The Case of Tom DeLay: Corruption, Democratic Norms, and Electoral Survival

This paper was written in my Political Corruption seminar class my senior year. The professor whose class I wrote this paper for was one of the two who recommended me to both The New School and NYU.

The Case of Tom DeLay:
Corruption, Democratic Norms, and Electoral Survival

"When a man is in trouble or in a good fight, you want to have your friends around, preferably armed. So I feel really good,'' the United States House of Representatives Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay said in his keynote address to the National Rifle Association’s annual convention in April, 2005.[1] Mr. DeLay’s “trouble” has been mounting. He has been unable to shake the continuing questions into his political activities, beginning with a racketeering lawsuit filed against him by House Democrats in 2000[2] and reaching a crescendo in the spring of 2005.

Although Mr. DeLay has not been indicted or convicted of any of the charges alleged against him – to date only receiving three admonishments from the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct – his actions have not only damaged his reputation and possibly his political future. His ventures into money-laundering, racketeering, and extortion are unique threats to the democratic norms that he should be upholding in his position as a United States Congressman. Whereas corruption is commonly viewed as dealings that personally enrich the corrupt, DeLay’s actions are in service to the protection and consolidation of conservative Republicans’ national political power.

The latest questions about Mr. DeLay’s ethics have involved the funding for various trips he has taken, one paid for by a lobbyist with close ties to the Congressman,[3] another paid for by a registered foreign agent,[4] both in violation of explicit House rules. However, his problematic activities go far beyond the improper access suggested by the inappropriately-funded trips. DeLay has been accused of activities that, if true, are dangerously close to money-laundering, extortion, and influence-peddling. Two of his close associates are under indictment in Texas[5] and, along with a third, are facing civil suits in relation to DeLay-founded Political Action Group Texans for a Republican Majority.[6]

The first section in this paper will deal with general questions about corruption, especially corruption in a democracy. In the second section, some examples of the accusations leveled against the Majority Leader will be outlined, along with their effects on the norms of democratic governance. The third section will deal with the fallout from the ethics allegations, with particular attention to the reputation of the House of Representatives and to Tom DeLay’s electoral future.

Corruption Defined
Corruption can be broadly defined as the “behavior of public officials which deviates from accepted norms in order to serve private ends.”[7] Visions of looters, rent-scrapers, and dividend-collectors[8] in third world countries, as well as corporate cronies in smoke-filled back rooms sharing cigars with politicians in more modern cultures, give an evocatively seedy image to the word. However, there is a perception that democracies are less inherently corrupt than non-democracies, that, according to Susan Rose-Ackerman,

"[t]he desire for re-election constrains the greed of politicians. The protection of civil liberties and free speech, which generally accompanies democratic elections, makes open and transparent government possible. In contrast, non-democratic states are especially susceptible to corrupt incentives because their rulers have the potential to organize government with few checks and balances."[9]


Rose-Ackerman finds, in contrast to this perception, that democracies “do not always succeed in checking corruption....”[10] Often, the need to finance campaigns with private money, as in the United States, entices lawmakers to sell influence in exchange for campaign donations – or at least rewards those who are better at selling out by enabling them to pour more money into their campaigns.

Corruption in a Democratic Context
In assessing corruption, it is important to define what is being corrupted. In other words, if certain actions are corrupt in a democratic context, there must be an ideal that is being degraded. Most definitions of democracy include such concepts as majority rule/minority protection as well as government by the governed, either directly or through freely and fairly elected representatives. Robert Dahl points to common characteristics shared by democracies – the equality of votes that is expressed in the free and just election of officials by effective participation of the governed through inclusive suffrage and the common right to run for elective office, as well as the possibility that citizens can collectively control the political agenda by enlightened comprehension of issues fostered by freedom of expression, access to alternative information sources, and freedom of association.[11] While these characteristics are important in recognizing the attributes of democratic governance, they are simply mechanisms that safeguard the fundamental norm of democracy: the wide diffusion of political power throughout the citizenry of a nation.

In the United States, the political protection of diffuse power is particularly important. In a capitalist economic system, unwilling to tolerate the inefficiencies that may result from purposely equalizing wealth, political equality and access to political power must be guarded jealously. Since “[m]any resources that flow directly or indirectly from one’s position in the economic order can be converted to political resources,”[12] a healthy democracy will systematically guard against supplementing the consolidation of political power that can come from individual wealth. In accepting the inevitable economic inequality that arises in capitalism, democracy is threatened if institutions do not consciously protect the diffusion of political power by promoting the greatest possible opportunities for inclusion in the political process across the population.

