Regaining the public trust
Effective company management in the context of today’s investor expectations
Ensuring the integrity of financial reporting
Fairness of executive compensation
Ethical role-modeling of senior management
Source: Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics research project, “Mapping the Terrain.”
In the last few weeks, four pieces of a free-speech puzzle have dropped onto America’s table. Three concern standards of decency:
Are we facing a national epidemic of vulgarity? Worries about it surfaced well before pop singer Janet Jackson’s breast was partially exposed during the Super Bowl game broadcast on CBS television (also a unit of Viacom) earlier this year. That incident ratcheted up the clamor for tougher decency standards — especially because many viewers suspected it was less a “wardrobe malfunction” than a deliberate publicity stunt.
Either way, the incident reminds us that our language of public discourse, and the visual imagery accompanying it, have been shifting toward more explicit reference to sexual and excretory functions. Books and movies now routinely use words that, a few decades ago, would have been harshly censored. At the same time, the language overheard in public spaces is far less restrained. While pundits can ponder whether the entertainment media shape, or merely reflect, standards of public decency, few would disagree that a marked change in tone has occurred within the space of a single generation.
That’s an unfortunate trend. To the extent that language reflects thought, a roughening of the vocabulary used to describe human interactions suggests a coarsening of relationships. Such a vocabulary also tends to diminish rather than expand the capacities for expression, as individuals resort to broad, undefined, and grunt-like clichés (which most vulgarities are) rather than to more precise descriptions of feelings or circumstances. In addition, the popularity of these vulgarities betrays a kind of hypocrisy. Given that these words are designed to invade the most private and intimate spheres — which explains why they shock — it’s odd that so many users of these epithets are so conscious about preserving their rights of privacy.
There are, in other words, good reasons for replacing a decline of decency with a new commitment to dignity. The question is how to do so. Given that Vice President Cheney is hardly the only politician using such expletives, any effort to legislate language is bound to raise perceptions of a double standard. Those perceptions are sharpened by the fourth piece of the puzzle, which came into view at a conference in Paris earlier this month on Internet hate speech. There, U.S. diplomats refused to join a European move to clamp down on racist, xenophobic, and anti-Semitic language. “We are appalled by some of the speeches on the Internet,” U.S. Justice Department advisor Dan Bryant told the conference. But he nevertheless toed a firm free-speech line in noting that “the government of the United States may not restrict a speech because of its ideas or merely because it disapproves its views.”
So do Americans hate indecency more than hate-speech? I don’t think so. I think they realize that a few F-words, corrosive though they may be, are far less consequential than hurling the N-word around in the United States or firing up anti-Jewish sentiment in Europe.
What remains confusing, however, is how best to contain these expletives. Some parts of a culture are best regulated by laws. Others are best defended by a moral and ethical impulse. In the end, given democracy’s dependence on freedom of speech, it may be dangerous to penalize linguistic choice. Does that mean vulgarity triumphs? No, it simply means that it must be reined in through ethics rather than law, through education rather than legislation, and through obedience to canons of decency that, although ultimately unenforceable, are widespread, teachable, and frequently articulated.
Meanwhile, should we remind the senators who voted for the indecency fines that, as Mr. Bryant argued, “the government of the United States may not restrict a speech because of its ideas”? Or should we remind Mr. Bryant that such restriction is exactly what the public seems to want these days? Either way, we won’t solve this puzzle by clamping down on obscenity while overlooking the virulence of hate-speech.
©2004 Institute for Global Ethics
“It reminds me of the McCarthy era. We’re blackballed. They’ve defunded us, and even that isn’t enough. It’s unbelievable.”
