Deviating From A Well Conditioned Response

The Clay family political dynasty has always rubbed me the wrong way. For those who don't know, William Clay was a longtime member of Congress representing north St. Louis City and portions of St. Louis County as a Democrat. The seat is now held by his son Lacy Clay. I grew up in this district, and it always struck me that there was a sort of complacency about our member of congress. Part of this is the benign neglect a district can suffer when it is the safest of safe seats. Clay never had to do anything for the district and he was still going to be sent back to Washington with 80%+ of the vote. The impression was given that the Clays didn't worry overmuch about the folks back "home", not when there were big doings in the District of Columbia to be involved in. This bred in me a hard bitten cynicism about the Clay dynasty. If Congressman Clay, of the William or Lacy variety, came out strongly for Issue A I would be almost instinctively against it. The Clay's hate Proposition Z? "Well," I'd say, "What's so wrong about Z?" There was a lovely little consistency about the whole thing.

Then I came upon this little article: CBC digs in for Jefferson

The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) dug in its heels yesterday in defense of indicted Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) and expressed concerns that a House ethics investigation on the lawmaker’s alleged corrupt activities could influence, even poison, a future jury trial.

Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-Mich.), the CBC chairwoman, said in a release, “We trust the merits of the case against Congressman Jefferson will be examined in a court of law instead of the chambers of public opinion.”

“The presumption of innocence has a significant meaning, even for a member of Congress,” said Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), who said he had spoken to Jefferson during the past 48 hours. “It is difficult to read these very serious allegations and not jump to a conclusion, but we must not do that.”

Nevertheless, nearly all CBC lawmakers voted for a measure that requires the ethics committee to investigate any lawmaker who has been indicted. Of the six Democratic lawmakers opposed to the Democratic resolution, two were CBC members: Reps. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) and John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.).

“The ethics committee has no credibility,” said Clay, who also rejected a GOP-backed resolution Tuesday night that called on the ethics panel to investigate Jefferson. “We have had since 2005 to decide what to do, why now? It’s shenanigans.”

No CBC lawmaker has called for Jefferson to resign.

When asked, Clay said, “That’s on him.”

Meanwhile, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) yesterday said, “I think Mr. Jefferson’s effectiveness has been substantially impaired, and I think he needs to take that into consideration as to what action he is going to take.”

The CBC has attempted to protect Jefferson from political pressure to resign, but it has not been able to stop the Democratic Caucus from stripping him of his committee assignments.

Jefferson spared his colleagues from a difficult vote by temporarily resigning on Monday from the Small Business Committee. Jefferson did not vote on either ethics resolution on Tuesday.

Butterfield said that Jefferson was “holding up well,” but that he was distressed and concerned about the case and the potential legal fees.

Jefferson has $32,963 in his war chest and reported no donations to his legal defense fund during the first quarter of this year, according to Political Money Line, which tracks campaign finance data.

House Republicans raised questions about whether some Democrats appointed to the ethics pool could impartially judge Jefferson.

One of the contributors, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), said, “If I thought I could not be fair and impartial, I’d recuse myself.”

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who also contributed money to Jefferson, would answer that question if she is selected from the ethics pool, said Nathan Britton, Lee’s spokesman.

Reps. Butterfield, Julia Carson (D-Ind.), Ed Pastor (D-Ariz.), and Sanford Bishop, Jr. (D-Ga.) contributed to his campaign this year. Reps. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and Meeks contributed to his legal defense fund last year.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who donated money to former Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s (R-Texas) legal defense fund, recused himself from an ethics committee investigation in 2005.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) also recused himself from the panel in 2005 because he contributed money to DeLay.

Now, there is a lot going on in this article. Some of the actions of CBC members I could take issue with, such as not making it clear that those who contributed money to Jefferson's defense fund should recuse themselves if called upon by any ethics committee. That isn't even a difficult call.

But, it almost pains me to say, I would have voted with Clay and against the measure to have the Ethics committee automatically look at any member under indictment, at least until the criminal matters are settled. Is there any earthly purpose to having such congressional investigation other than offering political cover to the parties embarrassed by the accusations? Probably not. More importantly, is there any good that could result from having such hearings before the criminal matters are adjudicated? Most assuredly no.

It isn't as if the parties are unable to show displeasure for the legal pickles Representatives sometimes get themselves into. Temporarily removing committee assignments from those under the cloud of indictment seems a perfectly proportionate penalty for someone who also enjoys the presumption of innocence. The Democrats rightly caught some hell for dragging their feet about Jefferson's committee assignments initially, and I think they are trying to make up for that fact with this Ethics Committee ploy, but it is only a waste of time. It also opens the process up to political abuses since it makes the entire process about politics instead of being about ethics.