Last December, this column called 2007 the “Year of Congressional Ethics.”
But 2008 has been the year that 2007’s changes were felt.
Some might have found my moniker for 2007 overblown. After all, Capitol Hill
veterans know that the issue of Congressional ethics is a bit like Halley’s
comet. It captures the public’s attention every so often and then fades from
view until the next time that it comes around. Whereas Halley’s comet appears
every 75 years, the issue of Congressional ethics has surfaced a bit more often,
at least in the last half-century.
Its appearances have usually been triggered by a spike in public concern
about misconduct in Congress because of some conspicuous event. For example, in
the mid-1960s, House and Senate investigations into allegations of unethical
conduct led to the creation of each chamber’s ethics committee as well as a code
of conduct, including the first gift rule. In 1989, the Ethics Reform Act
toughened each chamber’s ethics rules. In the mid-1990s, the House and Senate
imposed even tougher restrictions and adopted a new gift rule. The House Rules
Committee said at the time that one of the reasons for the changes was that
“public opinion holds Congress as an institution in low esteem.”
Some skeptics believe that reform efforts like these have done little either to curb corruption or to appease watchdog groups clamoring for change. For
example, of the mid-1990s gift reform, columnist Norman Ornstein wrote in Roll
Call that it would “barely — if at all — mute the drumbeat of criticism from
public interest groups and editorial pages about the influence of special
interests on Congress.” In that, he has been proved right.
Like many of the changes that preceded them, not all of 2007’s ethics reforms
were grave. Nevertheless, some had more teeth than previous years’ versions.
Most significantly, the reform extended the reach of the ethics rules beyond
Congress for the very first time. Until 2007, through all the revisions of the
Congressional ethics rules, those rules always remained an internal code of
conduct — something that Congress used to keep in line the behavior of Members
and staffers. The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act took that internal
code of conduct and, for the first time, applied part of it outside Congress:
namely, to lobbyists and the businesses that employ them. Specifically, the
HLOGA made it illegal for them to violate the Congressional gift and travel
rules. And, the HLOGA also required lobbyists and business to make twice-yearly
certifications of their compliance.
In 2008, lobbyists and businesses felt the impact of these reforms. Lobbyists
scrambled to learn the Congressional gift rules. Businesses designed and
implemented compliance mechanisms. Ethics attorneys held training sessions in
conference rooms filled with concerned lobbyists and compliance officers.
Finally, in July, lobbyists for the first time actually had to certify that they
and their businesses complied with the Congressional gift rules. As we approach
the end of the year, while the panic has subsided a bit, questions still linger
about if and when a lobbyist or business will actually be charged with a gift
The HLOGA aside, 2008 had its share of other ethics stories as well. In the
House, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was busy with several
investigations. In fact, in September, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) even took
the improbable step of demanding an investigation of himself by the committee.
The committee obliged. However, to date, neither the investigation of Rangel nor
any other House ethics probe in 2008 has resulted in sanctions. Thus, the most
significant development in the House may have been the creation of the Office of
Congressional Ethics. What impact it will have remains anyone’s guess.
On the Senate side, there were also investigations this year, several of
which even saw resolution. In February, the Ethics Committee issued a Public
Letter of Admonition to Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) relating to his June 2007
arrest at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and subsequent guilty
plea. The committee concluded that Craig’s attempt to withdraw his guilty plea
was contrary to the Code of Ethics’ requirement that Senators “uphold the
Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States.” It also concluded
that Craig should have known that the officer who arrested him could have
perceived Craig to be attempting to use his position to receive favorable
treatment when Craig showed the officer his Senate business card and said: “What
do you think about that?”
In April, the committee issued a Public Letter of Qualified Admonition to
Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) relating to his October 2006 telephone call to a
U.S. attorney regarding a pending federal grand jury investigation. The
committee found no substantial evidence that Domenici attempted to improperly
influence the investigation, but it concluded that he should have known that his
call created an appearance of impropriety.
In May, the committee dismissed a complaint against Sen. David Vitter (R-La.)
relating to allegations of solicitation of a prostitute. The committee based its
dismissal on the facts that Vitter’s alleged conduct preceded his joining the
Senate, he was not charged criminally and he did not use his public status for
Finally, November saw the climax of the biggest ethics story of the year,
when Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) was convicted for filing false financial
disclosure reports. His conviction served not just as a wake-up call to Members
and staffers regarding the risks of filing false reports, but also as a reminder
to lobbyists to be careful when filing their own reports and certifications.
Whether Stevens’ conviction will survive appeal remains unknown.
So, what lies ahead in 2009? With any luck, we will receive answers to some
of the questions posed by 2008. Will the ongoing Senate and House ethics
investigations result in sanctions? How will the Office of Congressional Ethics
affect the House ethics process? Will Stevens’ conviction survive appeal? Will a
lobbyist or business be charged for violating the Congressional gift rules? And,
most importantly for me, as new Members and staffers join Congress, what new
“questions of ethics” will appear in my inbox?
© Copyright 2008, Roll Call Inc. Reprinted with permission. Widely regarded
as the leading publication for Congressional news and information, Roll Call has
been the newspaper of Capitol Hill since 1955. For more information, visit