This editorial originally appeared in the Anchorage Daily News:
The House Ethics Committee has ruled that Alaska Rep. Don Young didn’t violate the law in accepting 12 checks totaling $60,000 for his legal defense fund from 12 businesses owned by one family. As the committee pointed out, the companies are technically 12 separate entities in Louisiana, but they represent exactly one political interest.
The committee further said that it didn’t believe Rep. Young intended to violate the spirit of the law, and noted that he checked with his legal defense fund trustee to see if he could accept such donations. (Is this the most naïve committee in American politics?)
The committee also said it never wants this to happen again.
Gary Chouest, an oil field services and shipbuilding magnate whose family has contributed money to all three members of Alaska’s congressional delegation, presented Young with the $60,000 at a fundraiser in Texas.
If this isn’t an example of using the letter of the law against the spirit, we don’t know what is.
Rep. Young consistently has refused to discuss any of his legal issues, which most Alaskans probably figured were over earlier this year when the Department of Justice said it was ending its investigation of Young without charges. But the congressman raised more than $1 million for his legal defense, much of it from contributors who presumably hope to gain by his continued presence in Congress. Now the ethics committee has changed the rules so the $5,000 contribution limit will apply not to legally separate companies but to their owners. In other words, we wouldn’t see another contribution of 60 grand from one family sliced a dozen ways for legal cover. Good idea.
Rep. Young says he’s satisfied that the committee dismissed the allegations against him. But this contribution is another example of big money in politics that leaves many Alaskans and other Americans deeply unsatisfied. Gridlock and vitriol aren’t the only reasons Congress earns single-digit approval ratings from the American people. Contributions like this one do nothing to restore trust. Too many of our elected officials don’t seem to care. And that includes Don Young.
The contribution may have been legal; that doesn’t make it good.
Comments (13)
Add commentTerm Limits
Term Limits
Why do Alaskans...
...keep reelecting this clown???
Given that he has skipped more votes than almost any other member of Congress, I'm rather surprised that his donors keep shoveling money his way. I mean, after all, they're only buying one thing: his vote. And if he doesn't vote, are they getting their money's worth?
Cleared
And now they are going to Tighten up the rules. Don young understands the letter and the spirit of those rules and did this on purpose. He saw a loophole and used it. Now they will remove that loophole. So now he can move on to exploiting the next loophole so we can plug it when he's done. We would like the representative from Alaska to exploit the rules for. Alaskans, not for an interchange on the east coast or to pay legal fees accrued while defending himself during his last loophole exploits. It seems to work for him, I'll need impart these nuggets of wisdom to my children. Kids, exploit until they catch you, then lawyer up and weasel out... Rinse, repeat...
Doesn't pass the smell test
Just because he was acquitted doesn't mean he's not guilty.
Corporations are not people. People are people.
Each corporation was capped at donating $5000 each. So, bust it up over 12 corporations x $5000 each = $60,000!
The spirit of the law was to limit donations. But the letter of the law was the loophole and he exploited it like a good little republipuke.
Term limits!
I was also amused when the committee said it didn't want to see it again. Either it was wrong or it was wrong.
Blame...
...the almighty Supreme Court. They made it legal. That's another good place to impose term limits. Abolish lifetime appointments.
Why he keeps coming back...
...is we keep electing him. There are Republicans in Alaska that hold their noses and vote for this embarrassment and then there are the people in Rural Alaska who vote for him because he is "one of theirs" since he calls Ft. Yukon his “home.”
Then there are the people who vote for him because they think he is an idiot who does more damage than good to the causes he supports.
We have term limits: they are called elections. Too bad we lost the partially corrupt Uncle Ted and kept this doofus.
Exhibit A: The Gentleman from Alaska
Exhibit A is indicative of the loss of our moral compass.
@Latitude58: Young’s non-votes may be just as effective. He’s a political animal if he’s anything;
@froward: so long as it’s treated like a game, there will be losers. I agree with you, it’s just that short of public disgrace (ala Rep. Weiner, D-NY) these elected weasels will continue to skirt the spirit of the law (grounded in moral culpability) and hide behind the ethics of legality;
The most disheartening thing of it is that this moral degradation is cultural because it’s accepted. “Oh that’s just Don Young doing what everybody else is doing.”
@ Mama T, Jo McN: right on!
I don't think you can find a
I don't think you can find a point in history when our "moral compass" was pointed in the right direction. I think you could find a point in history when people were dogmatic about morality and hypocrisy was harder to root out due to a lack of mass media and technology.
Bakatcha Persnickety
I hear what you're saying; however, morality is an ideal and our individual actions should aspire toward it, though across the board we have all come up short at times. When we tolerate moral deficiency we've lost our compass. The ideal has always been there throughout history.
There have been many ideals
There have been many ideals throughout history. You have to define the "correct" moral path and then justify its existence. Unless you're referring to very general ideals like honesty and loyalty and such, but I don't think those are any different today than they were in yesteryear.
Gone Gone Gone
is the era when voter would actual look at a politicians statesmanship, moral character and worthiness of being your representative. Today it is strictly one point affirmations of one source or another that get votes. It does not matter if the candidate has a history of things making them a total insult to the voters. If they support one item you believe in they get your vote.
Don Young
As far as I can tell, Don Young is about the same age that I am - nearly 80 years old. When I realized that it was time for someone to replace me, I retired. My replacement has done a much better job of teaching and research than I ever did.
I hope that soon the Republicans can convince Don to step aside, let someone else take his place and let him enjoy the benefits that Congress has set up for their retired members.
As a registered non-partisan voter, I might even support a Republican replacement, if the person were a good person, with experience in Alaska, and the proven ability that he or she would truly represent the people of our State.
Ethics are right, loopholes are left...
- Sides of the brain, of course. Ethics, being a concept, and visualized and is processed in the right side of the brain. Loopholes are just the opposite - they are a digital 1 + 1 = 2 process that ignores the concept (intent) of the laws. The thought process that looks for loopholes is deliberately avoiding the intent of the law. Shutting off that whole half of the brain, that is.
Hey! Look here! It actually doesn't SAY I can't do THAT! It's all legal if I don't get caught!
If anyone wants to understand more about why this goes on, feel free to read my comment on Hollis French's 'My Turn' in the Opinion area of today's paper...