– Sterling Scruggs, a former official with the United Nations Population Fund, criticizing the U.S. government for allegedly pursuing an anti-abortion crusade by cutting off funding and pressuring other agencies and outside groups to sever relations with the fund. Scruggs and others say the government’s campaign is endangering the welfare of women and children by cutting off maternity kits, prenatal care, and information about family planning and preventing pregnancy in the first place. While the Bush administration insists that the UN agency ends up providing funds for forced abortions, the UN — and a 2002 State Department report — reject that contention. (“U.S. Is Accused of Trying to Isolate U.N. Agency,” New York Times, June 21)
HARTFORD, Connecticut
Cutting short what had been a stellar political career, Connecticut Gov. John Rowland will resign this week under suspicion of accepting gifts and favors from contractors doing business with the state.
Rowland, who would have been the state’s longest-serving governor in just seven more months, announced his resignation last week, saying he will end his third term as elected governor of Connecticut.
In a short speech announcing his resignation, Rowland declined to apologize and mentioned the current scandal only once, saying, “I acknowledge that my poor judgment has brought us here.” The sentence was not included in the official text of the speech released by his office, reported the New York Times.
Rowland is being investigated by the state, the FBI, and the IRS for allegedly swapping favors, state jobs, and lucrative contracts for money and gifts, including construction work on his vacation cottage, from people doing business with the state.
Two former members of Rowland’s administration already have been indicted on corruption charges. A third, Rowland’s former co-chief of staff, will be indicted soon, his lawyer told the Times.
After refusing to resign for months, Rowland ultimately capitulated in the face of a state inquiry, an order to testify under oath from the Connecticut Supreme Court, and polls showing that more than two-thirds of the public felt he should leave office.
“Today is a sad day for John and his family, but he is doing the right thing,” Rep. Christopher Shays, a Republican, told the Times. “Accepting gifts from people who do business with the state left the governor no alternative but to resign.”
Lt. Gov. Jodi Rell, a Republican who has served with Rowland since 1994, will take over his position until the end of the current term in January 2007.
WASHINGTON
In a move that could overturn nearly 25 years of reforms, a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled last week that judges should operate within federally mandated sentencing guidelines when deciding the punishments of guilty defendants, saying leeway from the guidelines must come from juries.
In a bitter 5-to-4 ruling, the court invalidated the criminal sentencing system of Washington State, which allowed judges to use their discretion when meting out punishment to those found guilty by a jury.
Because Washington’s sentencing guidelines are similar to those used in the federal system, observers expect lawsuits to eventually force an overthrow of the national system and two decades of reforms.
Those reforms have sought to codify sentencing standards by setting up minimum punishments for crimes according to a matrix that factors in the guilty party’s past criminal record, the seriousness of the crime, and other considerations.
While judges are barred from imposing sentences lower than those in the guidelines, they long have been given discretion to depart upward — as occurred in the Blakely case. Last week’s Supreme Court ruling threatens that system by saying that juries, not judges, should be the ones to weigh all such mitigating factors.
“When a judge inflicts a punishment that the jury’s verdict alone does not allow . . . the judge exceeds his proper authority,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, reported the Washington Post.
The court’s decision overturns a seven-and-a-half-year prison sentence imposed on kidnapper Ralph Blakely, Jr., who abducted his estranged wife at gunpoint in 1998.
After the jury found Blakely guilty and recommended 53 months in prison, the judge in the case slapped on an additional 37 months, saying Blakely had acted with such cruelty that the sentence should be extended, reported USA Today.
Last week, the Supreme Court said such latitude must be left to the jury, not the judge, because otherwise it puts too much power in the hands of “a lone employee of the state,” reported the New York Times.
In an unusually outspoken protest, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor read her dissent aloud from the bench, warning that the federal system of doling out fair punishments in an efficient manner may now be in peril.
“What I have feared most has now come to pass,” Justice O’Connor said. “Over 20 years of sentencing reform are all but lost, and tens of thousands of criminal judgments are in jeopardy.”
“If the choice is between adopting a balanced case-by-case approach that takes into consideration the values underlying the Bill of Rights as well as the history of a particular sentencing reform law, and adopting a rigid rule that destroys everything in its path, I will choose the former,” she added.
