[Mb-civic] Remember the Congressional Misbehavior Memo? Read this

[Michael Butler]

I wanted the real story and ask our favorite sleuth (in Europe at the time)
now this is what she found. A different story.
Michael


Dear Michael, 
Here's what I found...long but worth the read. The essence is: lots of
accusations, no hard stats. Glad you didn't pass this tripe on.
XO C 
  Claim:   The current U.S. Congress includes several dozen members who have
committed various crimes and other acts of moral turpitude.

Example:   [Collected on the Internet, 1999]
29 members of Congress have been accused of spousal abuse,
7 have been arrested for fraud,
19 have been accused of writing bad checks,
117 have bankrupted at least two businesses,
3 have been arrested for assault,
71 have credit reports so bad they can't qualify for a credit card,
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges,
8 have been arrested for shoplifting,
21 are current defendants in lawsuits,
And in 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving, but released after
they claimed Congressional immunity. (from Capitol Hill Blue)
And these are the People who make Laws that We MUST obey?
Your tax dollars at work!

Origins:   The 535 
men and women (100 Senators and 435 Representatives) who comprise the United
States Congress are the core of our democratic system — the people we elect
(and pay) to represent us to our federal government and make the laws that
regulate our society. We therefore somewhat unrealistically expect them to
be paragons of virtue, selfless public servants dedicated to the task of
making our country a better place for everyone, into whose heads the very
thought of wrongdoing never intrudes. Congressmen are mere human beings,
however, and so some of them exhibit the same flawed behaviors as some of
us: they lie, they steal, they cheat on their spouses, they put personal
gain ahead of public service, they line their pockets at the expense of
those whom they are supposed to serve, etc. None of this should be
surprising to anyone but the most naive among us. What is surprising is that
so many people willingly circulate the above-cited piece of cheap,
inflammatory tripe expecting it to be taken seriously.
No names or dates are mentioned, of course, so trying to match individuals
with the vague charges levelled in this text would be a fruitless task
(especially since the composition of Congress changes at least every two
years, and the piece is undated). In any case that effort would be
pointless, for this article is nothing more than a cheap smear: no one in it
is cited as actually having done something wrong, but merely of having been
"arrested" or "accused," or being a "defendant," or having been "stopped."
Isn't our system supposed to be based upon the presumption that a person is
innocent until proved guilty?
One can be arrested without being convicted of a crime (or even being
charged with one), so the mere mention of an arrest with no other detail is
meaningless. And when did these alleged arrests of Congressmen occur? While
the arrestees were serving in Congress? While they were running for office?
Before they became politicians? When they were juveniles? Thirty-two arrests
and no convictions should probably make us more concerned about problems
with our law enforcement and legal systems than it should about the people
who make up Congress.
The claims that numerous Congressmen have been "accused" of various
wrongdoings is even more specious. "Accused"? By whom? Journalists? Jealous
rivals? Bitter ex-spouses? Childhood enemies? Muckrakers? Gossip mongers? I
suspect that every single member of Congress has been "accused" of something
bad at one time or another. By what standards does an accusation become
"serious" or "official" enough to merit inclusion in this list?

Even the entries that contain some marginal detail are too vague to be
relevant. We're told that 117 Congressmen "have bankrupted at least two
businesses." What does that mean? Were all 117 personally and solely
responsible for driving thriving businesses into the ground, or were they
merely nominal board members of companies that went belly up? Were these
businesses large companies, or the equivalent of mom-and-pop shops run out
of someone's home? More importantly, is failing at business in today's
volatile business environment supposed to be considered a moral failure as
well as an economic one? Is being a successful businessman a prerequisite
for being a legislator, or is it a sign or moral turpitude that should
automatically disqualify one from office?

21 Congressmen "are current defendants in lawsuits"? What kinds of lawsuits?
What are the merits of these lawsuits? Are these Congressmen supposedly
being sued for infractions such as breach of contract, or merely because
some cranky neighbors don't like they way they painted their houses?
71 "have credit reports so bad they can't qualify for a credit card"? Heck,
a single late payment can ruin your credit report these days, assuming your
spotless rating hasn't already been done in by completely erroneous
information mistakenly placed on your record by a credit reporting agency.
And despite common public perception, Congressmen incur some considerable
financial obligations as part of their jobs without receiving tremendously
large salaries in return, so if some of them had trouble making ends meets,
that wouldn't make them much different than many of us.
84 Congressmen "were stopped for drunk driving, but released after they
claimed Congressional immunity." Again, being "stopped" is in itself no
indication of wrongdoing, and the Constitution (Article I, Section 6) gives
Congressmen privilege against arrest while Congress is in session (in order
to prevent others from using the power of law enforcement to intimidate
them). Although protecting members of Congress against traffic tickets may
not be exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when then crafted
Article I, how many of us would disdain a constitutional protection to avoid
trouble with the law? Would any one of us, even if he were guilty of a
crime, not challenge an unwarranted search of his home performed in
violation of the Fourth Amendment? I doubt many of us would stand on
niceties if we had "Get Out of Jail Free" cards we could play, either.

All that said, this list wasn't made up out of whole cloth. The information
was taken from a series of articles that appeared in an on-line publication
called Capitol Hill Blue (whose motto is "Because nobody's life, liberty or
property is safe while Congress is in session . . .") in August 1999, and
gained widespread currency when a brief summary (stripped of what little
supporting evidence the articles had in the first place) was irresponsibly
run in a syndicated weird news column with no clue as to where the reader
might find the source material on which it was based.

