A Double Standard for Jefferson

Like many news outlets today, the Washington Post is reporting on the Democratic Caucus vote to remove Rep. William Jefferson from the house Ways & Means Committee, one of the top three most powerful committees in Congress. Almost immediately after the vote, Jefferson questioned whether the vote was racially motivated.

Of course, we have always heard the race card being played when charges are leveled against black Members of Congress. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) alledged that her treatment by Capitol Police after assaulting a Capitol police officer was racially motivated. Generally, I despise the use of race as some sort of shield or charge when something negative happens.

But in this case, I think there is a double standard and I wonder how much of it is race based or how much is reflective of the general differences in the case. I, of course, expected the Democrats to react differently when dealing with the ethical issues of Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) due to partisan politics. But the disparate treatment accorded to Jefferson and House Appropriations Committee member Alan Mollohan (D-WV) does raise some questions.

According to the Post:

[Jefferson] noted that he has not been charged with a crime, and that "historically, even when a member of Congress has been so charged, he or she steps aside from a committee or subcommittee chairmanship, but not from the committee itself."

Pelosi denied that she is being unfairly harsh. "I told all my colleagues, anybody with $90,000 in their freezer, you have a problem at that point."

Jefferson and some of his Black Caucus allies have noted Pelosi's relative silence on the legal troubles facing Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.), whose commercial investments are being scrutinized by federal investigators for potential connections to his duties as a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Jefferson has said that his treatment has been pursued by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) because of the Democratic strategy to use a "culture of corruption" campaign to win control of the House and Jefferson's situation puts a dent in that plan.

Mollohan is being investigated for possible connections between his business dealings and his official role as a Member of the Appropriations Committee. Not to dismiss Jefferson's actions, but it seems that when it comes to corruption, I am not so sure that Jefferson's alleged crime is any worse than Mollohan's, aside from the $90,000 in a freezer.

To be sure, both parties have more than shown they lack some ethical standards. But I can't help but wonder why Jefferson was asked to relinguish his committee post and Mollohan was not. While I generally don't think it was racially motivated (I have a hard time leaping to that conclusion in any case), Jefferson is right--it does raise some questions.