Corruption concentrates, rather than diffuses, power in a democracy. Although the common modern definition of corruption is behavioral – the “inappropriate use of common power and authority for purposes of individual or group gain at common expense,”[13] Mark E. Warren maintains that democratic corruption in particular violates the norm of
…inclusion in collective decisions and actions of all affected….the very logic of corruption involves exclusion: the corrupt use their control over resources to achieve gains at the expense of those excluded in collective decision making or organization of collective actions…. “corruption of democracy” is a charge directed against those who derive benefits at the expense of those they exclude from their relationship owing to the imperfect realization of democratic norms. These norms could be better realized were it not for the actions of those who gain from undermining, subverting, or otherwise blocking these norms. For a decision, action, or exchange to count as corrupt, then, it must cause gains for those included in the decision or action and harm for at least some of those who are excluded. The gains may be personal or private…or professional, as when a member of Congress exchanges influence for campaign contributions, enabling his reelection.[14]

While exclusion from meaningful political action is a necessary condition for corruption in the democratic context, it is not the sole qualifier. Since widespread opportunity for meaningful political action is the fundamental norm of democracy, duplicity and harm are also required for an act to be considered corrupt.[15] The claim to inclusion is both “recognized and violated” by a corrupt actor, indicated by his/her need for secrecy, and at least some of the excluded must suffer harm from his actions.[16] An honest legislator will give a fair hearing to all his constituents, giving impartial consideration to their arguments during deliberation according to the merits of their case and to the requirements of sound policy, not according to money or favors given.[17] A corrupt legislator deliberates in secret, providing undue access to the deliberative process to cronies and contributors, and is duplicitous in his speech by maintaining that legislation was crafted according to some acceptable, impartial deliberation rather than by the actual desire to direct benefits to those that have bought inappropriate access.[18]

Mr. DeLay, by his alleged actions, has sought to subvert diffusion of political power, instead using inappropriate means to consolidate power, avoiding the natural checks that come with democracy, protecting himself and his conservative colleagues from true competition by seeking untimely redistricting in Texas in order to pad his party’s margin in Congress, as well as circumventing campaign finance rules in order to fund the strengthening of his position as a leader of the dominant party. The Congressman has used practices that can be characterized as extortion and money laundering to achieve his ends.

Extortion
Many people are confused by extortion "under color of official right." Extortion under color of official right occurs when an agent of the government uses his or her legitimate governmental powers to obtain an illegitimate objective…. a city council member may have the authority to rezone an area of town and thereby effectively put a company out of business, but the council member cannot threaten rezoning unless the company contributes to his re-election campaign.
Jeffrey Earnest Grell
RICOact.com LLC[19]


The Taming of K Street
K Street in Washington, D.C. is the area of the city where the lobbyists from the different trade associations have office space, conveniently close to the Capitol. Before 1994, these lobbyists were Democrats as often as they were Republicans,[20] in order to maximize access no matter which party happened to be in charge – a remarkably pragmatic practice, given business’ natural affinity to Republican policies.

However, since the 1994 Republican takeover of the Congress, and accelerating markedly after George W. Bush’s assumption of the presidency in 2000, the GOP has worked to make over the composition of K Street in its own image.[21] As Tom DeLay said, “If you want to play in our revolution, you have to play by our rules.”[22] Those rules include coercing lobbyists to cut contributions to Democrats. While the Democrats controlled Congress, there was a relative equality of corporate financial support to the two parties, with Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Tony Coelho even tripling his committee’s fundraising during the first two years of the Reagan administration.[23] After Republicans had gained control of Congress, Tom DeLay invited lobbyists to his office to sign off on a list he presented to them, showing the recent political contributions that the different lobbyists had made, positioned in “friendly” and “unfriendly” columns.[24] This list had been compiled by Grover Norquist, leader of the group “Americans for Tax Reform,” from public records.[25] In 2002, just before Republicans took control of the Senate, Hilary Rosen, at the time the president of the Recording Industry Association of America, was told by her new hire, Republican Mitch Glazier, that Grover Norquist’s Wednesday Group had informed him that Rosen was giving too much money to Democrats. “We were all warned that if the Republicans take the Senate, no more money is to go to the Democrats. It was that overt.”[26] To assume that this practice has not had the desired effect would be naïve. Lou Dubose and Jan Reid, two Texas newspapermen who have written The Hammer about Tom DeLay, were told by a “high-dollar” Texas lobbyist, “I can’t talk to you about DeLay. He has people looking at my party affiliation and all my contributions.”[27]

While this practice may be characterized as simply playing hardball politics rather than as extortion, the situation becomes more clear-cut in the case of Dave McCurdy. Mr. McCurdy was a former moderate Democratic Congressman from Oklahoma, as well as a one-term national chair and co-founder of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council.[28] After losing his bid for a vacated Senate seat in 1994, McCurdy was hired as president by Electronic Industries Alliance, a trade organization that had a staff of 260 and an annual budget of $50 million.[29] According to a suit filed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2000, Congressman DeLay directed a campaign in which members of the House Republican leadership called EIA member companies and urge that McCurdy be fired. At the same time, DeLay used his power as Majority Whip to block pending legislation advocated by EIA, while making it known that the legislation had been stopped because of McCurdy’s hiring. EIA subsequently hired a former House Republican staff member who, shortly after being hired, attended a fundraiser for ARMPAC.[30]

ARMPAC was the Americans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee that Tom DeLay had founded. The legislation being held hostage was the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that the EIA, as well as a large business coalition, had been working on for more than two years. The bill had broad bipartisan support, putting into practice the guidelines that were laid out in a treaty written by the World Intellectual Property Organization – signed by 128 countries – that would provide more protection against the theft of American computer-generated intellectual property.[31] Only the final House vote on the conference committee report was required before the bill would be sent to President Clinton for his signature.[32]

