Political Bedfellows
This is somewhat weird. In a prior post, I anticipated that the GOP would take full advantage of the FBI’s virtual indictment of Democratic Representative William J. Jefferson for accepting $100,000 in bribes. What was off my radar was what the FBI did in addition to making the accusation: they searched Jefferson’s office. His congressional office.
This has got all of Congress, representatives and senators, Democrats and Republicans, united in an uproar: the executive branch should not have the power to search the offices of members of Congress. So instead of the GOP making hay out of this, they are instead taking the politically unlikely course of demanding that the FBI return Jefferson’s files, and now. Like I said, weird. But they are, for once at least, acting on principle.
Here’s where it gets dicey. Is what the FBI did a good thing, let alone legal? Many people have been saying that it’s about time, that members of Congress should be open to the same kinds of searches that we all are, and that’s an easy point of view to see, and agree with. Members of Congress are really up to their necks in corruption, almost as a matter of course, and I’m sure we’re all getting tired of that, and would like to see action.
But however viscerally satisfying it would be to see some congressmen frog-marched out of the Capitol Building, it would not, in the end, have much effect; the remaining members would simply restructure their corruption to work around the new obstacle. It probably wouldn’t even be that hard.
Much more worrisome is the fact that it’s not just the FBI, we’re talking about an agency of the Executive Branch here. In the Bush administration, we are witnessing a power grab, an attempt by one branch of government to wrest power away from another. Already the White House has said it can ignore laws that Congress has mandated, in the name of “national security.” If it also claims the right to search and seize congressional offices at will, this power will not (as explained above) stop or stem corruption, but it will become a blunt political weapon to help beat Congress into submission, or to embarrass members of the opposition party.
In the end, while I have no sympathy for Jefferson or anyone else, I see little good and much bad coming if we stand by and allow this chapter of the White House power grab to succeed.
That said, there are a few significant side points to be made.
The first is that Congress is showing that they can act, that they can stand up to the White House when they want to. So over the past few years, as the White House has robbed the people of their rights and freedoms, Congress simply has chosen not to stand up and protect the people they allegedly serve. But when their own rights are tromped on, they waste not one second, and even catapult themselves over angry partisan battle lines to stand together and rise up in protest. Protecting the people is something they should have done long ago, and something which they still can do–but I have no doubt that they will limit their protest to their own backyard, and once again fall silent to the Bush administration’s continuing violations of the people’s rights.
The second point to be made that that House Speaker Dennis Hastert may have an ulterior motive in this protest after all: it has been reported that the FBI is investigating him, fast on the heels of Jefferson. He may be next.
What effect this entire episode will have on the Democrats’ ability to play on the Republican scandals over the past several years is up in the air.
According to Keith Obermann’s countdown show last night (generally a liberal slant) little is likely to come from the Hastert investigation, coming as it does near the end or wind down stage of an FBI investigation.
My sense is its probably an invasion of the legislative branch by a paranoid and incompetant executive branch.
But as far as the GOP congressman, they have handed power over to the executive branch like little cowardly shills. Now they get their come-uppance.
But I also think that it may be a political move. Jefferson is a democrat. It makes democrats look as bad as republicans if Jefferson gets more air time, then say, Delay or any number of K street henchmen. The combined affect is chilling to the Democrats. Hastert then plays good cop, and suddenly democrats have been innoculated and paralyzed from being an effective independent opposition force.
The whole thing is repugnant. Despite Bush’s failings, we are not out from underneath the fourth riech yet. Not by a long shot. A very long shot.
I think we’re going to agree to disagree on this one.
But however viscerally satisfying it would be to see some congressmen frog-marched out of the Capitol Building, it would not, in the end, have much effect; the remaining members would simply restructure their corruption to work around the new obstacle.
Luis. Shame on you. This is a horrible argument to make, and you’d never accept it from a rightwinger. It’d be like saying “there’s no use sending this bank robber to prison; he’ll just learn to be a better bank robber there anyway.”
Ironically, I agree with you; the big money in politics has found its way through so many nooks and crannies that it’d simply continue to flow into the system. Each time we see a campaign finance bill of some sort passed, the money simply finds another way in.
That does not, however, mean we should give up the battle. Same thing with corruption among elected officials.
The problems you’re talking about are two different issues. The deal with Congress not standing up for the little guy *is* a big problem, but that’s separate from corruption/bribery probes into Congress.
Personally, I think we need MORE probes like this.
Constitutionally, I don’t see any problem with the FBI’s actions here. They didn’t arrest the guy, and they still haven’t, despite having great gobs of evidence against him. I mean, for crying out loud, they’ve got the guy on videotape taking a $100,000 bribe, and they found $90,000 of that wrapped up and stashed in his freezer.
The only real question here is whether or not Congressmen are (thanks to Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution) immune from prosecution of this kind of rank corruption. (Surely this has been adjudicated in the past, like in Abscam?)
What’s more, what makes this particular crime somehow immune from prosecution? What if he’d shot someone in his office and hidden the body? Would his office be immune from search? I think not.
