Posted August 30, 2007 by Meredith McGehee

When "No Comment" Speaks Volumes

Ethical lapses are neither a Democratic or a Republican problem, nor are they a House or a Senate problem – they are a congressional problem.  The sooner Members recognize this fact, the sooner they can put their Houses in order and begin trying to regain the public trust.  The situation surrounding Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) further reveals the fatal flaws in the current congressional ethics process.

Once again circling the wagons, the Senate Ethics Committee and its Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) have responded with the traditional “no comment.”  Unfortunately, this usual response is not very reassuring.  In light of what has already been reported, including the guilty plea by Senator Craig, it is troubling that the American public doesn’t even receive any acknowledgement that the Ethics Committee, using its existing power to initiate an investigation, is indeed launching an investigation of the matter.      

As the Legal Center has noted for quite some time now, in order to restore its credibility in the eyes of the people they serve, both houses of Congress must make their ethics enforcement not only more transparent, but create a more independent enforcement entity.  “No comments” and “black hole” proceedings only serve to fuel the public cynicism that Congress is more interested in looking out for its own and limiting political fallout than enforcing strong standards of public integrity.

Senators continue to cling to the misguided notion that this traditional shroud of secrecy is both ethical and appropriate.  They are wrong.  In the investigation of a criminal matter by a prosecutor, ethical rules as well as privacy and confidentiality concerns, usually and justifiably produce a “no comment” from the prosecutor’s office.  But in an ethics investigation involving a sitting Member of Congress, doesn’t the public at least have the right to know that an inquiry will be conducted, that it will occur promptly, and that the results will be made public?  And that should be especially true when the allegations of conduct bringing disrepute to the office and the body contain certain facts that have been admitted, as here.  Instead, a “no comment” merely brings suspicion to the process and  undermines public confidence in Congress as an institution. 

Americans are tired of the sense of entitlement that prompted Senator Craig to flash his business card at the arresting officer.  They are also tired of a congressional ethics system that, under the guise of fair-handedness, in fact appears much too concerned with protecting its own. 

The Senate ethics committee should immediately make clear its intended course of action with regard to Sen. Craig and then publicly release the results of its investigations and conclusions.  The Senate would be far better served, starting with the Craig case, by a more transparent ethics process than by simply pulling the shades down.