Verbiage of Virtue

Invoking Luke, Plato, Cicero and other chroniclers of virtue, the Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct last week proposed "additions to the standing rules of the Senate." They amounted, in fact, to a bulky code of ethics intended to spare the Senate future embarrassments of the kind that have plagued it in the past, most notoriously those occasioned by the transgressions of Tom Dodd and Bobby Baker.

Despite the report's lofty assertion that "a Senator is extended an extraordinary measure of trust and confidence not given to ordinary members of society," its very existence testifies that Senators can be, and have been, molded from crumbly clay. A product of more than two years of intermittent work (interrupted by necessity of investigating unsavory charges against Dodd and Missouri Democrat Edward V. Long), the Senate code, drawn up under the auspices of Mississippi's John Stennis, had at least one easily discernible merit: it was much more sin ewy than a bare-bones code dropped almost casually into the House of Representatives' hopper a day earlier.

"Dodd Amendment." The Senate code requires that members report official, quasi-official, political and quasi-political funds raised at testimonial dinners and other such occasions (the "Dodd amendment"). For the first time, the murky area where campaign funds, office and personal expenses meld would be clearly defined and strictly regulated. But general disclosure of every Senator's financial holdings (which would, insisted Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, make Senators "second-class citizens") was not suggested. The code does propose that Senators file copies of their income tax returns with the committee--though in fact the committee already has authority to demand tax returns of any Senator. It sanctions acceptance by Senators of contributions to run their campaigns and to "defray the reasonable costs" of their offices, provided that any individual contribution of $50 or more becomes publicly disclosed.

In one major respect, the Senate code is firm: it precludes use of campaign funds for personal expenses, a la Dodd. It also requires Senators and Senate employees to list outside interests, property holdings, debts, gifts, etc. But these lists would be filed in sealed envelopes with the U.S. comptroller general, to be made public only by a majority vote of the six-man Committee on Standards and Conduct after charges of improper conduct had been brought and public hearings held.

Caesar's Wife. The House code, on the other hand, was devoted more to extolling virtue than to ensuring it. An outgrowth of general indignation generated by ousted Congressman Adam Clayton Powell's propensity for public sin, it suggests that House members conduct themselves "in a manner which shall reflect creditably" on the House, and that a Representative accept no compensation for using his influence improperly. It called for a review of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, under which no one has been convicted since its passage in 1925. It also asked members to list firms in which they own a substantial interest ($5,000 or more) or which produce an income to them of $1,000 or more per year.

Of the two codes, the Senate's obviously is the more likely to have some effect on the future behavior of Amer ica's lawmakers. As Committee Chair man John Stennis explained, it is a step toward removing the Senate, "like Caesar's wife," from even the suspicion of impropriety. But it is far from the final step.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.