If you find this article informative and worthwhile, please support my work by donating if you can.

logo    Congressional Corruption


The Abramoff scandal raised quite an uproar in the Congress for a week or so after its revelation, and many Congressmen made bold pronouncements of their intentions to reform, all of which were dutifully reported in the mainstream press. But that press has said little about the backtracking those Congressmen have engaged in since then.

DON MONKERUD has nicely cataloged the entire affair in an article titled, Not a Roar, But a Whimper which can be read at http://www.counterpunch.org/.

But Congressional corruption is old hat to Americans. So old hat that it is difficult to arouse their ire. Since as far back as 1892, and perhaps even earlier, it has been a political issue. In that year, the Populist Party's platform stated that "Corruption dominates the ballot-box, the Legislatures, the Congress, and touches even the ermine of the bench." In 1911, the Progressive Republican League wrote that, "Popular government in America has been thwarted and progressive legislation strangled by the special interests, which control caucuses, delegates, conventions, and party organizations; and, through this control of the machinery of government, dictate nominations and platforms, elect administrations, legislatures, representatives in Congress, United States Senators, and control cabinet officers." President Wilson said, on March 4, 1913, "The great Government we loved has too often been made use of for private and selfish purposes. . . ." In 1924, the La Follette platform stated "The great issue before the American people today is the control of government . . . by private monopoly." And the Democratic platform of 1932 said, "We condemn paid lobbies of special interests to influence members of Congress and other public servants. . . ." If there ever was a chance to reform the Congress, it was in 1933 when the Democrats who ran on this platform held an 80% percent majority in the House of Representatives and a 61% majority in the Senate. Alas, it never happened.

So why after at least 114 years of complaints of corruption in Congress has the Congress done nothing to reform itself and does not seem to be about to do anything about it today? What can we say about the character of those who hold Congressional offices and act in this way? Well let's look at what we know about our Congressmen.

The Washington newspaper, Roll Call, published a list of the 50 wealthiest. In order to even to be considered for inclusion on the list, a Congressman's wealth had to exceed $3 million. It has been said that a third of the Senate and one-seventh of the House are millionaires. Yet these people pay themselves between $162,100 and $208,000 per year; while the minimum wage for working Americans has been stuck at $5.15 per hour for the last ten years, which comes to about $10,000 a year. Let a Congressman try living on that.

While the Social Security program is in financial trouble and health care is beyond the financial reach of many Americans, the Congress has voted itself both a retirement plan and a health care plan.

Now I ask you, why would Congressmen whose individual wealth exceeds 3 million need retirement and health care plans? Why do they need salaries? What ever happened to the wealthy public servant who was willing to serve for a nominal one dollar a year?

Of course, the perks that lobbyists confer on Congressman increase their incomes too. Why do millionaires need these perks? What kind of people would not only accept them but also refuse to reform the system?

Randolph Horn, a professor of political science at Stamford University, has said, "A lot of politicians might have sufficient wealth that they would be considered independently wealthy. Many would be wealthy enough to not have to work, but they choose to." Work? Many of these people have never worked a day in their lives. Oh, yes, they put in a lot of time at the taxpayer's expense, but work? Please provide a list of their accomplishments in effective legislation.

These are the people who advise the least literate among us to read the fine print in contracts, but they regularly vote on legislation so voluminous that not a single Congressman has read the legislation cover to cover before voting.

The overall approval rating of the Congress stands at a whopping 37%. If that were a grade in a college course, they would be failures. With such an approval rating, why don't these Congressmen consider themselves failures?

Americans are under the misapprehension that the right to petition the government is upheld in the U.S. Constitution. But that is not what the Constitution says. It instead provides the right of the people . . . to petition the government for a redress of grievances. It does not provide the right to petition the government for special advantages; yet that is precisely what lobbyists do. To my knowledge, this clause of the Constitution has never been adjudicated. I wonder why.

It is customary in America to refer to Congressmen as Honorable in forms of address. What a linguistic travesty! And there lies the rub. If the American people would start referring to their Congressmen as the Dishonorable Mr. So and so, perhaps those Congressmen would get the message. It is often said that the truth shall set you free. So why don't we call them what they are? After all, the only valid conclusion one can draw from the facts mentioned above is that Congressman are not in the game to be public servants; they are in the game for the money, and that being the case, they will never reform themselves.

Yet a lot could be done without Congressional cooperation. Independent organizations, such as Common Cause, could get together, hire a bunch of private investigators to not only keep tabs on the doings of these 535 people but also investigate the backgrounds of all political candidates, and publish the results in ways that make those results known to the American people. Legislatures advocate background checks for people in many lines of work. Why not background checks for politicians? Five hundred and thirty five people are not a lot of people to keep track of, and even if those in the legislatures of the states are included, the number is not huge.

Candidates could be asked to pledge that they will not accept gifts from lobbyists, and if they violate this pledge when elected, their violations should be made into campaign issues in reelections.

Congressmen who have accepted gifts from lobbyists could be asked to explain why they thought they needed those gifts, and their explanations, if forthcoming, could be given critical scrutiny.

But even so, none of this might work, because one of the things those Congressmen are famous for running on is the pork that they succeed in bringing back to their districts. That pork influences people; yet everyone fails to realize that such acts are themselves corrupt. This pork buys off the public just as special interests buy off the Congress. So to stay in power a corrupt Congress corrupts the people, but the pork the people get is never enough for a solid meal.

A movement is needed; perhaps a movement that starts small and begins by referring to Congressmen truthfully. When they are seen to be dishonorable refer to them as such. When they stand for questions, ask the embarrassing ones. When they answer with nonsense or evasions, call it to the public's attention. If the Congress won't reform itself, perhaps we can shame it into reform. Reform is within the power of the American people; all they have to do is exercise it. The motto of the movement could be, Make a Congressman Blush. (4/30/2006)