When EIA stood by its hire of Dave McCurdy, then-Majority Whip DeLay pulled the bill from the House calendar, “making it known that the legislation had been stopped because of McCurdy’s hiring.”[33] Tom DeLay and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich also prohibited any communication between their staffs and anyone from EIA. Facing being cut off from the access that is the life-blood of any lobby, the trade association compromised with Republican leadership by hiring two House-associated Republicans to actually work with Congress.[34] New York Democratic Representative Jerrold Nadler said, “It was outrageous. They pulled a bill off the floor of the House. They took an official action. For what, to coerce a trade association? That meets the legal definition of extortion as I understand it.”[35]

For this rather heavy-handed and overtly extortionist behavior, the House Ethics Committee (officially the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct) issued a private letter to all House members informing them that officials “are prohibited from taking or withholding any official action on the basis of the partisan affiliation or the campaign contributions or support of the involved individuals” as well as threatening punitive action.[36] Democratic House plaintiffs dropped the suit against DeLay.

Mr. DeLay’s behavior goes beyond mere extortion for the purpose of increasing his own or his party’s financial resources. The domestication of K Street indicates an intentional, well-orchestrated effort to consolidate power by denying political access to any player that is not connected to DeLay, either directly or through his cohorts. There is no reason to believe that a Democrat like McCurdy would be less cooperative than a Republican as a lobbyist, given that his continued employment would be contingent upon effective dealings with legislators, not adherence to a Democratic Party line. His interference in the internal business of the trade associations on K Street marks a new aspect of DeLay’s aspiration to exert public control over private enterprise.

Congressman Nick Smith and the Medicare Vote
Mr. DeLay’s extortion efforts are not confined to those individuals outside the Congress. During the vote on the Medicare Reform Bill that included senior citizen prescription drug benefits that George W. Bush felt was imperative for his 2004 reelection bid, it was clear that the bill was going down to defeat due to the recalcitrance of Democrats as well as a few deficit-wary Republicans.[37] During an unprecedented three hour extension of the vote (in 1987, when Democratic Speaker Jim Wright had extended a vote for ten minutes, then-Republican Whip Dick Cheney called it “the greatest abuse of democracy” in his lifetime),[38] DeLay and other Republican House leadership worked on Republicans to change enough votes to pass the measure by a margin of 220-215 votes.[39]

In the aftermath of the arm-twisting, Nick Smith of Michigan, one of the Republicans who voted against the bill, asserted that he had been first bribed, then threatened by other Representatives. Smith’s son, Brad, was poised to run for the seat being vacated by his father’s retirement. In a Michigan newspaper article he wrote after the vote, Smith claimed “unnamed House leaders had promised substantial financial and political support for his son Brad… if Smith would vote aye.”[40] Dan Flynn, a DeLay aide, had contacted a former Smith aide to ascertain the status of Smith’s son’s race (Flynn was found not guilty of violating House rules, but the ethics committee stated that “It is not appropriate for congressional staff to research … congressional contests … to influence a Member’s vote on pending legislation”).[41] DeLay later confirmed that he offered his support for Smith’s son if the dissenter would vote for the measure, testifying before the ethics panel that he told Smith, “I will personally endorse your son. That's my final offer.”[42] The ability of DeLay’s various PACs to focus money on individual races made this a valuable offer. After Smith continued to balk, House Republicans promised to campaign against his son, effectively primarying him out of the seat his father held.

After later repeating the same charges on the radio, Nick Smith recanted his statements[43] and did not cooperate with the investigative subcommittee.[44] Investigators attempted to clear up the matter by viewing C-SPAN tapes of the vote to see who spoke to Smith.[45] However, after the initial fifteen-minute vote, the cameras, usually trained down the middle of the aisle separating Republican and Democratic legislators,[46] was “focused on the Democratic side of the aisle and no videotape record of what the Republican leaders and whips were doing” exists.[47]

C-SPAN cameras are controlled by the House leadership.[48] By moving their focus to the Democrats’ side, the case can be made that the leadership knew that whatever actions they planned to take could, at the very least, give the appearance of impropriety. While “logrolling” (legislators exchanging political support for political favors, referring especially to members of Congress) is not against the rules – just poor legislative practice – threats are. To threaten the future of a man’s son in order to force him to change his vote on a piece of legislation is, at the least, inappropriate. Since they refocused the C-SPAN cameras, the House leadership tacitly indicated they knew the impropriety of their action.

