If a congressman gets convicted of a major ethics offense — bribery, corruption, etc.– strip them of their congressional pension. It’s … beautiful.
“The only thing crazier than giving a member of Congress convicted of a crime a federal pension is the fact that we still need a bill to prevent a convict from receiving their pension,” Salazar said at the time. “A member of Congress who abuses their position of authority for their personal profit deserves a prison sentence, not a government pension.”
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, said Friday that the House will take up a similar bill next Friday.
If passed by the House and signed into law by President Bush, the bill would eliminate pensions only for future members of Congress convicted of ethics offenses.
Alas, no ex post facto laws in the US, so folks like Cunningham and Trafficant will get to keep their pensions — and Mark Foley, no longer a member and yet to face charges anyway, is off the hook.
Still … someday …
I believe similar legislation has been proposed before. I’ll be pleasantly surprised if it passes. The fact that similar legislation does not already exist, and the fact that the current proposal has been significantly weakened demonstrates to my satisfaction that there are more corrupt legislators than honest ones.
Though part of it is the Constitutional provision against ex post facto laws (which is probably, on the balance, a good thing), Congress rarely passes laws regarding itself that affect the current legislators.
Of course, Congress usually exempts itself from all sorts of laws — most employment law, for example, explicitly excludes employees of Congress (though one could argue that’s to keep the Executive branch from having a power over the Legislative).
One aspect of this trait actually redounds to everyone’s benefit — by law (passed by Congress), pay raises for congresscritters cannot take effect until the *next* Congress (at which point at least all the House members stand a chance of being voted out).
I agree that the ban on ex post facto laws is generally a good thing. But I’d love to see Congress pass a law saying that no official elected to office in the United States for the first time after January 1, 2008 shall receive a pension from their elected office if they are convicted of bribery, corruption, etc. after that date. The fact that they won’t even do this suggests to me that there is more than just self-interest at play. While I’m not a fan of frivolous or trivial amendments to the constitution, I wonder if this is an appropriate amendment to the constitution?
I agree with David. Does this bill only affect future members of Congress who are not currently in that august body, or anyone (re)elected to that body in the future? I ask for that clarification cognizant of how few seats in Congress are truly competitive each election.
Well, the article says:
Which sounds like current congresscritters are exempt (and, yes, that might exclude some folks for decades to come).
NYT: But while Mr. Cunningham’s actions provoked the Senate vote, he will continue to collect his pension. The main sponsors, Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Ken Salazar of Colorado, both Democrats, said Congress could not revoke the pension of Mr. Cunningham or other former lawmakers, only future Congressional criminals.
Here: Kerry’s office said that by law Congress cannot take away pensions retroactively and the so-called “Duke Cunningham Act” won’t affect the benefits of Cunningham or Ney. It would also not touch the military benefits of a veteran such as Cunningham. Under current law, pensions can be forfeited only if a lawmaker commits crimes such as treason or espionage. […] The NTU says there are roughly 20 former members convicted of serious crimes who qualify for pensions. […] The Kerry amendment also allows convicted members to get refunds for any personal contributions they make into 401(k)-type plans. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said the House would take up similar legislation next Friday. […] If enacted into law, the pension denial provision would go into affect in 2009.
Here: Under the reform proposal bill, the following offenses would cause a Member of Congress to lose his or her Congressional pension:
* Bribery of public officials and witnesses (Section 201 of Title 18);
* Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States (Section 371 of Title 18);
* Perjury committed under the statues of the United States or the District of Columbia in falsely denying the commission of bribery or conspiracy; and
* Subordination of perjury committed in connection with the false denial or false testimony of another individual.
The actual text of the amendment.
From what I can see, the amendment *will* apply to *all( members of Congress — regarding corruption taking place on or after 1 Jan 2009.