While the debate over how much discretion judges and juries should have in departing from sentencing guidelines is not new, it heated up last week in the wake of the Blakely ruling and outspoken comments from several judges who say the one-size-fits-all standard lacks needed compassion.
“There are cases they see where there are extenuating circumstances uncontemplated by the guidelines which make it just heart-wrenching to give certain defendants 10 years when any reasonable person would say that’s too much,” David Yas, editor of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, told the Associated Press.
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who dissented in the Blakely ruling, echoed that sentiment, endorsing a proposal by the American Bar Association that calls for greater discretion to be accorded to judges.
“‘Tough on crime’ should not be a substitute for thoughtful reflection or lead us into moral blindness,” Justice Kennedy said last week in comments echoing criticisms being voiced from the bench, reported the Times.
WASHINGTON
People who suffer harm after their HMO refuses to cover medical care recommended by their doctor cannot be sued for damages, the Supreme Court ruled last week, noting that Congress has so far refused to authorize that right.
In a unanimous ruling, the court invalidated lawsuits filed by two Texans rushed to the hospital for emergencies after foregoing doctor-recommended care denied them by their health insurance companies — Cigna and Aetna.
In its decision, the court said that ERISA, a 30-year-old federal law governing employee benefits like health insurance, allows lawsuits for recovering only costs, not punitive damages, as were sought in the cases brought before the Supreme Court.
Since ERISA trumps any other laws, even state laws designed to allow punitive suits, the plaintiffs have no other recourse, the justices agreed, according to the New York Times.
The decision leaves no avenue of appeal for the two plaintiffs: Ruby Calad, who was rushed back to the hospital after being sent home, against her doctor’s recommendation but in accord with her Cigna health plan, one day after a hysterectomy; and Juan Davila, who suffered massive internal bleeding after his Aetna plan forced him to take a cheaper drug than the one recommended by his doctor.
While both patients could have sued to recover only the costs of the denied treatments — the price of a slightly longer hospital stay or the more expensive pills — ERISA prevents them from seeking damages for the injuries and trauma they suffered.
Echoing the HMO industry’s claims, Justice Clarence Thomas contended that the problem was not caused by Cigna and Aetna, but by the plaintiffs’ employers, who declined to pay for the HMOs’ more expensive plans that might have covered the recommended treatments.
The American Medical Association said it was “extremely disappointed” with the court’s decision.
Last week’s ruling puts the spotlight squarely on Congress, which so far has failed to pass a so-called patient’s bill of rights giving people the right to sue when needed medical care is not covered by their employer’s health-care plans. More than 130 million Americans are enrolled in such plans.
“A regulatory vacuum exists,” said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
PARIS
Jean-Marie Messier, the former head of the nearly bankrupted media empire Vivendi Universal, was taken into custody last week by French police as part of a formal investigation into alleged corruption.
Messier, credited with helping Vivendi morph from a small utilities firm into a tech and media empire with a global reach, was forced to resign in July 2002 following allegations of insider trading and fraud.
Investigators last week questioned Messier for nearly two days before releasing him on $1.62 million in guarantees, with formal charges expected in the near future, reported the Associated Press.
Chief among critics’ complaints is the suspicion that Messier and other executives engaged in share-price manipulation through stock buy-backs in the fall of 2001, when the firm was trying to bolster its financial image.
Messier also is accused of making public statements aimed at hiding an increasingly shaky financial picture after advocating a series of acquisitions that cut deeply into the bottom line, noted the Agence France-Presse.
Shareholder activist Colette Neuville, a longtime critic of that strategy, said investigators need to broaden the scope of their inquiry into the board of directors responsible for the buying spree that put the firm $42 million in debt.
“I don’t get any satisfaction from learning that Jean-Marie Messier spent the night in jail. He was not the only one responsible for what happened at Vivendi. There was a board of directors that did not do anything,” Neuville charged to the AFP. “What about them? You don’t hear anyone calling for their heads.”
Messier, who already has paid a $1 million fine to U.S. authorities and been barred from serving on the board of any U.S. firm for 10 years, has denied wrongdoing, noted the New York Times.