Money Laundering
Texas Criminal Investigation
As demonstrated in the Nick Smith Medicare vote, the other side of extortion is bribery. Tom DeLay’s offer to support Congressman Smith’s son in his campaign was not just a promise of photo opportunities or helpful speeches. Mr. DeLay has built a powerful fundraising machine that has helped him assist the elections of many of the newer members of Congress – members who knew that their election was due in no small part to money and expertise provided by their mentor, Tom DeLay. In helping political neophytes run successful campaigns, DeLay has been able to populate the House with people beholden to his expertise and to the money his organizations control.[49]

In order to have the resources to help those he deems appropriate, Tom DeLay appears to have participated in questionable, and possibly illegal, efforts to circumvent campaign contribution limits. In February, 2005, a civil trial began against Bill Ceverha, treasurer of Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee (TRMPAC).[50] TRMPAC is the PAC that Tom DeLay founded with the goal of establishing a Republican majority in the Texas State House of Representatives for the purpose of redistricting Texas in order to increase Republican representation in the United States House of Representatives.[51] TRMPAC spent $1.5 million in the 2002 Texas elections.[52] Redistricting was a pet project of DeLay’s, having little resonance with the newly-elected House, with major budget problems and a battle over limiting lawsuits higher on their agenda.[53] But after much politicking on his part – as well as further abuse of power in commissioning the Air and Marine Interdiction and Coordination Center to hunt down Democratic legislators who had left Texas in order to thwart the vote on redistricting[54] – DeLay achieved his goal.

That redistricting prompted five Democrats who lost elections to civilly sue Ceverha, as well as John Colyandro, the director of TRMPAC, and Jim Ellis, the director of DeLay's national PAC, Americans for a Republican Majority, claiming corporate money was used illegally to influence their races. However, the civil case against Colyandro and Ellis will have to await the outcome of their criminal trial on money laundering charges.[55]

Ronnie Earle, the Travis County, Texas District Attorney, is investigating allegations that officers of TRMPAC laundered $190,000 in corporate contributions by sending it to the Republican National State Elections Committee (RNSEC), and, three weeks later, that same amount was disbursed to seven TRMPAC-supported Republican statehouse candidates.[56] This money came from corporate donors, such as the Kansas company Westar Energy (which sent $25,000 to a PAC in which it had no material interest,[57] other than the fact that it considered Tom DeLay essential for his support of favorable language in an upcoming energy bill), and as such is prohibited from use in state campaigns.[58] By sending the donations to RNSEC, there is tacit acknowledgement that those donations were inapplicable to the state races where they were ultimately invested. The investment was crucial to the Republican acquisition of power in Texas, which made possible the gerrymandering of districts that bolstered Republican representation in the United States House, further consolidating power for DeLay and his conservative colleagues. Earle characterizes the situation as “an effort to use corporate contributions to control representative democracy in Texas.”[59]

Peter Cloeren
This process of shifting money to avoid campaign finance restrictions would not be surprising to Peter Cloeren, CEO of Cloeren Inc. and citizen convicted of misdemeanor violations of federal campaign finance law.[60] According to an affidavit sworn by Cloeren, Tom DeLay and Brian Babin, DeLay’s protégé in a race for a district in east Texas,[61] suggested ways to get around the limit to the maximum individual contribution, which Cloeren had already reached.[62] By using his employees as “vehicles” for additional donations, having them write checks and reimbursing them with “bonuses,” as well as writing checks to other organizations and campaigns that would, in turn, be donated to Babin’s campaign, Cloeren was able to donate $37,000.[63] Mr. Babin would pick the checks up personally in Cloeren’s parking lot, in order to avoid being investigated for mail fraud.[64]

Mr. Cloeren reached a plea-bargain with federal prosecutors, not doing any jail time, but paying, as himself and through his company, $400,000 in fines.[65] Tom DeLay, “who was never charged, told CNN he didn't know Cloeren ‘from Adam.’”[66] Nobody else was charged in the case, but the Federal Election Commission levied fines against Triad, one of the organizations to which Cloeren sent money and which, in turn, donated that amount to Babin’s campaign.[67]

Tom DeLay has used his financial power to tame the House in the same way he has used his political power to tame K Street. As the master of winning House votes by razor thin margins – the Medicare vote is an example – words such as “compromise” and “bipartisanship” are foreign to his vocabulary. The rights and desires of the sizeable minority in this country that did not vote for his extreme right-wing agenda figure not at all in his legislation. It is imperative to his continued power that Republicans have as wide a cushion of control as possible. Reliance on such narrow victories has made him completely dependent on Republicans obtaining as close to total control of the House as possible. The damage to the reputation of the Congress is becoming more apparent, with a recent poll showing only 33% of the public approve of the job Congress is doing – the same approval rating Congress got before the Republican take-over in 1994.[68]

He has used his fundraising prowess as a tool to populate the United States House of Representatives with people beholden to him. By spending so liberally through his various organizations, by getting lobbyists to contribute so substantially,[69] as well as by conducting a virtual candidate school – complete with “tapes, talking points, even a video that demonstrated the effective use of yard signs”[70] – DeLay has provided himself with a buffer of support in the House that has come through for him on votes, as well as insulating him (so far) from the effects of his questionable ethics.

