The Senate, Ethics, and Tom DeLay's Specialness

Jesselee at The Stakeholder brings us this: The WaPo editorial board "gets it" on the Hastings offer:

There's no doubt that this is an improvement. The promise of a vote at least demands some accountability from committee members, and the guarantee of three months and potentially more to investigate a complaint is positive. But the setup would still tilt the ethics panel, which after all has not been disposed to hyperactivity, in favor of inaction. If members know that a deadlocked vote will simply end the matter once and for all, they will have less incentive to reach bipartisan accommodation.

A more fundamental problem is that -- were the Democrats to accept this offer, and they've said they won't -- the panel would be operating, now and in future Congresses, under the flawed rules imposed unilaterally on the Democratic minority. Even if Mr. Hastings's proposal were perfect, it would just amount to an informal and temporary understanding; it wouldn't bind any future chairmen. Ethics chairmen come and go; just ask Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), who was ousted after the committee, under his leadership, repeatedly admonished Mr. DeLay for ethical missteps. That's why it's important to have the right rules in place, and to get them in place the right way.