Messier and Vivendi still face numerous investigations and more than a dozen shareholder lawsuits in the United States and Europe.
BALTIMORE
A college student who smuggled dangerous items aboard airplanes last year, saying he was trying to demonstrate weaknesses in security measures, was sentenced to fines and two years’ probation last week.
Nathaniel Heatwole secreted razor blades, bleach, matches, and explosive-resembling modeling clay aboard six Southwest Airlines flights between Maryland and North Carolina, reported the Associated Press.
Heatwole, who said he was only trying to help, disassembled the razor blades and used tape both to cover their sharp edges and to seal the bleach bottles so that airline staff who found the items would not be hurt.
He then emailed the government about the breaches, which were intended to show weaknesses in airline safety in the wake of the attacks of 9/11, reported the Baltimore Sun.
Heatwole’s actions punctuated a continuing debate over whether civil disobedience and small acts of subversion are helpful methods of highlighting shortfalls in security measures championed as sufficient by the government.
Last week, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grimm said that in this case, there were better ways, but noted that “it is without question that [Heatwole's] intent was positive and good,” according to the Washington Post.
Grimm praised federal prosecutors for recognizing those factors, noting that they reduced the charges from a felony to a misdemeanor. “It often takes a law enforcement officer or prosecutor more courage to do what is fair than to do what is tough,” Grimm said.
Grimm ordered Heatwole to pay a $500 fine, another $500 to his parents for legal expenses, and serve two years of supervised probation.
PARIS
Gem-quality diamonds, long valued for the four C’s — carat, color, clarity, and cut — will now be marked with a fifth C for “clean,” to prove that they have not helped fuel bloody wars or child labor.
The deal was reached last week under a push to purge the world’s diamond market of “blood diamonds” — rough stones harvested often under brutal conditions and used to fund the arms trade.
Roughly 2 percent of the world’s diamonds, mostly those extracted from Africa, are suspected of being blood diamonds, reported the Agence France-Presse.
According to the BBC, parties to the agreement include the watchdog group Global Witness, an association of miners and diamond cutters called ICM, and Antwerp’s diamond federation, the Bureau of Minerals and Gemology.
The deal between these key players was signed in Paris under momentum from the Kimberley Process, an initiative launched last year to fight blood diamonds and the bad publicity they have brought to the industry.
“In the last years, diamonds were under a geopolitical cloud,” Antwerp federation head Eddy Vleeschdrager told the AFP. “We must preserve and guarantee the dream that diamonds evoke.”
LOS ANGELES
More than 400 public school teachers in California have been investigated for possible cheating in the past five years, the Los Angeles Times reported last week after a review of state education records.
The figure is double the number reported by the Times last month, following an admission from the California Department of Education that it accidentally omitted a 15-page list of investigations for the earlier report.
While a few of the incidents — ranging from outright cheating to during-test tutoring to allowing extra test time for students — led to resignations or firings, the majority have yielded reprimands and warnings.
Barbara Kerr, president of the California Teachers Association, told the Times that while cheating is inexcusable, the unrelenting stress of No Child Left Behind standardized testing may be part of the problem.
“For a majority of [teachers], it’s a matter of the ridiculous pressure that has been put upon them,” she said. “And they’re weighing that with their students looking at them … saying, ‘Help me.’”
VANCOUVER
Vancouver Canucks hockey player Todd Bertuzzi was charged last week with criminal assault for his brutal mid-game hit on the Colorado Avalanche’s Steve Moore, whose neck was broken and career possibly ended.
The assault, widely believed to be pay-back for an in-game check Moore put on one of Bertuzzi’s teammates several games earlier, was witnessed by more than 18,000 people attending the March 8 game.
In the third period, Bertuzzi grabbed Moore from behind, hit him in the side of the face, and then landed on him as he collapsed. Moore, who lay unconscious on the ice, suffered three fractured vertebrae, facial cuts, a concussion, and amnesia, reported the Associated Press.