Republicans have tempted public censure for proposing a change in the rule that prohibited members under indictment from serving in leadership positions, a move widely seen as an attempt to protect DeLay in case Ronnie Earle charged him with any criminal activity relating to his TRMPAC investigation.[71] Although denied by the Republican leadership in the House, the common impression held by most news outlets, by government watchdog groups, and by Democrats is that this fundamental restructuring of ethics committee rules was proposed in order to protect Majority Leader DeLay. In fact, the impression was heightened when committee Republicans backed down in the face of public opprobrium – after it became clear that the Texas grand jury would not be immediately indicting DeLay.[72]

This cronyism has not always prevailed, however. Representative Kenny Hulshof of Missouri received $14,500 from the Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC), DeLay’s national version of TRMPAC, since 1997.[73] As chair of the ethics subcommittee that investigated the Majority Leader’s actions regarding Representative Nick Smith and the Medicare vote, he voted to admonish Mr. DeLay for having “gone ‘beyond the boundaries” of party discipline.”[74] In return, Mr. Hulshof was removed from the ethics committee, a move Hulshof interpreted as a rebuke for his role in admonishing DeLay.[75] Joel Hefley, the Colorado Republican who chaired the entire ethics committee that admonished DeLay three times, and who had not received donations from DeLay, was also replaced.[76]

New rules that were enacted to make it impossible to start an ethics investigation without at least one committee Republican signing on have been successfully fought by Democrats on the committee.[77] Mr. DeLay has become the symbol of the Evil Republican, used by Democrats in emailings and requests for donations since the beginning of 2005. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has a website called “Tom DeLay’s House of Scandal,” complete with diagram showing DeLay’s connection with other conservatives such as Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist.[78] There are links to Republicans searchable by state, showing ties to Tom DeLay such as the amount of money they have received from one of his PACs or the amount they have donated to his legal defense as well as featuring a hammer graphic, indicating the donation targets being reached by the DCCC.[79]

Effects
These examples of possible corruption on the part of Congressman DeLay are just a small part of the pattern of abuse that has been making increasing press in the spring of 2005. Strangely, the more garden-variety examples of corruption – lavish lobbyist- and foreign-agent-paid trips and corporate cronyism – may be the charges that bring DeLay down. The Texas money-laundering trials of his close associates may add to the weight of public opinion, breaking the hold on power that he has cultivated for decades.

On Democratic Norms
There is a question of what lasting impact ethics irregularities have on voter opinions and on democracy itself. Since there has been little systematic study on the effects of corruption on the attitudes of citizens toward their political institutions, it is difficult to outline the specific damage done to Americans’ faith in their government done by Tom DeLay’s ethics cloud.[80]

Perception of specific corruption on the public at large may have the effect of further depressing participation in political processes by people already unlikely to vote or otherwise take part. Corruption more negatively shapes the perceptions of people already less invested in the process; women, members of lower socioeconomic classes, the unemployed, and people with lower levels of education.[81] Already underrepresented in the halls of power, perceptions of a corrupt system further alienates these segments of society, to the point that they may even more effectively disenfranchise themselves. There is a “significant corroding effect of corruption on trust in civil servants,”[82] discouraging broad political participation, further marginalizing the concerns of people who may need government assistance the most. The legitimacy of the system is called into question,[83] even in an established democracy such as the United States. Lower voter turnout may be one outcome of perceived corruption.

By attempting to inappropriately insulate himself and his conservative cronies from real political competition, Tom DeLay is undermining the norms of a democratic society. The effect of his party’s monopoly on power is similar to business monopolies in an economy: lack of competition in political ideas stifle innovation that may be necessary to deal with America’s pressing problems. Unethical behavior can lead to substandard legislation, and harm the reputation of Congress.[84] Minority concerns are suppressed, power is concentrated rather than diffused, governmental legitimacy is undermined, and resources and effort are redirected to maintenance and protection of power rather than toward defining and addressing problems of the electorate.

On Tom DeLay’s Future
A poll conducted by Zogby International shows some troubling indicators for Tom DeLay’s future. When asked the question, “If the election for Congress were held today and the candidates were Republican Tom DeLay and someone else, for whom would you vote?” “Someone else” wins 45% to 38.4%.[85] However, when it comes to actually punishing an unethical politician by voting him out of office, the results are not so clear cut. Oskar Kurer finds that voters continue to support corrupt politicians, presumably because ethical concerns are only part of the whole package presented by a politician, along with factors such as ability to deliver pork for his district, the perception that a politician shares a voter’s values, as well as other attributes.[86]

DeLay’s falling fortunes with the voters in his district may demonstrate, while most people are able to ignore a corrupt reputation when voting for the “whole package,” perhaps when faced with specific, repeated examples of violations, corruption becomes more of a factor in a voter’s decision. Knowing of specific cases of corrupt behavior may have more of an effect than ascribing to the general position that “politicians are corrupt.”