What appears in the original Capitol Hill Blue articles doesn't exactly
validate the list by any responsible journalistic standards. The series
includes lengthy articles about four of Congress' worst offenders, a screed
about how Congressmen have "a long tradition of corruption and ambivalence,"
and a heap of vague innuendo. We're told that "117 members of the House and
Senate have run at least two businesses each that went bankrupt, often
leaving business partners and creditors holding the bag," but no detail
about who these members were, the nature of the businesses that failed, why
the businesses failed, or who was left "holding the bag" (and for how much).
We're informed that "seventy-one of them have credit reports so bad they
can't get an American Express card," but we're provided with no details
about whom or why. Have these people been kiting checks, did they
absent-mindedly make a few late credit card payments, or were they innocent
victims of credit reporting agency screw-ups? And since when is not
qualifying for an American Express card the standard by which "bad credit"
is judged? I probably couldn't qualify for an AmEx card because I don't have
sufficient income. Does that mean I have "bad credit" unquestionably caused
by personal fiscal irresponsibility?
Most everything found in the Capitol Hill Blue articles continues in this
vein. "Twenty-nine members of Congress have been accused of spousal abuse in
either criminal or civil proceedings," it says. Well, at least we know the
"accusations" were made in the context of court cases, but they remain
nothing more than accusations nonetheless. Were any Congressmen actually
convicted of spousal abuse, or did any of them have to pay civil damages
because of their abusive behavior towards their spouses? You won't find out
from Capitol Hill Blue. "Twenty-one are current defendants in various
lawsuits, ranging from bad debts, disputes with business partners or other
civil matters." Is this really supposed to have any significance in a
society where people can and do sue at the drop of a hat, often for the most
frivolous of reasons? How about telling us who was successfully sued, and
why? That effort appears to be beyond the ability (or the inclination) of
Capitol Hill Blue staff. Why ruin a good story with pesky facts, after all?

As we mentioned at the outset, members of Congress are human beings just
like the rest of us, and thus they're subject to the same foibles as
everyone else. This doesn't mean that we should meekly accept the
wrongdoings of some of them as par for the course or turn a blind eye when
they break the law, but neither does it mean they aren't entitled to the
same considerations and protections as the rest of us — including the right
to be tried in a court of law rather than a court of public opinion. Many of
our Congressional representatives are in fact dedicated, hard-working public
servants, and tarring them all with the same brush of anonymous, vague
accusation does no one any good.

"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" the adage
goes. Save your efforts for rooting out those who truly breach the public
trust instead of wasting time and energy in smearing an institution and
everyone who comprises it by passing this cheap bit of scandal-mongering
netlore along. 

In 2001 the e-mail about U.S. Members of Congress was remade into a Canadian
form of it: 
[Collected on the Internet, 2001]
Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 300
employees, and has the following statistics:
30 have been accused of spousal abuse
9 have been arrested for fraud
14 have been accused of writing bad checks
95 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
4 have done time for assault
55 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
12 have been arrested on drug related charge
4 have been arrested for shop lifting
16 are currently defendants in lawsuits
62 have been arrested from drunk driving in the last year
Can you guess which organization this is?
It is the 301 MPs in the Canadian Parliament!
Some of the versions in circulation of the Canadian form of the e-mail
assert the information came from The Ottawa Citizen, which is the newspaper
in Canada's capital city, Ottawa. That tidbit is wholly false — The Ottawa
Citizen never ran such an article.

Another country that has had this e-mailed list applied to it was India:
[Collected on the Internet, 2000]
Can you imagine working for the following company? It has a little over 500
employees with the following statistics:
29 have been accused of spousal abuse.
7 have been arrested for fraud.
19 have been accused of passing bad checks.
117 have bankrupted at least two businesses.
3 have been arrested for assault.
71 cannot get credit or loans due to bad credit histories.
114 have been arrested on drug related charges.
8 have been arrested for shop-lifting.
21 are current defendants on various lawsuits.
In 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving. Can you guess what
organisation this is? Give up?
It is the 545 members of the Lower House of Parliament of India that work
for me and you. The same group that cranks out hundreds upon hundreds of
laws designed to keep the rest of us in line...

From: Michael Butler
To: Cara Robin 
Subject: FW: 
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 08:50:14 -0700
Cara,  
I don't know if you are back? Could you check this out and let us know. I do
not know how. 
XO Michael 
------ Forwarded Message
From: "ROBERT CLARKE"
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 07:32:35 -0400
> 
> 
>>Subject: 
>> 
>>Think this is true?
>> 
>>Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500
>>employees and has the following statistics:
>> 
>>  *29 have been accused of spousal abuse
>>  * 7 have been arrested for fraud
>>  * 19 have been accused of writing bad checks
>>  *117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
>>  * 3 have done time for assault
>>  * 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
>>  * 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
>>  * 8 have been arrested for shoplifting
>>  * 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
>>  * 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year
>> 
>>Can you guess which organization this is?
>> 
>>  Give up yet? 
>> 
>> 
>>It's the 535 members of the United States Congress. The same group of
>>idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the
>>rest of us in line. You gotta pass this on.....
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
------ End of Forwarded Message

------ End of Forwarded Message