Bertuzzi, who apologized for the attack, was suspended indefinitely by the National Hockey League (NHL), benched for the rest of the Canucks’ season, and forfeited more than $500,000 of his $6.8-million salary.
The NHL, which said it had taken “stern and swift” action that was right “for the players and the sport as a whole,” had hoped its actions would keep the Bertuzzi incident from becoming a criminal matter.
Last week, the Ministry of the Attorney General said more action was warranted, announcing the criminal charges. Bertuzzi has a court date of July 9, noted the Canadian Press.
If tried and convicted in British Columbia’s Supreme Court, Bertuzzi would face the steepest penalty of up to 10 years in prison, according to the AP.
From the Business Roundtable:
“Today the Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics — a first-of-its-kind ethics center formed in partnership between Business Roundtable and leading faculty from the country’s top business schools — announced key findings from its initial research project, ‘Mapping the Terrain.’
“The Mapping the Terrain study surveyed Business Roundtable CEOs to understand the most important ethics issues facing corporate leaders.
“In survey responses, CEOs indicated that the five most important corporate ethics issues facing the business community are: (1) regaining the public trust; (2) effective company management in the context of today’s investor expectations; (3) ensuring the integrity of financial reporting; (4) fairness of executive compensation; and (5) ethical role-modeling of senior management.
“A majority of CEOs (81 percent) believe that in the wake of recent controversies, standards for corporate ethics have risen. Also, most CEOs (74 percent) indicated their companies have made changes in how ethics issues are handled or reported within the last two years. Specific changes most cited include: enhanced internal reporting and communications (33 percent), ethics hotlines (17 percent), improved compliance procedures (12 percent), and greater Board oversight (10 percent)….
“With regard to the top corporate ethics priority for business, the majority of CEOs (57 percent) cited establishing a framework for business decision making that integrates ethics as the top priority followed by encouraging pushback and a culture for proactively addressing potential bad news early (35 percent)….”
“Rules of conduct, whatever they may be, are not sufficient to produce good results unless the ends sought are good.”
– Bertrand Russell (English mathematician and philosopher, 1872-1970)
Interviewed by Dan Rather on the CBS program “60 Minutes” this past Sunday, former president Bill Clinton, author of the sprawling new autobiography My Life, shifted into mea culpa mode in discussing his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Describing it as “unconscionable” and “a terrible moral error,” he noted that he did it “because I could” — which, as he said, is “the most morally indefensible reason anybody could have for doing anything.”
On that point, he’s right. And while it may seem odd to derive instruction in moral analysis from someone whose acknowledged moral numbness nearly blew apart a presidency, there’s a valuable lesson here. It lies in the three words he uses to explain his behavior: “because I could.”
To adhere to no higher standard of behavior than “because I could” is to abandon any distinction between what I can do and what I ought to do. But ethics is all about ought — about what’s mandated not by law, or history, or self-interest, but by duty. Such wholesale abandonment of the can/ought distinction is, as he says, “morally indefensible.” More accurately, it’s patently amoral, leaving no room for the central discrimination between willful indulgence and ethical constraint — between selfishness and integrity — that defines the moral life.
The lesson, however, is much larger than Clinton. His three-word explanation sheds some useful light on the current news. In the last week:
Read the daily papers with your corruption filter in place, in other words, and you’ll daily find tales of those who, having no standard in place stronger than “because I could,” fell into breaches of integrity. Then notice what these stories have in common with Clinton’s escapades: Each concerns people occupying positions of power and authority.
In itself, that’s not surprising. Lord Acton’s nineteenth-century observation in a letter to a friend — that “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” — is famous largely because it summarizes such a commonplace phenomenon. When the personality becomes so large as to dwarf the force of law and morality, where will the restraint reside? Only in the inner constraints of the individual. Less well known is the uncomfortable but logical conclusion Lord Acton penned in his following sentence: “Great men are almost always bad men.”
