DeLay Controversy:
In order to supplant Democratic objections to Republican "abuses of power," Republicans turned back the clock on House Ethics Committee changes.
1) The decision by House Republican leaders to go back to the old Ethics Committee rules to govern the investigation of Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R.-Texas) was wholly the work of Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R.-Ill.), who did not ask for a show of hands from his colleagues. The announcement came in a closed-door meeting without any comment from DeLay himself, and with objections only from Conference Chairman Deborah Pryce (R.-Ohio).
2) This imposition by Hastert of rule-by-grown-ups in the House could mark the final chapter of a story that typifies the clumsy (though very effective) Republican control over the House. The story began with a separate change in GOP House conference rules. These were changed in November, after the 2004 election, when it appeared Travis County prosecutor Ronnie Earle might indict DeLay. Earle is a very partisan Democrat with a history of political indictments. Without the GOP conference rule change, DeLay would have had to step down from his leadership position under party rules in case of an indictment-an embarrassing possibility.
3) In January, after it became clear that DeLay would not be indicted, the GOP conference rules were changed back, but DeLay felt a need to cover his bases with his other source of potential problems: the House Ethics Committee. Its chairman, the already unruly Rep. Joel Hefley (R.-Colo.), had been deprived of a more important position because of his famously poor relationship with the House leadership. Until this year, the Hefley committee's earlier ethics "admonitions" against DeLay were tolerable to the House leader. But as it became clear that Democrats were launching an ethics offensive, Hefley had to go.
4) The new House rules-including ethics changes designed to protect DeLay-passed the full U.S. House on a party-line vote in January. The new rules prevented an investigation from going forward unless the committee, evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, could produce a majority vote. The old rules allowed an investigation in the case of a tie on the committee. Removed from their immediate political context, the new rules had the benefit of preventing pure partisanship from ruling the committee.
5) Subsequently, Democrats began to ravage DeLay with the help of a pliant news media. They accused DeLay of practices that may sound nefarious to the public, but which are common practice among congressmen in both parties and neither illegal nor in violation of House rules. The most effective tool in their arsenal of rhetoric, however, has been the House rule change.
6) The return to the old House ethics rules seems like a victory for House Democrats, but they may regret this success. Far from abandoning DeLay with the return to the old rules, Hastert has done the best thing he could to protect him. The GOP and the Washington right have united in defending DeLay, with no signs of serious cracks in that support. The return to the old ethics rules only dulls Democrats' ability to make an issue of DeLay's ethical problems, as the most legitimate complaint against him has disappeared.
7) DeLay is likely to survive this controversy. The fact that he was able to bring warring Republican factions together and herd a budget through the House last week by a two-vote margin, while simultaneously holding off a barrage of Democratic attacks, is a testimony to his effectiveness. Still, his hopes of becoming House speaker have probably vanished with this controversy.
8) Other members of Congress are now digging in for a possible ethics war, which would be very ugly. A long line of congressional staffers queued up outside the door of the clerk of the House last Tuesday, waiting to get financial records for their respective bosses' trips abroad. Members from both parties want to be ready to defend themselves in case the Democratic leadership continues its effort to make political gains on the ethics issue.