Incumbency may protect Tom DeLay in more subtle ways than just the increased opportunities for fundraising and the public platform that are no small ingredients in a politician’s success. There is evidence that voters do not simply rationally weigh their elected official’s performance to decide if he is worth voting for, but rather view their representative’s behavior through a lens of ideology, whether or not they voted for the member in the past,[87] and their investment in the political process.[88] People that perceive themselves in the majority – as conservative voters in the Texas 22nd District would have a right to – are less likely to view their representatives as corrupt:[89] “…in the context of analyzing corruption and support for the political system, the relevant heuristic is likely to be support for the incumbent political authorities.”[90]

In the short term (one election cycle) representatives in leadership positions were “significantly more likely to survive an allegation of unethical behavior,”[91]although being in the majority party had little significant effect.[92] DeLay receives some short-term protection from the fact that he is serving now, rather than prior to the mid-1980s, although long-term survival does not appear to be much affected by the time of service.[93]

The most significant indicator of survivability is electoral security.[94] It is in this category that Mr. DeLay may have “redistricted” himself out of a job. Prior to the 2004 election, Tom DeLay won comfortably with 60% of the vote in 2000 and 63% of the vote in 2002.[95] However, in 2004, political newcomer Richard Morrison won 41% of the vote to Tom DeLay’s 55% – while spending $630,000 to DeLay’s $2.9 million.[96] Because “candidates being investigated for unethical behaviors who seek reelection lose an average of 5% to 10% of the vote…,”[97] DeLay’s efforts at redistricting in Texas, getting him into possible trouble with both civil and criminal courts in the state, may have made him electorally vulnerable enough for a Democrat to be able to unseat him. The increased media attention also has the potential to negatively affect the Majority Leader in the short term.[98]

Conclusion
With the recent preliminary ruling in the civil case against TRMPAC’s treasurer, Bill Ceverha, [99] questions about DeLay’s ethics have moved back to the media forefront. Upcoming House ethics investigations, criminal suits against close associates in Texas, ongoing media coverage of the provenance of DeLay’s lavish foreign trips promise to keep the heat on the Majority Leader. Whether of not Tom DeLay continues in the United States House of Representatives, his corrupt behavior has damaged democratic norms as well as his own and Congress’s reputations.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, Mike, “DeLay Moves To Protect His Political Base Back in Texas,” Washington
Post website, (March 3, 2005), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2575-2005Mar2.html

Allen, Mike and R. Jeffrey Smith, “S. Korean Group Sponsored DeLay Trip,”
Washington Post website, (March 10, 2005), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22067-2005Mar9.html

Anderson, Christopher J. and Yuliya V. Tverdova, “Corruption, Political Allegiances,
and Attitudes Toward Government in Contemporary Democracies,” America Journal of Political Science, (Vol. 47, No. 1, January 2003)

Babington, Charles, “Ethics Panel Rebukes DeLay,” Washington Post website, (October
1, 2004), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63387-2004Sep30.html

Benjaminson, Wendy, “Democrats Weigh 2006 Challenge to DeLay,” Associated Press,
(April 7, 2005), http://www.richardmorrisonfordistrict22.com/news/050407.php

Bolton, Alexander and Patrick O’Connor, “Hefley joins Dems on ethics,” The Hill
website, (March 16, 2005), http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/ TheHill/News/Frontpage/031605/hefley.html

Confessore, Nicholas, “Welcome to the Machine,” The Washington Monthly website,
(July/August 2003), http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0307.confessore.html

Dahl, Robert A. Democracy and Its Critics, (Yale University Press: New Haven, CT,
1989)

Dahl, Robert A., “Equality versus Inequality”, Comparative Politics, (Wadsworth
Publishing, 9th Edition, 1999)

“Democratic Committee Files Suit Against DeLay Over Fund-raising,” CNN website,
(May 3, 2000),
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/03/delay.cnn/

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Inc. v Tom DeLay and others., United
States District Court for the District of Columbia, (May 3, 2000)

Dubose, Lou and Jan Reid, The Hammer: Tom DeLay, God, Money, and the Rise of the
Republican Congress, (Perseus Books Group: New York, 2004)

Easton, Pam, “Embattled GOP Leader Finds Haven Among Gun Lobby,” AOL News
website, (Associated Press, April 17, 2005), http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050410123309990002&ncid=NWS00010000000001

“Ethics Committee Hammers DeLay,” The Amarillo Globe-News Online, (Associated
Press, May 15, 1999), http://amarillo.com/stories/051599/usn_LA0684.002.shtml

Gest, Justin, “Complaint about GOP leader puts pressure on House panel,” St. Louis
Post-Dispatch, (September 24, 2004), p. A11

Grell, Jeffrey Earnest, “RICO in a Nutshell,” RICOAct.com website,
http://www.ricoact.com/ricoact/nutshell.asp

Hulse, Carl, “After Retreat, G.O.P. Changes House Ethics Rule,” The New York Times,
(January 5, 2005)

Huntington, Samuel P., “Modernization and Corruption,” Political Order in Changing
Societies, (Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, 1968)

Kaplan, Jonathan E., “Horse-trading on House floor: Ethics panel details DeLay’s
dealings on Medicare vote,” The Hill, (October 5, 2004), http://www.thehill.com/news/10052004/floor.aspx

Kornblut, Anne E., “Treasurer of Texas Group Is Fined Nearly $200,000,” The New York
Times website, (May 27, 2005), http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/politics/27delay.html?ei=5094&en=bfaafeb3b73232ab&hp=&ex=1117252800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

Levine, Samantha, “DeLay blames Democrats for ethics panel problems,” Houston
Chronicle website, (May 18, 2005), http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3188697

Moreno, Sylvia, “DeLay PAC Trial Looks at Money-Laundering Claims,” Washington
Post website, (March 4, 2005), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5357-2005Mar3.html

