Ethics Issues are Broader than Bribes
C. H. McMillan
March 29, 2006
I was sorry yesterday to see Sen. Susan Collins? Amendment to the Ethics Bill (S.2349) fail.
She was on an important track in wishing to get some outside influence involved in Congressional ethics review and investigation by creating the equivalent of a Special Counsel to the Committees.
Not everything wrong is related to the Jack Abramoff scandal of contribution misuse and shuffling money between sitting congressmen and their collages and or candidates they wish to help ? all of which is the undesired outcome of the McCain/Fingold ?reform? of three years ago (I note with interest that McCain was one of less than 10% of Senators voting opposed to the final bill).
Congress does not do an even passing job of policing its own. Almost no consideration is given to conflict of interest in excluding a member from participating in debate or voting on issues where they stand to gain ? personally.
A case in point: Last year as the Senate debated Sen. Craig?s AgJobs Bill, which incidentally was incorporated into the recent Amnesty Bill, advanced by the Judiciary Sub-Comm. to the floor Monday, by Sen. Fienstein. I took exception to Sen. Gordon Smith?s advocacy for the bill because of some insight into his personal situation, which prompted the communication here copied.
Letterhead ? April 29, 2005 Senate Select Committee on Ethics
George Voinovich (R-OH) [Chairman] @FAX 202-228-1382
Tim Johnson (D-SD) [Vice Chairman] @FAX 202-228-5765
My dear Senators and interested parties;
SUBJECT: Probable Ethics Violations
Oregon's Senator Gordon Smith is among the US Senate's most consistent opponents of reasonable restrictions on immigration.
I would suggest that Sen. Smith has no business voting on the AgJobs Bill or any legislation that increases immigration or provides amnesty to illegals already here. At a minimum, Sen. Smith has a potential conflict of interest in that his family?s agricultural interests benefit from the low wages paid to agricultural workers in general, because of the presence of illegal laborers whose availability suppresses wages. In reality, the Senator probably has a true conflict of interests because the likelihood that these family agricultural enterprises employ no illegal aliens is scant to none.
I would respectfully suggest that this situation is an appropriate subject of inquire for the Senate Ethics Committee and further suggest that Sen. Smith is probably not the only member of your august body to be similarly compromised. All Senators holding close connections (or who?s families do) to industries that provide and depend upon the employment of illegal aliens ? agriculture, hospitality, real-estate development, landscaping, service and retail, etc.; should be required to recluse themselves from debate and voting on this subject matter.
I would appreciate being kept abreast of any action that is taken in response to this question of conduct of Senate business.
Best regards, /s/ C. H. McMIllan
cc: Senators Wyden (D-OR); Smith (R-OR);
Majority: Bill H. Frist (R-TN); Minority: Harry Reid (D-NV);
Rep. Greg Walden (R- OR); Rep. Tom Tancredo (R- CO).
I received no acknowledgment to my concerns from anyone and Smith went on to vote on the Bill, which fortunately didn?t pass. My concerns are again heightened by the revival of immigration debate commencing this week.
Then, as it should be now and always, conflicted Congress members should be forced to recluse themselves and the present self-policing system doesn?t enforce that adiquatly - if at all.
C. H. McMillan
She was on an important track in wishing to get some outside influence involved in Congressional ethics review and investigation by creating the equivalent of a Special Counsel to the Committees.
Not everything wrong is related to the Jack Abramoff scandal of contribution misuse and shuffling money between sitting congressmen and their collages and or candidates they wish to help ? all of which is the undesired outcome of the McCain/Fingold ?reform? of three years ago (I note with interest that McCain was one of less than 10% of Senators voting opposed to the final bill).
Congress does not do an even passing job of policing its own. Almost no consideration is given to conflict of interest in excluding a member from participating in debate or voting on issues where they stand to gain ? personally.
A case in point: Last year as the Senate debated Sen. Craig?s AgJobs Bill, which incidentally was incorporated into the recent Amnesty Bill, advanced by the Judiciary Sub-Comm. to the floor Monday, by Sen. Fienstein. I took exception to Sen. Gordon Smith?s advocacy for the bill because of some insight into his personal situation, which prompted the communication here copied.
Letterhead ? April 29, 2005 Senate Select Committee on Ethics
George Voinovich (R-OH) [Chairman] @FAX 202-228-1382
Tim Johnson (D-SD) [Vice Chairman] @FAX 202-228-5765
My dear Senators and interested parties;
SUBJECT: Probable Ethics Violations
Oregon's Senator Gordon Smith is among the US Senate's most consistent opponents of reasonable restrictions on immigration.
I would suggest that Sen. Smith has no business voting on the AgJobs Bill or any legislation that increases immigration or provides amnesty to illegals already here. At a minimum, Sen. Smith has a potential conflict of interest in that his family?s agricultural interests benefit from the low wages paid to agricultural workers in general, because of the presence of illegal laborers whose availability suppresses wages. In reality, the Senator probably has a true conflict of interests because the likelihood that these family agricultural enterprises employ no illegal aliens is scant to none.
I would respectfully suggest that this situation is an appropriate subject of inquire for the Senate Ethics Committee and further suggest that Sen. Smith is probably not the only member of your august body to be similarly compromised. All Senators holding close connections (or who?s families do) to industries that provide and depend upon the employment of illegal aliens ? agriculture, hospitality, real-estate development, landscaping, service and retail, etc.; should be required to recluse themselves from debate and voting on this subject matter.
I would appreciate being kept abreast of any action that is taken in response to this question of conduct of Senate business.
Best regards, /s/ C. H. McMIllan
cc: Senators Wyden (D-OR); Smith (R-OR);
Majority: Bill H. Frist (R-TN); Minority: Harry Reid (D-NV);
Rep. Greg Walden (R- OR); Rep. Tom Tancredo (R- CO).
I received no acknowledgment to my concerns from anyone and Smith went on to vote on the Bill, which fortunately didn?t pass. My concerns are again heightened by the revival of immigration debate commencing this week.
Then, as it should be now and always, conflicted Congress members should be forced to recluse themselves and the present self-policing system doesn?t enforce that adiquatly - if at all.
C. H. McMillan
Print
Email
