"DeLay Rule" reversed - and the rest of the story

[vakkotaur]

In November there was a flap over a change made by House Republicans to their, the House Republican's, ethics code. That change meant that being indicted (charged with a crime, indictment is not proof of guilt but suspicion of guilt) would not require Tom DeLay step down as Speaker of the House. And now the news is about Tom DeLay having the "DeLay Rule" scrapped.

A few things make this more interesting than it seems at first. At first glance it looks like CYA and then a reversal after an outcry. There is an element of that, but it's not the whole story. Tom DeLay, whatever you might think of him, did not ask for the rule change in the first place, but did later ask that the change be scrapped. The reason for the "DeLay Rule" was to shield him from a certain prosecutor who seemed to be more interested in triggering the ethics rule than going after any actual wrongdoing. This was made plain when the rule change passed and the prosecutor at least seemed to stop seeking an indictment, which goes a way toward confirming those suspicions about his real motive.

I'm a bit torn. I think the legalistic hacking that showed the political ploy for what it is a pretty neat bit of hacking a system. On the other hand, I also think the rule about stepping down on indictment is a good one; it shows that even suspicion isn't tolerated for some important jobs.

While the Democrats and others on the left are celebrating the reversal of "DeLay Rule" they should do two things. One, they should realize why it was put in, what it did, and why it was removed (it had done its job). Two, they ought to add the "leave the Speakership on indictment" rule to their own ethics code. That's right, the big critics of the Republicans changing their ethics rule did not and do not have the equivalent ethics rule themselves. The criticism may be valid, but if they want to be taken seriously they need to not be hypocrites. If they really want to impress folks, maybe they should be pushing for it to be a House ethics rule that will apply no matter what the party affiliation is?