This just in from the House Ethics Committee, charged with determining whether Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. tried to buy himself a promotion to the U.S. Senate: We’re still working on it.
In the meantime, the committee has released the detailed investigative report it received from the Office of Congressional Ethics in August 2009, along with a 17-page letter from Jackson’s attorneys responding to that report.
The investigation found “probable cause” that Jackson directed or knew of efforts to persuade then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich to appoint Jackson to the vacant Senate seat in exchange for $1.5 million in campaign cash. It also found “substantial reason to believe” the congressman misused the resources of his House office to lobby for the Senate job.
But the Office of Congressional Ethics doesn’t have subpoena powers, and its report notes that it was not able to compel Blagojevich and two alleged go-betweens to cooperate. There’s no surprising new evidence in the 2-year-old report released Friday.
So a cloud remains over Jackson — those seemingly damning phrases “probable cause” and “substantial reason” — but there’s not necessarily a clear case of wrongdoing.
It falls to the Ethics Committee to finish the job. The committee put the brakes on its review at the request of federal prosecutors, who were pursuing the criminal case against Blagojevich.
The ex-governor is set for sentencing this week. Jackson faces a likely primary challenge from former Rep. Debbie Halvorson, who has already ripped him for being “ethically challenged” and accused him of living in Washington, D.C., instead of his district. Democratic voters will have to make a decision on those candidates in March.
The Ethics Committee, notorious for dragging its feet on investigations of its members, needs to get its Jackson business resolved quickly.
Jackson says he didn’t try to cut a deal for the Senate seat; he simply pitched himself to Blagojevich as the best candidate.
The staffers who helped him volunteered their time, were not relieved of their regular duties, and didn’t do much anyway, he says. Nothing they did would have violated House rules about separating public work from campaign work, he says, and in any case, there was no campaign because there was no election.
If the Ethics Committee doesn’t see it that way, Jackson could face sanctions ranging from a stern letter to expulsion from Congress.
But voters have their own verdict to render. The primary election could well turn on whether they believe a 16-year incumbent was involved in buying a Senate seat and misused his office. Voters care about what went on with that Senate seat, and they deserve to have all available information before they cast their ballots.
The Ethics Committee should finish its work before March 20, in fairness to voters and to Jackson.
