It only takes reading a few of the 95 pages in the government’s 16-count indictment of Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., to realize the depth of the case against him and the portrait of stark venality it paints.
Jefferson is innocent until proven guilty, of course, and he has pleaded not guilty.
Recommended Stories
Even so, it is difficult to imagine a more damning indictment. Among the 16 counts are detailed charges that Jefferson solicited bribes from 14 companies here and abroad in return for his use of his position on their behalf and that he and associates established front companies to launder and conceal the fruits of his illegal bargains.
Uniquely, Jefferson is the first congressman ever charged with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which bars bribing foreign officials. His case first came to national attention when an FBI raid on his Virginia home found $90,000 stashed in a refrigerator. The government claims that cold cash was part of a down payment to a Nigerian official.
What is especially distressing about the Jefferson case is that it follows hard on the heels of prison sentences handed to two of his former congressional colleagues from the Republican side of the aisle, Randy Cunningham of California and Bob Ney of Ohio. There are also ongoing FBI investigations involving Rep. Allan Mollohan, D-W.Va., Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Calif., Rep. John Doolittle, R-Calif., and Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska.
The congressional “favor factory” described by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramof thrives because individual congressmen can still anonymously direct federal funds to themselves or family members, political allies, campaign contributors or personal staff members without fear of being held accountable. Such earmarking captures the essence of congressional abuse of office for personal gain.
While federal prosecutors don’t claim Jefferson used earmarks in his solicitations, let it be noted that the same disdain for the public trust epitomized in the crimes of which the Louisiana Democrat is accused is cultivated by the earmarking process.
Because the total annual value of earmarks in recent years has equaled but a small portion of the overall federal budget, some too-clever critics — most recently Ramesh Ponnuru, writing in National Review — have incautiously dismissed calls for reform as mere distractions from more important issues. But House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep. David Obey’s recent disclosure that his panel has received more than 36,000 earmark requests in just five months — more than double the total for all of 2005 — makes clear that many in Congress are hopelessly in the grip of what Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., calls “federal spending addiction.”
Either genuine ethics reform — not the business-as-usual smoke and mirrors thus far offered — is enacted ASAP, or the conclusion will be inescapable that Congress cannot change because abuse of office for personal gain has become the norm on Capitol Hill.
