Advertisement

More Spine for Ethics Rules

Share

President Washington once disappointed his nephew, writing to Bushrod that although he might like to see him receive an appointive office, “the eyes of Argus are upon me, and no slip will pass unnoticed that can be improved into a supposed partiality for friends or relatives.”

As Times staff writers Richard T. Cooper and Chuck Neubauer reported last week, it’s a different tale now. Consider Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who has built a millionaire’s nest egg for himself and his family in recent years with the help of people who have business before the Senate. Stevens denies wrongdoing. What he’s doing is probably legal and within the rules of the Senate. That doesn’t make it right. The rules need changing and have for years.

Two years ago, when the Baby Bells wanted permission to compete in the Internet market, they hired the sons of Sen. John B. Breaux (D-La.) and then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) as lobbyists. In the last decade, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), a staunch defender of the nutritional supplements industry, has seen the industry pay almost $2 million to lobbying firms where his son worked. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has benefited interests employing his sons and son-in-law.

Advertisement

But none illustrate the laxness of existing ethics rules as vividly as Stevens. Unlike many of his colleagues, he was no millionaire. In 1997, he set out to change that. As chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, head of its defense subcommittee and a senior Commerce Committee member, he rescued a $450-million military housing contract for an Anchorage businessman in whose real estate projects Stevens lucratively invested. He helped create an Alaska Native company that received defense contracts through preferences he wrote into law; now the company pays $6 million a year to lease a building owned by Stevens and his partners.

The Senate exempts legislators from conflict of interest when their actions generally benefit their states. But even that broad blanket can barely cover Stevens’ actions. A reluctant Senate Ethics Committee should examine them.

Congress is loath to apply others’ rules to itself, but lawmakers should adopt the more rigorous ethics rules of the executive branch and federal judiciary. The president and Cabinet members generally put their holdings in a blind trust to avoid any taint. Supreme Court justices recuse themselves when they have even an appearance of conflicting interests.

The first step should be full disclosure of investments and family ties to lobbyists. Lawmakers can’t credibly denounce mutual fund or accounting industry scandals if they and their friends and family are, unknown to the voters, getting rich in what appear to be trades for influence.

Advertisement