It doesn’t have to be that way. Clinton was smart and well-read. He would have known Lord Acton’s dictum. Had he paused to absorb it, he could have applied its caveat to himself. That’s probably also true about the executives involved in these instances of corporate corruption. But like Clinton, so many of today’s leaders came of age (as I did) in a consciously self-absorbed baby-boomer age. The mantras in our heads were not penetrating adages like those of Lord Acton. They were glib and alluring mottos like “whatever turns you on” or “just do it.”
The question, then, is what we do with a popular culture that seems deliberately bent on approving the short-termism of a “because I could” mentality? Clearly, we need to reintroduce an appreciation of the long-term benefits of self-restraint, teaching the next generation how to find the balance between what I can do and what I ought to do. Had Clinton devoted his book to that theme, he might have left a legacy far beyond his presidency. Give him credit, at least, for putting the issue on the table.
©2004 Institute for Global Ethics
“He wasn’t lost in the system. There is no question at all … that he received humane treatment.”
– U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, denying charges that the military violated the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of a terror suspect hidden from the Red Cross in Iraq. The man, who has been questioned only once, has been held since October without an ID tracking number and without notification of the Red Cross, according to Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman. (“Rumsfeld Defends Secretly Holding Suspect,” AP, June 17)
WASHINGTON
Halliburton Inc. was back in the hot seat last week following testimony from six whistle-blowers who accused the firm of gouging the U.S. government and taxpayers in its contracts for supplying services in Iraq.
The charges, laid out in testimony by six former Halliburton workers, detail alleged abuses that include massively inflating timesheets, abandoning $65,000 trucks due to flat tires and other minor problems, housing staff in a lavish five-star hotel, and knowingly paying subcontractors twice for the same bill.
“There was this whole thought process that we can spend whatever we want to because the government won’t crack down in the first year of a war,” said Marie deYoung, a former logistics officer with the firm.
The company has denied deliberate wrongdoing.
Halliburton also was harshly criticized in a report from the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), which said the company’s lack of oversight has led to subcontractor abuse and inflated costs, reported Knight Ridder. The report recommended extremely strict oversight of the firm’s contracts.
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), a frequent critic of Halliburton, sought to include the testimony at a House Committee on Government Reform hearing last week about contracting in Iraq.
Committee chairman Rep. Thomas Davis (R-Va.) blocked Waxman, saying he wanted to investigate the allegations further and might schedule a follow-up hearing if they proved legitimate, a spokesman said.
Amid charges and countercharges of political maneuvering, Waxman released the whistle-blower statements, a copy of the DCAA audit, and an angry letter to Davis, reported the Los Angeles Times.
Halliburton, formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney, has come under harsh criticism for multiple alleged violations after being awarded Iraqi reconstruction contracts, including a secretly negotiated contract worth an estimated $7 billion.
WASHINGTON
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will not be indicted on bribery charges, the country’s attorney general announced last week in a move that bolsters Sharon’s chances of carrying out a limited withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.
Sharon and his son Gilad were accused of accepting a series of bribes worth as much as $3 million from a businessman seeking their help with a construction project in the 1990s.
After that executive was formally charged with bribery in January, Israel’s state prosecutor said there was sufficient evidence to warrant an indictment of Sharon, reported the New York Times.
Last week, Attorney General Menachem Mazuz rejected that recommendation, saying the case against Gilad and Ariel Sharon “must be closed due to the lack of sufficient evidence.”
“The evidence in this case does not bring us even remotely close to a reasonable possibility of conviction,” Mazuz said, trumping the advice of former state prosecutor Edna Arbel, now a Supreme Court justice, reported the Associated Press.
The decision was widely seen as a career-saving development for Sharon, who likely would have been forced to resign had charges been filed. That move would have imperiled his fledgling efforts to ease tensions with the Palestinians through a limited pull-out.
“I congratulate him as a friend and I am happy this is behind him,” Labor leader Shimon Peres, whose party often opposes Sharon but supports the Gaza withdrawal, told Israel Radio, according to the Times.
