• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Something’s rotten in Washington, D.C. The American political system is drowning in a pool of bull. The ways in which our country is dominated by wealthy special interests are numerous enough to fill a dozen books, and The Bruin doesn’t pay me enough to write that much (Actually, I don’t get paid at all.) So here’s just one example.

Several former members of Congress have been offered positions to serve as lobbyists for industries they played a major role in regulating. In some cases, the offers to accept these positions are made while members are still active in Congress.

These lobbying practices harm the interests of the American people as a whole and must be stopped.

The close relationship between politicians and special interests should be understood as a case of greed and opportunism – things Americans are as used to as celebrities with conspicuously flimsy outfits and presidents who lie. But that doesn’t make it OK.

Perhaps the most egregious example of this can be seen in the job offers made to Rep. W. J. “Billy” Tauzin. Tauzin is a Louisiana Republican who has been serving as head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. As head, Tauzin was in charge of numerous issues relating to the drug industry.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a group that lobbies on behalf of drug companies, made an offer to Tauzin to head the association once he retires. For those who don’t know how lucrative such positions can be, let’s just say I bet the job involves more money than the combined student fees of everyone sitting in the College Library CLICC lab right now.

Just months before this offer was made, Tauzin was busy writing a prescription drug coverage bill that was seen as highly favorable to large drug manufacturers. Now, the same companies that benefited from Tauzin’s legislation want him to come work for their trade association.

It makes one think there could be a conflict of interest there – did a hope of future employment with drug companies influence Tauzin’s actions when drafting legislation? Such a situation leaves tremendous potential for abuse, as a congressman may write a bill favorable to his future benefactors rather than one in the best interests of society as a whole.

Fortunately, as members of his own party had a rare burst of conscience and raised questions, Tauzin stepped down from his position as chair of the committee and announced he won’t be seeking reelection. (I shed a tear upon hearing our nation is losing such a valuable beacon of integrity.)

Fellow Louisianan Rep. J. Bennett Johnston and former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer are just a few of the other congressmen who lobby on behalf of interests they worked on in Congress.

Having detailed knowledge of the legislation that affects the interest they lobby for, these men know – probably better than almost anyone else – what the loopholes are in the legislation they crafted. They also know how legislation can be used to benefit the industry for which they lobby.

Even worse, for a politician who is retiring, there is little incentive to really be concerned about what his or her own constituents think when presented with a crisply folded stack of American greenbacks.

Part of the problem is that the official rules governing this type of behavior are too weak. The regulations for House members seeking employment while in office merely state that House members should not allow “the prospect of future employment” to influence actions while in office.

However, such a stipulation is about as effective as a teacher placing the answers to an exam right next to you, urging you not to peek at the academic salvation within your grasp and then leaving you alone with the exam while he or she leaves to get some coffee. Would you even think of cheating? Of course not.

A similar situation exists with members of Congress. Members of Congress who know they soon will be vacating office have every reason to please a potential new employer without worrying too much about a nebulous clause on “future employment.”

To correct this, the House must pass stricter, more specific rules governing the pursuit of employment while in office. Any member who wishes to pursue such opportunities should face life imprisonment.

Actually, perhaps that is a little harsh. A severe fine and public censure might actually do the job. (You know, hit the egos and pocketbooks). Anyone troubled by Tauzin’s situation or that of numerous other elected officials should actively encourage Congress to pass such legislation.

For those who argue that House members need employment immediately upon leaving office, perhaps elected officials should learn to budget their expenses better – the same way the masses of suffering common folk must tighten belts in tough times and save for the future.

Until then, fax Congress as frequently as possible with a simple message: Flush the toilet.

Bhaskar is a third-year political science student. E-mail him at sbhaskar@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu