I am posting this due to all the petty ethics complaints being thrown at Tom Delay. It just shows how silly one of the complaints made against him are really.
Most of them are frivilous, which is why the republicans had to change the rules on the ethics commity to require a majority before hearings are held. Basicly the idea is if you cannot get one person from the other party to agree it is worth investigating, it is frivilous. If they did not change the rules Delay would have to spend all his time in hearings instead of doing his job.
Whether you are from the left or the right, Democrat or Republican, you should be able to see the rule change is fair. Remember there are Democrats in line to be brought up on ethics charges as well.
The following is a reprint from Patterco’s Pontifications:
The L.A. Times ran a front-page article this week about nepotism in Congress. The article contains new information about large payments to family members by several prominent Democrats, including Barbara Boxer:
[F]ive of the top six congressional families in The Timesâââ analysis of two election cycles were Californians. The campaign fund of Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose) paid $251,853 to her husbandâââs firm, according to the candidateâââs campaign filings. She was followed by Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-North Hollywood), $205,500; Rep. Bob Filner (D-San Diego), $154,504; and Rep. Howard P. ââÅBuckââ? McKeon (R-Santa Clarita), $152,362.
Altogether, at least 10 lawmakers in the 53-member California House delegation have hired family members, according to records and interviews.
Rep. Pete Stark (D-Hayward) paid his wife, Deborah, $119,000 from his campaign fund over the last four years to serve as his campaign manager, records show. In the last election, she earned $2,400 a month as campaign manager and was awarded a $2,400 bonus.
ââÅItâââs just a matter of paying her for the professional job she was doing,ââ? Stark said.
In addition, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) paid her son, a lawyer, $130,000 over four years to run her political action committee, according to her campaign filings.
But guess what? This new information was buried on page A18. And who was the only politician named on Page A1? Why, that would be Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whose payments to family members are old news:
The practice is not illegal but has come under new scrutiny following reports that House Majority Leader Tom DeLayâââs wife and daughter had received hundreds of thousands of dollars since 2001 from his political action and congressional campaign committees.
That pretty much fits normal news practice, right? New information on A18, old news on A1.
(Thanks to Hugh Hewitt for noting this first.)
P.S. Why in the world doesnââât the L.A. Times publish the hard data online so that readers can see for themselves exactly which lawmakers have been discovered to have relatives on the payroll, and how much money is involved? Is there any excuse for not doing this?
Hat tip to the Discerning Texan for pointing me to this article.