“We still want to replace the government, but not at the cost of toppling the chance for peace,” Peres added. “If this government is toppled now, the chance of withdrawing from Gaza will go down with it.”
`WASHINGTON
An unspoken seven-year truce in the House of Representatives came to an end last week with the filing of an ethics complaint against the chamber’s second-ranking Republican, Tom DeLay, who is accused of “bribery, extortion, fraud, money laundering, and the abuse of power.”
The charges were leveled by a fellow Texan — Rep. Chris Bell (D) — who will lose his seat in the House this November as a consequence of redistricting efforts spearheaded by DeLay, reported the New York Times.
Bell has accused DeLay of three violations: improperly using his clout to order federal help in targeting Democrats opposed to his redistricting efforts back home; illegally soliciting campaign contributions from a Kansas energy company that he promised to help; and laundering campaign contributions through his PAC.
DeLay, who has denied all of the charges, dismissed Bell as a lawmaker bitter about losing his seat, reported the Washington Post.
Bell last week denied that his complaint was politically motivated, saying DeLay has created “a climate of fear and retribution” in the House and should be called to account for his actions, according to the Times.
Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.), an ally of DeLay, promised retaliation for Bell’s decision to file an ethics complaint, saying he would file countercharges against a prominent Democrat.
The principle is “you kill my dog, I’ll kill your cat,” Doolittle told the Post.
Last week’s complaint ends a seven-year tacit truce between Democrats and Republicans, who quietly stopped filing complaints against one another after tit-for-tat retaliation dethroned two House leaders, Jim Wright (D) and Newt Gingrich (R).
While that truce may have eased some tensions, it has not relaxed outside criticism of the House ethics committee, which has taken heat in recent years for alleged inaction in several cases widely publicized in the media, reported the Post.
The House ethics committee has between five and 14 days to decide whether Bell’s complaint merits consideration, and a subsequent 45 days to dismiss, continue considering, or investigate, the Times reported.
WASHINGTON
Facing a tight election in November, President Bush earlier this month asked the Vatican to push its U.S. bishops to speak against social issues like same-sex marriage and abortion that align with his agenda, according to a leading newspaper covering Catholicism.
The request, which took place on June 4 shortly after Bush met with the Pope, was first reported by the National Catholic Reporter, an independent newspaper, according to the New York Times.
At the meeting, Bush reportedly asked Cardinal Angelo Sodano to “push the bishops to become more actively involved” in promoting the issues that appeal to his core voting bloc, social conservatives, according to CNN.
The president “complained that the U.S. bishops were not being vocal enough in supporting (Bush) on social issues like gay marriage and abortion,” a Vatican official privy to the discussion told CNN.
Bush’s request — an unusually explicit appeal to blur the line separating church and state — did not receive a response from Soldano, according to the official, who said, “it was the Vatican’s interpretation that (Bush) wanted (the bishops) to get involved in time for the campaign.”
The White House last week refused to clarify the meeting’s contents, except to say that “the positions of the president and the Vatican are well-known on those issues,” according to spokesman Scott McClellan. “I would just leave it at that.”
The increasingly vocal role of the Catholic church in the upcoming presidential election has raised many eyebrows, especially after threats from the church hierarchy of withholding communion from Catholics whose votes do not precisely align with church dogma.
Still, others say Bush’s appeal is nothing new. “Any head of state who goes to the Vatican will attempt to present a case,” one analyst told the Times. “That is why they go to the Vatican anyway. It is not an act of devotion. It is a political thing.”
Presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), a Catholic who has been targeted by such threats for his support of abortion rights, last week said Bush’s actions were “inappropriate,” saying the line separating church officials from state officials should be respected.
“There are many things that are of concern and taught by the church with respect to war, with respect to the environment, with respect to poor people, our responsibilities to each other, and I am very comfortable with where I am with respect to those,” Kerry told CNN.
“But I am not a spokesperson for the church,” Kerry said, “and the church is not a spokesperson for the United States of America.”