Moreno, Sylvia, “Texas Trial Begins Against Treasurer of DeLay Group,” Washington
Post website, (March 1, 2005), http://www.washingtonpost.com/?nav=globetop

Murray, Mark, “Voters dissatisfied with Bush, Congress,”MSNBC.com, (May 19, 2005),
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7899754/

Ratcliffe, R.G., “DeLay’s Investment Pays Off,” Houston Chronicle website, (October
10, 2003), http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2148270

“Rigging the Rules,” Washington Post website, (December 31, 2004),
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37888-2004Dec30.html?sub=AR

Roane, Kit R., Dan Morrison, and Carol Flake Chapman, “Will the Hammer Fall?” U.S.
News and World Report website, (March 28, 2005), http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050328/28delay.htm

Root, Jay, “Eyes of Texas, U.S. on Truant Legislators,” Star-Telegram website, (May 14,
2003), http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/5858118.htm?1c

Rose-Ackerman, Susan, “Political corruption and democratic structures,” The Political
Economy of Corruption by Arvind K. Jain, (Routledge: New York, 1998)

Smith, R. Jeffrey, “DeLay Airfare Was Charged To Lobbyist's Credit Card,” Washington
Post website, (April 24, 2005), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12416-2005Apr23.html

Thompson, Nicholas, “The Exterminator,” Salon.com, (September 3, 2003),
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/09/03/delay/index.html

“Tom DeLay’s House of Scandal,” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee,
http://houseofscandal.org/main.html

Warren, Mark E., “What Does Corruption Mean in a Democracy?” American Journal of
Political Science, (Vol. 48, No. 2, April 2004)

