Departure Marks Break From Past for Senate

With the Senate’s long history of winking at corruption in its ranks--particularly sexual misconduct--the departure of Republican Bob Packwood of Oregon represents a remarkable step for the tradition-bound institution.

If Packwood had not chosen to resign but instead had been expelled, he would have been the first senator to meet that fate since the Civil War. Indeed, in modern times, it has been considered virtually impossible for a person to be expelled from the Senate without having been convicted in a court of law.

As Richard A. Baker, the Senate historian observed: “The Senate does not like to punish anyone. [Senators] hate to do it. They do anything to defer it.”

The Encyclopedia of the United States Congress notes that the Senate has been frequently criticized in recent years for its handling of ethics cases.

“During the 1980s,” it says, “in the view of many, there was not much a member of Congress could do short of criminal indictment to incur expulsion or even censure. As a result, Congress was criticized for failing to punish its members adequately for ethical infractions.”

Even Sen. Harrison Williams (D-N.J.) was not threatened with expulsion immediately after his bribery conviction in 1981. He left the Senate in March, 1982, nearly a year later.

Fourteen expulsions occurred during the Civil War. Most of them were Southern senators who already had left the Senate to join the Confederacy. The only other senator expelled was William Blount, who was found in 1790 to be involved in an anti-Spanish conspiracy.

Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy (R-Wis.) was censured but not expelled for bringing disgrace on the Senate.

In recent years, Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) was reprimanded (a lesser penalty than censure) in 1991 for intervening improperly with the government on behalf of a campaign contributor. Ten years earlier, Sen. Herman Talmadge (D-Ga.) was reprimanded for taking cash from constituents.

Without a doubt, the Packwood case is also the first sex-related scandal ever to reach this level of attention. In most previous cases, as Baker noted, senators were called on the carpet only for financial misdeeds. To be sure, Packwood’s apparent transgressions included financial improprieties but the vast majority of them were sexual in nature.