Political Theatre and the Trial of Congressman Rangel

If display of scripture were allowed in public buildings, this would be my choice for inscription above the door of the House Ethics Committee:

 

“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”  Mathew 7:3

 

Congressman Rangel has been charged with multiple ethics violations, including:

 

1. Rangel accepted gifts worth more than $50, which are prohibited.  The gifts he received – including rent stabilized apartments in Harlem for himself and for his campaign office – exceeded the allowed amount.  Most of the gifts did not count as campaign contributions, which if properly accounted for may be worth much more than $50.  House members routinely take advantage of the fact that the gift ban does not include campaign contributions and also exploit the even more lenient rules for 527s and other off the books campaign entities blessed by the Supreme Court.  What House members don’t do is waste their time with personal gifts.  Because Rangel took personal gifts exceeding the allowed amount, ethics charges against him will focus public attention on his ineptitude instead of the fact that Congress has little interest in passing legislation requiring transparency in corporate campaign spending.
2. Rangel did not declare and pay taxes on income he earned from a beach villa in the Dominican Republic.  This is bad.  We all pay taxes and so should Members of Congress.  The fact that the Treasury Secretary also can’t fill out his tax return correctly is no excuse.   
3. Rangel solicited donations from corporations and foundations for a school built in his honor at City College of New York.  He solicited donations for a school?   Other Members of the House raise money for worthwhile causes, and he wastes his time soliciting donations for a school?  Has he never heard of the Democratic National Committee?  Doesn’t he have a PAC?   If he has a safe seat, doesn’t he want to help raise campaign money for other members?  But a school; that is lame.  Rangel also apparently helped preserve a tax break for an oil executive who had donated to the school.  House members routinely preserve tax breaks for campaign contributors, but people who donate money to charity already get a tax break and are hardly entitled to more.  And the fact that the school was named for Rangel is also bad.  Other Members put their names on Acts of Congress (recall how hard Congressman Oxley fought for the financial reform bill that became the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and how hard Senator Dodd fought for financial services reform before passage of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010).  Schools, on the other hand, are named for Members after they retire.
4. Rangel’s financial disclosure forms had substantial omissions.  He obviously should have been more careful.  Everyone knows that these forms are enormously important in government ethics.  Ethics lawyers spend much of their careers helping government employees fill out the forms accurately.  It does not matter that Members of Congress – unlike Executive Brach employees – have wide latitude to participate in matters that affect their personal financial interests.  It does not matter that Members of Congress and Executive Branch employees alike have wide latitude to participate in matters that affect the financial interests of political supporters and campaign contributors.  Financial disclosure forms help reassure the public that government is ethical, and Rangel’s failure to make even a token attempt to keep up appearances has brought discredit on the House.

In sum, I do not approve of the Congressman’s actions if the allegations against him are true.  He was wrong.  I wonder, however, how his House colleagues can take action against him without acknowledging the more serious breaches of the public trust that have become a part of everyday political life.

 

All this reminds me of the day, nearly twenty years ago, when I saw a man playing three-card monte on a cardboard box with gullible pedestrians outside 85 Broad Street in New York City, which is the headquarters of Goldman Sachs.  Suddenly three plain clothes police officers descended upon the man, kicked over the box, took his cards and money and told him to get lost.  Con games of this sort (this one goes back to the Fifteenth Century) are unacceptable in our financial district, and it is reassuring that law enforcement is there to protect the public.