Congressional ethics scandals are no longer shocking people because they have become nauseatingly routine. Every few weeks seems to bring another allegation involving abuse of office, campaign finance violations, sexual misconduct, personal enrichment, or some other ethics scandal.
Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that Congress handles these scandals the same way nearly every time, and they end with little punishment. Investigations drag on until political pressure fades or until members leave office, at which point the investigation stops. Other times, Congress waits until after the member’s reelection to move forward with the case, then issues a watered-down punishment years later — assuming the case is even pursued at all.
Recommended Stories
Congress has effectively built an ethics system in which accountability can almost always be delayed, diluted, or avoided altogether. No other workplace in America would tolerate an accountability system like this. Yet Congress has grown remarkably comfortable operating a system in which the subjects of investigations largely control the rules, timelines, and consequences governing them. In other words, the inmates are running the asylum.
As of April, congressional approval sits at just 10%, tying one of the worst marks ever recorded. And honestly, why shouldn’t it be?
Over the last several months alone, there have been four disgraceful and well-publicized ethics cases. California Democrat Eric Swalwell resigned just days after allegations of sexual misconduct were made public. Florida Democrat Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick resigned after years under investigation for abusing millions of taxpayer funds and extreme violations of campaign finance laws, and just before the House Ethics Committee was expected to recommend punishment. Texas Republican Tony Gonzales admitted to engaging in an inappropriate relationship with a young staffer and resigned before the House could move forward with what appeared to be a likely expulsion effort. Finally, Rep. Cory Mills (R-FL) remains under investigation over allegations involving campaign finance violations, sexual misconduct, and personal enrichment.
In three of the four cases, leaving office effectively became a means of ending the investigation and avoiding punishment from the House Ethics Committee. But the larger problem is that these members remained in office for some period with significant power even after their misconduct came to light.
Now, as Congress’s corruption becomes increasingly impossible to ignore and public trust continues collapsing, the House Ethics Committee is suddenly insisting the real problem is that it needs more staff, more authority, and more resources to adequately investigate and punish misconduct.
But that is the standard government response to virtually every institutional failure in Washington: create another office, hire more people, spend more money, and promise better results next time.
The larger problem is not merely resources. It is culture, incentives, and political self-preservation.
So, what can be done to truly make a difference here?
There are many possibilities, but a few to consider are:
- 1. If concrete, or even highly credible, evidence exists that a member has broken any significant law, the ethics investigation should be started immediately, expedited with all possible speed, and finished even if the member resigns — no more intentional and political slow-playing.
- 2) The Ethics Committee should issue a written decision that a violation occurred in every case where one is found. For instance, we routinely see members of Congress using official House floor footage for political purposes, a clear violation of the law that should be acknowledged every time it occurs.
- 3) Any member found guilty of a significant violation should immediately be cut off from any future benefits of holding office, including pensions, healthcare, and access to their campaign and PAC accounts — no loopholes, no exceptions.
- 4) Aside from their immediate expulsion, any findings of guilt should ban the member from ever holding federal office again.
- 5) Any funds that may be required to pay legal fees or restitution are to be paid by the member themselves — not their campaign donors, not the taxpayers, not their political party.
Wherever this reckoning ends, it’s imperative that the severity of the consequences going forward is enough to both meet the present moment and deter future violations. In a perfect world, much of this deterrence would be organically created by voters, but, as shown by our sky-high incumbent winning percentages, this hasn’t recently been the case — which is a separate topic for another time.
Ultimately, accountability is the bare minimum requirement for public trust. Until Congress starts treating ethical misconduct with the seriousness expected in every other workplace, 90% of people will continue viewing the institution exactly as they do now: arrogant, insulated, and undeserving of the offices they hold.
Kendra Arnold is the executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust.
