Linda Chavez
Wrongs and the right
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com |
Tom DeLay is in a heap of trouble — or so the media would have
you believe. For weeks now, the front pages of the Washington Post and New
York Times have hammered away at the House majority leader for a series of
supposed transgressions. Some editorial staffer at the New York Times went
so far as to try to persuade former Republican Congressman Bob Livingston to
write an op-ed calling for DeLay to step aside for the good of the party,
according to columnist Robert Novak. But what exactly is it that Tom DeLay
is alleged to have done? After hundreds of hours of investigative work by
the nation's biggest news organizations, the evidence of any actual
ethical — much less legal — breach is pretty thin. Now contrast the media
coverage of l'affaire DeLay with, say, the admission
by former Clinton National Security Adviser Samuel "Sandy" Berger that he
stole and destroyed classified documents that might have shed light on the
Clinton administration's failure to take seriously the threat posed by al
Qaeda. No wonder conservatives are a little paranoid about media bias.
Like many members of Congress and their staffs, DeLay has taken
trips overseas paid for by third parties. Frankly, I think this is a lousy
practice. If members or their staffs need information that can only be
gleaned through traveling abroad, then the government should pick up the
tab. My guess is there would be fewer trips, but so what? These trips have
earned the term "junkets" for good reason. But DeLay is hardly the only
member who has taken the largesse of groups trying to influence government.
The congressional ethics rules require these trips to be paid
for by so-called 501(c) (3) groups, named for the tax code section that
grants them exempt status. But it's silly to suggest that such groups aren't
seeking influence (I should know, I've headed up several such organizations
over the last 20 years). While they may not be lobbying Congress directly,
such groups advocate public policy positions that can only be helped by
close association with powerful senators and congressmen. Since money is
fungible, it is often difficult to track whether such groups are really
providing conduits for corporations or other prohibited groups to pay for
the trips indirectly by making tax-deductible contributions to the policy
group that then pays for the trip — which is what the Post has tried to tar
DeLay with.
In the most recent charge, the media have accused DeLay of going
on a trip to Russia paid for by the National Center for Public Policy
Research, which allegedly received donations second- or third-hand from
Russian energy interests. So far, there's no proof that DeLay knew about,
much less approved, these contributions. He might be guilty of keeping bad
company — lobbyist Jack Abramoff, currently under criminal investigation
for some of his activities on behalf of Indian gaming interests, was on the
Russia trip and may have ginned up the contributions that paid for it — but
at the time DeLay took the trip, he had no way of knowing how unsavory his
companions were. The best way to prevent such abuse would be to prohibit any
third party from paying for trips, period. But I don't see many Democrats
advocating drastically changing the rules.
Which brings me to my second point. Why is it that the DeLay
story has so dominated the media when the story of former Clinton National
Security Adviser Sandy Berger's amazing guilty plea produced barely a
footnote? The New York Times covered the story April 2 on page 10 with fewer
than 600 words. And no one in the national media has seemed very interested
in exploring why Berger stole and destroyed highly classified documents.
"His motives in taking the documents remain something of a mystery," the
usually inquisitive Times noted blandly. The Los Angeles Times (which at
least put the story on page 1) ventured this guess as to why Berger took
scissors to some copies of the stolen memos but not others: "Berger was
notorious for having a desk that looked like it had been hit by a hurricane,
and his defenders seemed to be suggesting he had held onto some copies and
cut up others in order to avoid losing them." Yeah, right.
Could it be that maybe, just maybe, the hand-written notes in
the margins of some documents might have made Berger or Bill Clinton look
bad? You can bet if the documents had something to do with a trip by Tom
DeLay, there would be 100 reporters assigned to find out.
JWR contributor Linda Chavez is President of the Center for Equal Opportunity. Her latest book is "Betrayal: How Union Bosses Shake Down Their Members and Corrupt American Politics". (Click HERE to purchase. Sales help fund JWR.)
