay the 21 billion theft that was going on blocks away from their headquarters shows their agenda journalism style. Change the law, I’m all for that. But quit the intentional deception that the Times practices.If you are goping to ask for Delays resignation then you have to go after Boxer too.

Apr 14, 2005 - 11:23 am 19. WichitaBoy:

Charlie Colorado and flenser,

I agree with chuck. The example of family working for government officials merely serves to emphasize the point that corruption is a natural condition toward which human governments flow. All the more reason that we should fight not only the reality but even the suggested appearance of impropriety. Under no circumstances should family members be working for government officials. Remember: “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.”

Pat Curley,

In principle I agree with you. In real-world practice, though, people bend the laws all the time whenever and wherever. We should change the law, of course. In the meantime we private citizens must reprobate all public officials who seem to be stretching things. Failure to do so will allow the system to slide into anarchy, to everyone’s detriment. The old “he’s on my team (party), so it’s ok” mentality has to go.

Apr 14, 2005 - 11:30 am 20. flenser:

WitchitaBoy

You are assuming the point that needs to be shown. A family member working for government officials does not necessarily constitute corruption. The way you phrase it implies that the relatives in question also work for the government, but that is not the case in the examples being discussed.

If you want to employ your own brother on the ìWichitaBoy for Congressî PAC, that is entirely up to you.

If, as Congressman, you steer a juicy contract to your brother, or appoint a relative to a bureaucracy which you oversee, then thatís a different matter.

In one case you are dealing with the publicís money, and in the other, youíre not.

Nice to be on the same side as Charlie again.

Apr 14, 2005 - 11:58 am 21. Kevin P:

Wichitaboy:

I am not defending Delay because he is on my team.I am a registered independent. I also agree that the law should be changed. But when the Times implied that Delay had broke the law when what he did was legal then their is something else going on. It would be like trying to say that the fundraising tactics that happened legally under the law before McCain Feingold passed would be signs of ethics violations before the law had been passed.You can’t violate a law that has not been installed.You can’t violate the “spirit” of the law when the law allows you to do the very thing that you are being accussed of.The law says that you can pay family members for political work out of your PAC.Delay payed members of his family out of his PAC for political work. The “shocking ” $500,000 amount over ten years is not out of the ordinary.Change the law, I am all for it.But until the law is passed you can’t be violating it in spirit.

Apr 14, 2005 - 11:59 am 22. chuck:

I think that a distinction needs to be made between private and public ethics. In private life, taking care of family is regarded as a positive thing. Most of us would probably regard it as reprehensible if someone were to leave their child on the street rather hire them into the family business. It is only in the public sector, which is supposed to act for all of us, that such behaviour becomes suspect. It is the difficulty of making this distinction between public and private that I believe leads to corruption being the natural point towards which government flows.

Now, is a PAC a public interest group? I suspect that some folks who contribute to such organizations might regard it as such because the money is supposed to advance a cause, not a family. On the other hand, I suspect many would make some allowance as long as they didn’t think it was all a scam to get money under false pretenses. There is a fine line, however, and I think that most politicians should think carefully about the consequences of having the employment of family members publicized. I would argue that the threat of publicity helps keep things on the straight and narrow.

Apr 14, 2005 - 12:15 pm 23. Buddy Larsen:

I agree, Chuck; nothing but good for the GOP can crawl out from under the Demo microscope. In the long run, it’ll dawn on the grandees that they’d better keep an eye on all those preacher’s kids that THEY’ve let loose all over the government playground.

Apr 14, 2005 - 1:03 pm 24. Terrye:

I rarely disagree with Wichita Boy but there is nothing wrong with a relative working on your campaign if they actually work and you do not hide it.

Apr 14, 2005 - 1:15 pm 25. Buddy Larsen:

Family working in campaigns are between the candidates and the campaign supporters.

Which means that it is the pols on government time, torturing the statutes over such private-sector deals between pols and their supporters, that are scandalously creating the government wastage they purport to prevent.

Smelly private deals that are nevertheless legal, need to be tying up pressrooms, not congressional staffs.

Apr 14, 2005 - 1:27 pm 26. Kevin P:

Roger:

Sandy Berger broke the law, not the spirit.It is illegal to do what he did and he violated the law. To compare Sandy Berger’s actions with Delays is absurd. It is illegal to take those documents out and it is illegal to destroy them. What Delay did is legal. I would like the law changed. But if the government is going to declare it in writting that it is okay to pay relatives for political work out of PAC funds as long as it is reported, and if Delay did that I do not see what the ethics violation is.You bring Delay to court. He says I followed the letter of the law. It doesn’t say it is legal to pay relatives but it is unethical. It says these are the rules, follow the rules. Thats what he did.The laws for how to spend PAC money are for political actions only so the what is ethical in society and what is ethical in politics is mute. The present laws fpr political action committee’s allow hiring relatives for political work. If you want to argue that the law should be changed I will join the fight. But to say that Delay by following the law is unethical is something I can not get my head around. And when the truth comes out I would not be suprised if 40 to 50 per cent of the politicians do the same thing. You can’t say something is legal and then accuse someone of wrongdoing when he follows the law.

Apr 14, 2005 - 1:42 pm 27. Buddy Larsen:

I think Roger’s meaning is that the political penalty for mis-handling one’s image is ‘whatever the traffic will bear’. Personally, I’m ‘for’ Delay on the basis of the oft-demonstrated lack of political ethics of those that are against him.

Apr 14, 2005 - 1:51 pm 28. Buddy Larsen:

Charlie asks “My first job was vacuuming the piano room in the family music store; I was probably paid more than I was worth, especially to start. Was that corrupt?”

I’d say it was upright, if not grand.

Apr 14, 2005 - 5:04 pm 29. charlotte:

Ha! A good little scherzo

Apr 14, 2005 - 6:04 pm 30. Charlie (Colorado):

It becomes more problematical in such places as the national labs, where the children of former employees are perhaps over represented: these places are supposed to be more or less pure meritocracies.

… but where knowing about the jobs, and being able to get cleared, are big deciding points. (It should go without saying that if your Dad has a TS/EBI clearance, it’ll be a hell of a lot easier for Junior to get one.)

It is even more questionable in government, where public moneys are dispensed.

Uh, Chuck, are DeLay’s family working for the government? In civil service jobs? I’d understood they were working for the campaign, or in political jobs.

You aren’t under the impression that political jobs are handed out through blind auditions, are you?

Apr 14, 2005 - 7:51 pm 31. Charlie (Colorado):

Charlie asks “My first job was vacuuming the piano room in the family music store; I was probably paid more than I was worth, especially to start. Was that corrupt?”

I’d say it was upright, if not grand.

Oy.

I’m trying to think of a way to make a pun on “console.”

But I can’t think of a way to spinet.

Apr 14, 2005 - 7:56 pm 32. richard mcenroe:

If we’re throwing people out for the “spirit” of the thing, can we look at why Kerry’s cousin got a $150 million contract for construction work in Cam Ranh Bay right after Kerry buried the Human Rights in Viet Nam Act?

Apr 14, 2005 - 8:48 pm 33. Buddy Larsen:

Wonder if–had there been no Iran/Contra–Cousin Kerry was lined up to build a Soviet Central American Air Force base? (”Kerry and Ortega“) Un-be-lievable, ain’t it?

Apr 14, 2005 - 9:25 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: