"Mr. President,

Would you allow me to show my concern for your well-earned prestigious reputation and to point out that your star, which until now has shown so brightly, risks being dimmed by the most shameful and indelible of stains?

 Unscathed by vile slander, you have won the hearts of all … And now the image of France is sullied by this filth, and history shall record it was under your presidency that this crime against society was committed.”

So begins J’accuse (I Accuse), an open letter Emile Zola wrote to the president of France accusing government officials of corruption in the infamous Dreyfus Affair.

Change France to America and the passage is equally germane today. Government officials are corrupting our system, making laws to suit their corporate masters in order to line their own pockets and campaign coffers.

•           •           •

If these lawmakers had a shred of decency, they would resign. But since they don’t, they should at least recuse themselves from matters in which they have an obvious financial interest.

Recuse: to abstain from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest

Most lawmakers are lawyers, and they are well aware legal ethics and common practice – to say nothing of common sense – demand an official with a vested interest in a matter recuse him or herself to avoid even the appearance of bias. An official who fails to do so voluntarily may have charges brought against him.

“Two sections of Title 28 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) provide … that a federal judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned … [or] when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding.”[1]

While this law applies primarily to judges, no doubt it ought to apply equally to lawmakers. Only a fool or a liar would claim money influences the judging of the law but not the making of it.

•           •           •

Incredibly and regrettably, the law is unsettled as to whether campaign contributions constitute a financial interest, but that may be changing.

“The Wisconsin Supreme Court is considering whether to require judges to recuse themselves from cases where the attorneys or litigants made large contributions to their election campaigns.” [2]

As with other financial interests, it is only reasonable to conclude that if campaign contributions influence those who judge the laws, surely they must influence those who make them. At the very least, they give the appearance of a conflict of interest; so even if the law doesn’t require lawmakers to recuse themselves, common sense and common decency do.

On rare occasions lawmakers do recuse themselves, but it is seldom if ever because legislation under their consideration affects campaign contributors. Why? They insist campaign contributions have no influence on their decisions, but corporations certainly think they’re getting something for their money.

•           •           •

Healthcare legislation is a glaring example of how campaign contributions and other forms of legalized bribery influence lawmakers. Proposed reforms will benefit corporations greatly, but they will likely have disastrous consequences for the public.

One such consequence has already occurred; the most logical solution – a single-payer system – was removed from consideration before the proceedings began. That’s tantamount to a trial judge arbitrarily excluding exculpatory testimony based on unsubstantiated assertions by bribed witnesses or crooked cops.

Another disaster will occur if, as proposed, reform mandates coverage for low-risk individuals, allows insurers to dump anyone who poses a probable risk into a public option or high-risk pool, and makes public wards of people with pre-existing conditions. Such “reform" will inevitably place a huge financial burden on the exchequer – a burden that can only be met by large tax increases or debt – while providing a multi-billon dollar bonanza to insurers.

 •           •           •

Villainy is so pervasive in Congress, it's difficult to choose a first among worst; but in this particular matter, Senators Max Baucus and Joe Lieberman are leading candidates for that dishonor.

Last year, Baucus received more than $1.5 million from industry sources. What kind of influence does that buy?

“At Baucus's side, drafting much of the wording of the reform, was Liz Fowler, a senate committee counsel whose last position was vice-president of the country's largest health insurer, Wellpoint, which stands to be a principal beneficiary of the new law.”[3]

Meanwhile, Joe Lieberman bends like a wimpy willow to the wishes of the major insurance companies headquartered in Connecticut despite the fact that the citizens of that state favor a public option by about two to one.[4]

Why would a politician go against the wishes of his constituents?

“Lieberman has long been one of the industry’s favorite players on the hill, accepting more than $1 million in campaign contributions from the insurance industry and more than $600,000 from pharmaceuticals and related healthcare-products companies. But his ties run deeper than that. His wife Hadassah previously worked for two lobbying firms, Hill & Knowlton and APCO, handling matters for their healthcare and pharmaceuticals clients.”[5]

It seems there is more than one Joe the Plumber toiling in America's sewers.

 •           •           •

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana also appears to have a very vested interest in the outcome of healthcare reform. His wife Sarah was appointed to the board of directors at insurance giant Wellpoint even though her background did not qualify her for that post.[6]

Despite the fact that his wife received more than $2 million in compensation from Wellpoint over the last six years, Senator Bayh insists that had no influence on any of his decisions about healthcare.

“I can honestly tell you that if my wife did not have a job, none, I can't think of a single decision I've made that would be any different. I look at what's best for our state and our country and my own conscience. My integrity matters more to me than anything, so I always do what's right for the people who put their trust in me.”[7]

Such self-serving sanctimonious prattle proves yet again that when a politician says “honestly”, truth seldom follows.

If one can overcome the gag reflex induced by such pap, one might grant that Bayh is so blinded by greed or ego he really can’t think of a single decision he ought to have made differently – but it’s a safe bet his constituents can.

As an article in The Street puts it, Bayh is “at best naive and disingenuous, and at worst supremely hypocritical in pushing his views as those of his voters.”

  •           •           •

But Baucus, Lieberman and Bayh are far from alone in their villainy. If all the bought and paid for lawmakers working on healthcare reform were to recuse themselves, it might well create an absence of a quorum in both houses – but at least then something might get done.

According to information compiled by The Sunlight Foundation:

“In all, 61 members of Congress—39 in the Senate, 22 in the House, 38 Democrats and 23 Republicans—got money from 10 or more outside lobbyists whose healthcare or health insurance industry clients also contributed to their campaigns.” [8]

Given such an obvious conflict of interest, these individuals should recuse themselves. But of course, they won’t – that would defeat the purpose of the legalized bribery otherwise known as campaign contributions and lobbying.

Congressional ethics – an oxymoron if ever there was one – should make recusal mandatory under two obvious conditions:

If a lawmaker or an immediate family member has or appears to have a substantial financial interest in the outcome of legislation, or if a lawmaker receives campaign contributions in excess of ten thousand dollars (to pick a number) from a party or parties with a substantial financial interest in the outcome of legislation.

Until such simple and sensible rules are adopted and enforced, the accused stand guilty as charged.

•           •           •

“As for the people I am accusing, I do not know them, I have never seen them, and I bear them neither ill will nor hatred. To me they are mere entities, agents of harm to society. The action I am taking is no more than a radical measure to hasten the explosion of truth and justice.

I have but one passion: to enlighten those who have been so long kept in the dark, in the name of humanity which has suffered so much and is entitled to happiness. My fiery protest is simply the cry of my very soul.

With my deepest respect, Sir.

Emile Zola, 13^th January 1898”

©2009 Tom Cordle

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification

[2] http://www.fox21online.com/news/wisc-supreme-court-considers-new-recusal-rules-tied-campaign-contributions

[3] http://stacystone.org/baucus-single-largest-recipient-of-health-ind

[4] http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/analysis-public-option-is-likely.html

[5] http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/10/hbc-90005996

[6] http://www.thestreet.com/story/10618234/1/evan-bayh-hypocrisy-on-the-public-option.html

[7] http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071216/LOCAL1004/712160424

[8] http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/