Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
The full House has not voted yet.
But are you suggesting that the House use different standards for expulsion than other previous findings of ethics violations?
I would agree with you that the House needs to make its ethics penalties more punitive...but I dont agree with changing the rules in the middle of the game. In the history of Congress and most recently, the only Members expelled were those convicted of a crime in a criminal court...and a few expelled for their support of the Confederacy during the Civil War.
A "censure" is more punitive than a "reprimand" and is fitting in this case, based on existing standards.
Let the Republicans, who will draft the new House rules, establish harsher punishment going forward. I would absolutely support such House rules.
But why do away with the OCE?
|
There's no time like the present to start making an example of corrupt politicians. Rangel went 17 years without paying some taxes? Why is he even in office, let alone not in jail or heavily fined?
I don't know the details of what the Republicans plan. If they are implementing strong ethics rules and don't need the OCE. I agree with what Derwood said about some independent group filing and handling ethics violations claims.