Does election to Congress cause corruption?

Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who "has been under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for allegations that she helped steer government money to a bank in which her husband owned shares, is asking for an investigation into the committee that has been investigating her." (Ashley Parker, "Waters Calls for Investigate of House Ethics Committee," The Caucus: The Politics and Government Blog of the Times, Dec. 7, 2010)

Waters "said she would introduce a resolution calling on Speaker Nancy Pelosi to appoint a bipartisan task force to investigate the ethics panel's decision last month to place two of its lawyers on paid administrative leave. On Nov. 19, the day the committee announced it was delaying Waters' trial, it also placed Cindy Morgan Kim, the committee's deputy chief counsel who was leading the investigation, and Stacy Sovereign, a committee lawyer, on indefinite leave for reported problems with their handling of the case against [her]."

"The resolution warns that the delay in … Waters' trial violates her due process rights and the rules of the committee, and says that the committee's handling of the situation has subjected it to public ridicule and served to unjustly impugn the integrity" of Ms. Waters.

A clause in the resolution reads: "Whereas all of these actions have subjected the committee to public ridicule, produced contempt for the ethics process, created the public perception that the committee's purpose was to unjustly impugn the integrity of a member of the House, and weakened the ability of the committee to properly conduct its investigative duties, all of which has brought discredit to the House."

As for her integrity being "unjustly impugned" – I agree with those who argue that the thing most impugning of her integrity is that she sought bailout monies to specifically benefit a bank predicated on its being black-owned.

TRENDING: Rand Paul warns GOP senators: Voting to convict Trump would cause mass exodus from party

Waters argued that her actions were taken not simply to help one black-owned bank in which her husband had an interest, but that her intent was to help a group of black banks. It is not unfair for reasonable minds to expect elected representatives to act in the interest of all Americans, equally not specifically, to the benefit of some based on ethnicity. (Jonathan Allen/John Bresnahan, "Rep. Maxine Waters mounts a forceful public defense," Politico, Aug. 13, 2010)

Here again we see the over-inflated opinion and unwashed arrogance of someone who holds public office. If anything, the public should be outraged that more attention hasn't been given to the untoward and highly questionable actions of House members long before this.

Monday, Aug. 2, 2010, the National Legal and Policy Center reported, "The House Ethics Committee was charging Waters with congressional rules violations. [At that time] the alleged violations were not released, but were believed to stem from the congresswoman's suspected attempt to obtain bailout funds for a bank where her husband served as a board member." (Alana Goodman, "Rep. Maxine Waters Charged with Violations by Ethics Committee," NLPC.org, Aug. 2, 2010)

But as Goodman reported for NLPC, Aug. 22, "the House Ethics Committee abruptly postponed the high-profile ethics trial … after new evidence came to light which may contradict some of the congresswoman's previous claims."

We now know Waters "is being charged with helping to steer more than $12 million in federal bailout funds to One United, a bank in which her husband has a substantial stake."

At that time Goodman wrote, "The New York Times had reported that e-mails show that Waters' office may have been advocating on behalf of One United far longer than she previously admitted. E-mails reportedly [showed] that Waters' chief of staff, Mikeal Moore, was actively involved in discussing details of the bank bailout with members of the House Financial Services Committee, after [she had] told Barney Frank, D-Mass., that she would halt her involvement in banking matters that might conflict with her husband's financial dealings."

But as Goodman reported, a source directly involved with the trial had told the Times "the documents may directly contradict a bit of Maxine's story, if not the actual facts the way she has told it."

This new development could raise additional ethics questions, not just for Waters, but also for members of the House Financial Services Committee, which her office was corresponding with.

Waters seized upon the postponement not only to proclaim her innocence, but to also argue that the delay proved the committee didn't have enough evidence to proceed with the hearing.

The problem with that logic is that, even if her claims of a lack of evidence are true, it doesn't mean she is innocent of the violations she has been charged with. Her claim that "we did not influence anyone and we did not gain any benefit" can be seen in the same light as that of an athlete responding to questions about taking performance-enhancing drugs by answering: "I've never tested positive – which isn't the same as saying I've never used them."

Throughout all of this, the questions that beg answering are: Is Congress corrupt to its foundation; does the elected office cause corruption; or do corrupt people seek office to further their nefarious ways? With said questions having been asked, Congress certainly does nothing to dissuade one from referencing it as a den of thieves.