Wedeman, Andrew, “Looters, Rent-Scrapers, and Dividend-Collectors: Corruption and
Growth in Zaire, South Korea, and the Philippines,” The Journal of Developing Areas, (Summer, 1997)
[1] Pam Easton, “Embattled GOP Leader Finds Haven Among Gun Lobby,” AOL News website, (Associated Press, April 17, 2005), http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050410123309990002&ncid=NWS00010000000001
[2] “Democratic Committee Files Suit Against DeLay Over Fund-raising,” CNN website, (May 3, 2000),
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/03/delay.cnn/
[3] R. Jeffrey Smith, “DeLay Airfare Was Charged To Lobbyist's Credit Card,” Washington Post website, (April 24, 2005), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12416-2005Apr23.html
[4] Mike Allen and R. Jeffrey Smith, “S. Korean Group Sponsored DeLay Trip,” Washington Post website, (March 10, 2005), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22067-2005Mar9.html
[5] Sylvia Moreno, “Texas Trial Begins Against Treasurer of DeLay Group,” Washington Post website, (March 1, 2005), http://www.washingtonpost.com/?nav=globetop
[6] Sylvia Moreno, “DeLay PAC Trial Looks at Money-Laundering Claims,” Washington Post website, (March 4, 2005), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5357-2005Mar3.html
[7] Samuel P. Huntington, “Modernization and Corruption,” Political Order in Changing Societies, (Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, 1968), p. 59
[8] Andrew Wedeman, “Looters, Rent-Scrapers, and Dividend-Collectors: Corruption and Growth in Zaire, South Korea, and the Philippines,” The Journal of Developing Areas, (Summer, 1997), p. 457
[9] Susan Rose-Ackerman, “Political corruption and democratic structures,” The Political Economy of Corruption by Arvind K. Jain, (Routledge: New York, 1998), p.35
[10] Rose-Ackerman, p. 35
[11] Dahl, Robert A. Democracy and Its Critics, (Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, 1989)
[12] Dahl, Robert A., “Equality versus Inequality”, Comparative Politics, (Wadsworth Publishing, 9th Edition, 1999), p. 389
[13] Warren, Mark E., “What Does Corruption Mean in a Democracy?” American Journal of Political Science, (Vol. 48, No. 2, April 2004), p.332
[14] Warren, p. 333
[15] Warren, p. 334
[16] Warren, p. 334
[17] Warren, p. 338
[18] Warren, p. 338
[19] Jeffrey Earnest Grell, “RICO in a Nutshell,” RICOAct.com website, http://www.ricoact.com/ricoact/nutshell.asp
[20] Nicholas Confessore, “Welcome to the Machine,” The Washington Monthly website, (July/August 2003), http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0307.confessore.html
[21] Confessore
[22] Confessore
[23] Confessore
[24] Lou Dubose and Jan Reid, The Hammer: Tom DeLay, God, Money, and the Rise of the Republican Congress, (Perseus Books Group: New York, 2004), p. 171
[25] Dubose, p. 170
[26] Dubose, p. 173
[27] Dubose, p. 171
[28] Dubose, p. 163
[29] Dubose, p. 164
[30] Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Inc. v Tom DeLay and others., United States District Court for the District of Columbia, (May 3, 2000), no. 29
[31] Dubose, p. 166
[32] Dubose, p. 166
[33] DCCC, Inc. v Tom DeLay
[34] Dubose, p. 169
[35] Dubose, p. 168
[36] “Ethics Committee Hammers DeLay,” The Amarillo Globe-News Online, (Associated Press, May 15, 1999), http://amarillo.com/stories/051599/usn_LA0684.002.shtml
[37] Dubose, p. 278
[38] Dubose, p. 279
[39] Dubose, p. 279
[40] Charles Babington, “Ethics Panel Rebukes DeLay,” Washington Post website, (October 1, 2004), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63387-2004Sep30.html
[41] Jonathan E. Kaplan, “Horse-trading on House floor: Ethics panel details DeLay’s dealings on Medicare vote,” The Hill, (October 5, 2004), http://www.thehill.com/news/10052004/floor.aspx
[42] Babington
[43] Dubose, p. 280
[44] Kaplan
[45] Kaplan
[46] Kaplan
[47] Dubose, p. 279
[48] Dubose, p. 279
[49] Dubose, p. 87
[50] Moreno, “Texas Trial Begins Against Treasurer of DeLay Group”
[51] R.G. Ratcliffe, “DeLay’s Investment Pays Off,” Houston Chronicle website, (October 10, 2003), http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2148270
[52] Ratcliffe
[53] Ratcliffe
[54] Jay Root, “Eyes of Texas, U.S. on Truant Legislators,” Star-Telegram website, (May 14, 2003), http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/5858118.htm?1c
[55] Moreno, “DeLay PAC Trial Looks at Money-Laundering Claims”
[56] Moreno, “DeLay PAC Trial Looks at Money-Laundering Claims”
[57] Nicholas Thompson, “The Exterminator,” Salon.com, (September 3, 2003), http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/09/03/delay/index.html
[58] Thompson
[59] Kit R. Roane, Dan Morrison, and Carol Flake Chapman, “Will the Hammer Fall?” U.S. News and World Report website, (March 28, 2005), http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050328/28delay.htm
[60] Dubose, p. 122
[61] Dubose, p. 116
[62] Roane
[63] Dubose, p. 117
[64] Dubose, p. 122
[65] Roane
[66] Roane
[67] Dubose, p. 125
[68] Mark Murray, “Voters dissatisfied with Bush, Congress,”MSNBC.com, (May 19, 2005), http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7899754/
[69] Dubose, p. 87
[70] Dubose, p. 87
[71] “Rigging the Rules,” Washington Post website, (December 31, 2004), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37888-2004Dec30.html?sub=AR
[72] Carl Hulse, “After Retreat, G.O.P. Changes House Ethics Rule,” The New York Times, (January 5, 2005), p. 1
[73] Justin Gest, “Complaint about GOP leader puts pressure on House panel,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, (September 24, 2004), p. A11
[74] Deirdre Shesgreen, “Speaker takes Hulshof off House ethics committee,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, (February 3, 2005), p. A03
[75] Shesgreen, p. A03
[76] Alexander Bolton and Patrick O’Connor, “Hefley joins Dems on ethics,” The Hill website, (March 16, 2005), http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/031605/hefley.html
[77] Samantha Levine, “DeLay blames Democrats for ethics panel problems,” Houston Chronicle website, (May 18, 2005), http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3188697
[78] “Tom DeLay’s House of Scandal,” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, http://houseofscandal.org/main.html
[79] “Tom DeLay’s House of Scandal”
[80] Christopher J. Anderson and Yuliya V. Tverdova, “Corruption, Political Allegiances, and Attitudes Toward Government in Contemporary Democracies,” America Journal of Political Science, (Vol. 47, No. 1, January 2003), p. 93
[81] Anderson and Tverdova, p. 101
[82] Anderson and Tverdova, p. 102
[83] Anderson and Tverdova, p. 104
[84] Rebekah Herrick “Who Will Survive? An Exploration of Factors Contributing to the Removal of Unethical House Members,” American Politics Quarterly, (Vol. 28, No. 1, January 2000), p. 97
[85] “Texas 22nd CD Poll 3/30/05 through 4/1/05,” Zogby International, (April 1, 2005)
[86] Oskar Kurer, “Why do voters support corrupt politicians?” The Political Economy of Corruption by Arvind K. Jain, (Routledge: New York, 1998), p. 76
[87] Herrick, p. 100
[88] Anderson and Tverdova, p. 102
[89] Anderson and Tverdova, p. 101
[90] Anderson and Tverdova, p. 94
[91] Herrick, p. 104
[92] Herrick, p. 104
[93] Herrick, p. 105
[94] Herrick, p. 104
[95] Mike Allen, “DeLay Moves To Protect His Political Base Back in Texas,” Washington Post website, (March 3, 2005), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2575-2005Mar2.html
[96] Wendy Benjaminson, “Democrats Weigh 2006 Challenge to DeLay,” Associated Press, (April 7, 2005), http://www.richardmorrisonfordistrict22.com/news/050407.php
[97] Herrick, p. 97
[98] Herrick, p. 103
[99] Anne E. Kornblut, “Treasurer of Texas Group Is Fined Nearly $200,000,” The New York Times website, (May 27, 2005), http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/politics/27delay.html?ei=5094&en=bfaafeb3b73232ab&hp=&ex=1117252800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print