The doubt I have about whether Congressmen are even capable of having conflicts of interest was reinforced by Instapundit’s link today to this New York Post editorial about Rep. Charlie Rangel’s gifts to three members of the House Ethics Committee, which will eventually judge his tax and reporting evasions.
One member of the panel, Peter Welch of Vermont, wisely decided to return his $20,000 gift from Rangel, citing the need for “an abundance of caution.”
But the other two — Ben Chandler of Kentucky and G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina — are holding on to Rangel’s largesse, claiming it in no way interferes with their ability to sit in judgment on their benefactor.
Now you may well ask, why do I have doubts that this — or any apparently quid quo pro Congressional behavior that fails the smell test — amounts to conflict of interest?
Because to be a conflict of interest there have to be two (or more) actual interests in conflict, and Congressmen for the most part have only one interest: getting re-elected.
That said, these two guys — one (Chandler) a Blue Dog and one (Butterfield) a member of the Congressional Black Caucus — are real pieces of work. Chandler, for example, laments the influence of money in politics and supports campaign finance reform because
Americans have lost confidence in their political system…. They believe that our current system for financing campaigns gives disproportionate power to wealthy individuals and groups and exerts too much influence over legislative and regulatory outcomes.
Chandler obviously believes that taking money from someone he’s about to judge will not contribute to any loss of confidence in him, the House ethics committee, or the House itself. (And he’s probably right; how much lower could that confidence get?)
Even more striking is the case of Rep. Butterfield, a former North Carolina Superior Court and Supreme Court judge. He once voted, for example, for a measure that
[p]rohibits members of the House from participating in events that honor them at the presidential nominating convention for the party in which they belong if the event is directly paid for by a registered lobbyist….
Campaigning with cash provided by someone he’s about to investigate and judge, however, is obviously quite kosher.
When Butterfield was appointed to the ethics committee, the News and Observer interviewed him and reported:
“I know that an investigation can destroy someone’s career, so I know how to handle myself,” he said.
The committee, made up of five Democrats and five Republicans, looks into allegations of violations of the House’s ethics rules, such as accepting improper gifts or failing to disclose a conflict of interest.
Unlike his time in Superior Court, Butterfield will act a both judge and juror on the committee, helping investigate and making a decision. The process is also more confidential than a regular trial.
Butterfield said that the position means he’ll have to be circumspect with his colleagues.
“It’s a solemn responsibility,” he said. “My interaction with other members has got to be appropriate.”
This former judge sees nothing inappropriate, of course, about taking and keeping money from someone he’s about to investigate and judge.
But let’s give the final word to Butterfield’s spokesman, who insisted a bit too loudly but still ambiguously, I think, that “[h]is integrity is not for sale, and certainly not [for] $5,000.”