No, as much as I’d like to join you in condemning the Bush Administration for their overriding the Constitution and (wrongly) asserting massive powers on the part of the executive branch, I think this one is going exactly as it should. They’re investigating what certainly appears to be a blatant crime.
Paul
Seattle, WA
But however viscerally satisfying it would be to see some congressmen frog-marched out of the Capitol Building, it would not, in the end, have much effect; the remaining members would simply restructure their corruption to work around the new obstacle.Luis. Shame on you. This is a horrible argument to make, and you’d never accept it from a rightwinger. It’d be like saying “there’s no use sending this bank robber to prison; he’ll just learn to be a better bank robber there anyway.”Shame on me, nothing. As I said, there’s a benefit and a cost: the benefit is a temporary, perhaps even just limited to a one-shot gain against one corrupt congressman, and then the others find new ways to hide their stash. The cost is weakening the legislative and empowering the already-too-powerful executive. And remember, we’re talking about is the ability to search offices, which means little in a fight against corruption, but means volumes symbolically in the separation and balance of powers.
I think you misunderstand me: I am not saying to stop fighting corruption (you should know me better than that). I am saying that this will not help in the fight against corruption.
In my opinion, there is only one way to stop D.C. corruption: cut off the cash flow from the money men. Publicly fund elections; de-personize corporations; rule that money is not “free speech”; add a constitutional amendment that restricts all paid election year advertising unless it is funded by personal contributions no more than $20 per person per message.
That’s the only thing that’ll put power back in the hands of people and stop corruption, bribery, and the purchase of power in our government. Drastic, yes, but that’s the way it is. Anything short of that is just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Hindenberg. Anything less and the money men will find a way to use their money to some effect to bribe congresspeople and buy control, like they are buying it now.Personally, I think we need MORE probes like this.Again, I’m not saying that probes of congressmen are wrong or that this one should stop. I’m simply saying that you could probe every politician as much as you want, they won’t stop being bought. They’ll just pass other laws to give themselves more loopholes, just like they wrote the laws that define how a bribe can be determined to be a bribe. They have written all the laws that govern the buying of power, and they wrote them to give themselves enough leeway so they could accept bribes so long as they are careful enough. That’s why a politician can be for a measure one day, accept a “campaign contribution” from an opponent of that legislation the next day, and then vote against the measure the third day–and can’t be arrested for accepting a bribe because he can claim that the money and the vote switch were coincidental.Constitutionally, I don’t see any problem with the FBI’s actions here. They didn’t arrest the guy, and they still haven’t, despite having great gobs of evidence against him. I mean, for crying out loud, they’ve got the guy on videotape taking a $100,000 bribe, and they found $90,000 of that wrapped up and stashed in his freezer. … What’s more, what makes this particular crime somehow immune from prosecution?First: This does not mean members of Congress are immune from prosecution; it means that the offices of Congress cannot be violated by the executive. This is part of a rather careful balancing act that is rooted more in history and ceremony than it is in the constitution. Why does the president go the the Capitol to deliver the State of the Union? That’s not in the Constitution, and yet if the president stopped, there would be grave consequences. A lot of it is territoriality. Each branch has its house (the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court), and each is considered inviolate relative to the other. It is not a law, it is a highly symbolic measure of the equality of each branch of government. By raiding the offices of a congressman, the executive branch was essentially saying to the legislative, “I am more powerful than you are.” Perhaps it was intended, perhaps it was not–but that is the message. Symbolic it may be, but symbolism of this type is extremely powerful.
Remember Bush’s second press conference, in March 2003, as the White House was building up to war? The administration was building up its control and domination over the media, and to do that, they carried out several symbolic but powerful actions. I blogged about it–the third blog post I made on this blog. Reporters were not allowed to simply walk into the room; they were escorted, in pairs, into the room. Why? What possible reason was there–except to make clear who was in control. So much about that press conference–where reporters were seated, who was chosen to be asked, how they were allowed to ask–was very, very carefully coordinated by the White House to express dominance over the press corps. And it worked. It worked very, very effectively.
That’s what’s at stake in the current issue: if Congress allows this, it is a clear signal of a shift of powers. The White House is inviolate; Congress is not.
And second: as you said–and as I pointed out myself–the FBI has more than enough on this Jefferson weasel. What possible need is there for a search of his offices, when the symbolic meaning is so explosive? They have the man on tape, they caught him red-handed, they found the money in his freezer. They don’t need the office contents that badly.
And finally, look at Bush’s reaction. He could have simply said, the law is the law, too bad, suckas. Or he could have chided the FBI, given back the office contents, and told the Congress to then turn over the materials on their own terms; they probably would have done so, problem solved, and with this much light, Congress would never risk covering for Jefferson, especially not in an election year. But instead, Bush sealed the contents–for 45 days. Ostensibly, to give him and Congress time enough to work this out. But at the very least, Bush did it for diplomacy, and at most, he did it to let the public spotlight to die down, and maybe he could use the time to wrangle his dominance in the game. At minimum, Bush’s actions show that there is diplomacy and a territorial power balance in play.