WASHINGTON - In the wake of back-to-back ethics slaps at House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, House Republicans are preparing to make it harder to begin ethics investigations and could remove the Republican chairman who presided over the admonishments delivered to DeLay last fall.

A House leadership aide said that a package of rules changes to be presented to the House when the 109th Congress convenes Tuesday could include a plan that would require a majority vote of the ethics panel to pursue a formal investigation. At present, a deadlock on the panel, which is evenly split between the two parties, keeps the case pending. The possible change, the aide said, would mean that a tie vote would effectively dismiss the case.

<snip>

It remained uncertain whether Rep. Joel Hefley of Colorado, the head of the ethics panel, would stay in that post. A spokesman for Speaker Dennis Hastert, who would play a chief role in determining the appointment, said no decision had been made.

Many rank-and-file Republicans openly expressed dissatisfaction with Hefley after the committee reports critical of DeLay were issued. They said Hefley had allowed Democrats to score political points against DeLay, of Sugar Land, for conduct that did not merit such scrutiny. But the potential for change in the chairmanship has drawn criticism from Democrats and outside ethics watchdogs.

<snip>

Democrats are planning to try next week to force a floor vote on a proposal requiring any member of either party's leadership to step aside if indicted on a criminal charge. The move would reverse last month's vote by Republicans -- taken in a closed-door party meeting -- to eliminate such a requirement for Republicans; the aim was to protect DeLay should he be indicted in a campaign finance investigation under way in Texas.
In Texas, state Republican lawmakers are considering some maneuvers of their own in light of the investigation. One proposal would take authority for prosecuting the campaign finance case away from the Democratic district attorney in Austin, who has indicted three DeLay associates, and give it to the state attorney general, a Republican. Another possible move would legalize corporate campaign contributions like the ones that figure into the state case, potentially undermining the prosecution.

There's an unsavory -- and unacceptable -- trend detectable in the way Republican leaders in Congress are approaching ethics rules: Anything that becomes inconvenient to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay must go.
Thus, ethics rules changes being floated for the next Congress would allow investigations to be stymied, rather than go forward, if there's a tie vote on the panel.

<snip>
But Republicans, who came to power promising cleaner, more honorable government, now seem to prefer wagon-circling to even-handed ethics enforcement.

<snip>

Sure, House members should clamp down on disreputable conduct.

Even when it involves their own leaders.

I think this issue is a "Slow News Day" type of story.

WASHINGTON - In a reversal that reflected fears of a public backlash, House Republicans on Monday rescinded an ethics rule adopted in November that allowed party leaders and chairmen to retain their posts if they were indicted.

<snip>

The Republicans also backed away from a proposal that would have made it harder to punish lawmakers for ethical breaches. It appeared, however, that they were still inclined to adopt another change that would make it easier to kill an ethics complaint against a member of Congress.

The decisions illustrated growing Republican fears that any wholesale change in ethics rules would draw continued attention to rebukes of DeLay last year by the House ethics committee. Republicans said that controversy, if kept alive, would detract from their ambitious policy agenda.

<snip>

Brendan Daly, an aide to House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, said: ‘Even for Republicans, this proposed change was unconscionable. The issue simply became too hot for them to handle, so they had to drop it.’

Sure, House members should clamp down on disreputable conduct.

Even when it involves their own leaders.

The ethics panel, in a unanimous, bipartisan vote Wednesday night, rebuked DeLay for calling the Federal Aviation Administration to interfere in a Texas political dispute and for hosting a fund-raiser attended by corporate executives with an interest in a federal energy bill. The panel earlier admonished DeLay for allegedly linking Smith's vote on the Medicare bill to the endorsement of Smith's son.

As BoF stated, all politicians are crooks, it's just a matter of degree. 

Notice how it was Delay that decided this was a bad idea. Kinda strange if he was to be the beneficiary of the change, don't you think? Maybe he is a stand up guy?

QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE

1. With the changing of the Republican caucus rules several weeks ago, and possible actions on ethics procedures by the new Republican Congress does this indicate a trend as the Fort Worth Star Telegram implies?

2. I have heard more than one person say that “all politicians are crooks.” While this may be cynical, it’s out there. If the new procedures are adopted, will public reaction be:

a. Minimal, in other words involve a shrug of the shoulders and see it as more of the "same ‘ol, same ‘ol?"

b. With the indignation expressed by the relatively conservative Fort worth Star Telegram’s editorial.

c. Support rules changes by the Republican majority?