New allegations that Illinois Senator Roland Burris had engaged in fund-raising discussions on behalf of corrupt then-Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich pursuant to his appointment as interim senator (succeeding Barack Obama) are floating around. The emphasis that those who want Burris to step down (or get kicked out) are trying to make is that he had earlier denied any such discussions with Blagojevich about contributions when earlier seeking to be admitted into the Senate. It was Burris himself who pulled the Fredo Corleone-style loose-tongued blunder while campaigning (?) around his state during the Senate break. All he had to do was keep his mouth shut about the matter, but he didn’t. But whether or not Burris had lied about the contacts does not necessarily imply that he had engaged in a pay-for-play unethical transaction with the now-deposed governor. On the contrary, the fact the Burris had brought it up himself would seem to indicate that nothing had come of it.
I know that the fashion nowadays for “nabbing” people is not to catch them doing something wrong: it is catching them lying about something related to the charge, not the charge itself. This “gotcha on perjury” tactic is epidemic in our government. The first step is to cast aspersions on someone’s character or conduct and then to invite that person so besmirched to attend a formal hearing to speak about the charges or suspicions. Then, once that individual’s comments are “on the record”, these are henceforth used against him/her anytime anything comes up to contradict them. And I don’t think that this is any way to conduct ethical or criminal investigations and prosecutions.
The Democrats in the Senate want a strong candidate to run in the 2010 election against a possibly resurgent Republican Party. They know that having a strong incumbent in place would give them a great advantage in that election. Roland Burris may or may not run in 2010, but he is by no means a strong political figure. But any effort on the part of the Democratic leadership in the Senate to remove Burris from office because of some offhand remarks he made raises a larger question of their true motives in the matter. And opens up an even larger can of worms regarding the question of “who gets to be senator?”
Blagojevich, when he appointed Burris to the vacant Senate seat, was admittedly under a cloud of scandal, already under indictment for corruption and facing impeachment from his state’s legislature. But until he was removed from office, Governor Blagojevich had the complete authority and responsibility to carry out his duties as governor. And one of those duties was to make appointments to fill in vacant seats for the U.S. Senate. It wasn’t a question of how popular the governor or his choice was: that was the law. Choosing which person gets to be a fellow member of their “club” is not a privilege that standing Senate members are entitled to. The political power in the Senate, as recognized by our Constitution, must derive itself from the states. If there were any flaws in the process, then they rested within the state of Illinois and its laws and procedures. Harry Reid, for all of his other shortcomings as Senate Majority Leader, had been correct in relenting to allow Burris to be sworn into office.
Now they want to hold hearings and possibly even vote to throw Burris out of office. For what? Lying? Then they would have to throw themselves out of office as well! Whatever power the U.S. Senate has to expel one of its own members must be used in only the most extreme cases. Otherwise, it may become commonplace to target renegade senators who won’t tow the party line for investigations and removal. And our democratic way of life would greatly suffer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To me, at least, the point isn't that he lied, but that, given what Blagojevich did and what connection Burris may or may not have had to that — we're not entirely sure of what it is, and we probably will never be — the propriety of the whole situation is sufficiently questionable to want us to back off and fill the senate seat in an way that's independent of the "One seat! Seat for sale!" scandal.
ReplyDelete[How's that?: I got current politics, an "Oliver!" reference, and a very long sentence in all at once.]
I've never been worried about the lies so much as the consequences of the lies. Bill Clinton lied about his sexual relationships, but the consequences, before Congress decided to waste amazing amounts of time and effort on it, were limited to a stained dress and issues between the president and his wife. I don't care about those lies.
George Bush lied about what he knew about Iraq, and the consequences included a war, thousands of dead Americans, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, hard-to-count billions of dollars spent that could have been better spent elsewhere, and so on. I do care about those lies.
In Burris's situation, we wonder whether he participated in Blagojevich's little "satchels full of dough" scheme or not. Illinois needs a senator who we know did not get there through those means.
The amount of financial hanky-panky that will be going on in next year's election for this Illinois seat in the U.S. Senate will make any "satchels full of dough" scheme under Blagojevich seem like pocket change in comparison. And that is what bothers me about this electoral process: the need for candidates to procure massive amounts of money for their campaigns, often from questionable sources. And some of our current Senators, elected this way, feel comfortable standing in judgment over Burris?
ReplyDelete