(3 of 3)
While pouncing on the slightest skulduggery in the executive branch, Congress sees nothing wrong with its members accepting campaign cash from special interests, owning stock in companies that depend on Government contracts or receiving profits from law firms whose clients need a friend in power. Last week, acting under a code drawn up in 1968, members of the House partially disclosed some of their outside interests. Limited as it was, the information was startling. About two-thirds of the 435 members of the House have substantial financial interests other than their salaries. No fewer than 92 are officers, directors or stockholders in banks or other financial institutions, while 87 have ties with law firms; 61 are stockholders in companies with major defense contracts. Ten Congressmen with direct connections to financial institutions sit on the House Banking and Currency Committee, six on the Ways and Means Committee; both committees pass on legislation that profoundly affects banking institutions across the country. If that is not a conflict of interest, what is?
If nothing else, the obvious abuses ought to be ended. No member of the House Banking and Currency Committee should be the director of a bank; it is questionable whether he should even vote on banking legislation. All high-ranking public servants should disclose their assets and their outside incomes. None of this would ensure honesty. None of it would guarantee that a Supreme Court justice would not have questionable dealings. It would, however, be a start and a sign that the people will no longer accept conduct that embarrasses the Republic.