No more taxpayer-funded settlements for sexual harassment claims against members of Congress
In the light of allegations from the left that Trump’s payments to Stormy Daniels vie Michael Cohen constituted a campaign law violation, this news is deeply ironic:
Now Congress has agreed on a bill that members of Congress will be responsible for their own settlements instead of the tax payer. As of now, “settlements are paid through taxpayer-funded accounts members use to pay for office salaries and expenses.”
Hmmm—wouldn’t all of this be campaign finance violations, if Trump’s was?
Just about everyone I’ve read on the subject of this bill applauds the change. It makes sense, doesn’t it? After all, why should taxpayers foot the bill for the sexual indiscretions of the powerful members of Congress?
No reason except—except—there’s the problem of the power of false accusations What percentage of accusations are valid and what percentage false I do not know, but I do know that false allegations can crush someone politically and financially. I believe that was probably at least part of the reason for the establishment of the Congressional slush fund in the first place. Without it, I fear that the prospect of financial and personal ruin for a politician when facing such allegations constitutes even greater motivation to make them.
In the real world of politics and of business and of life in general, payments are often made in settlements of the sort even when claims are baseless. Payments do not constitute recognition of guilt. With the slush fund, the payments made constituted a motivation for false accusations, and without the slush fund, the same is true. But without the fund, the prospect of ruin for a politician is greater whether the accusations are true or whether they are false.
Maybe some commenter who knows more than I do about how this would work can see a flaw in my reasoning. I’d like for the new bill to solve the problem, but I just don’t see it doing so at all.
More here:
The legislation would hold members of Congress personally liable for awards and settlements that stem from acts of harassment and related retaliation they personally commit. There would also be a preliminary review of the merits of the claim by a hearing officer. Those elements, some of which already apply to House members, would also apply to members who have left Congress.
“We are shifting the balance of power to more clearly protect the victim and create a more level operating place,” said Rep. Jackie Speier (D., Calif.), who has been one of the biggest advocates for the reforms on Capitol Hill.
Who are these “hearing officers” and what standards will they be using? We already know what happened on campuses. I’m not a big one for special protection for members of Congress, and I certainly am aware that sexual harassment is a big problem in politics. But I’m also aware of the potential for false allegations, and the many motives to make them: politics, revenge, money, fifteen minutes of fame, he/said she/said misunderstandings, and there are probably some others I’ve left out.
Let’s face it: Stormy was blackmailing Trump.
Ditto for that playmate of the year.
Talk about gold digging. These chicks give it a bad name.
And then there’s the Ford gambit — to be repeated ad infinitum from this point.
Congress wouldn’t be Congress if they didn’t engage in rank hypocrisy.
Your fears and concerns are valid neo. I imagine the democrats will see this as an opportunity. One that will be initially successful but especially if used often, will create a reaction that they don’t anticipate. As, every congressional democrat has sexually abused someone, right?
It’s also potentially another factor in the societal dissolution of America, the repercussions of which both domestically and internationally will likely be catastrophic. But then, the democrat leadership with much of its base is determined to either fundamentally transform America or destroy it. They seem blind to the possibility of a personal downside for them.
I don’t think the existing situation authorizes the use of campaign funds, rather it’s office operating funds. The latter being taxpayer funds. It seems logical that both types should be off limits. But Neo is clearly correct, under the new law it sounds like the accuser would have even more power to do damage. And why should Republicans trust some hearing officer or mediator type, unless they are in control of the chamber?
To argue the other side, I do see that with old scheme an accuser demanding a medium large sum and willing to sign a NDA is more likely to find a compliant alleged harasser. It’s not the A-H’s money. The new law will motivate the A-H to fight back. One fix or improvement would be the inclusion of stiff penalties for a dishonest accuser, if a fraud is proven.
I presume that Congress had the slush fund in order to keep such accusations and settlements secret from the public.
Why am I seeing this as instituting a process similar to that used by higher educational institutions when a [typically] female “victim” accuses a male of unwanted sexual activities? …and how has that worked out?
Why not treat harassment or unwanted sexual advance, etc., allegations as they are treated in the private sector? Depending on the accusation, take it up with EEOC, sue in civil court, or report it to law enforcement and work through a criminal prosecutor’s office?
What am I missing here?
…my kingdom for an edit function….
“Why am I seeing this *new proposal* as instituting a process….”
ColoComment on December 14, 2018 at 10:07 pm at 10:07 pm said:
I presume that Congress had the slush fund in order to keep such accusations and settlements secret from the public.
Why am I seeing this as instituting a process similar to that used by higher educational institutions when a [typically] female “victim” accuses a male of unwanted sexual activities? …and how has that worked out?
* * *
Maybe facing the accusations publicly and directly will inspire more Congress-persons to get on-board with DeVos and her reforms of the Title IX “guidance” that has ruined the lives of so many young college students.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/k-c-johnson/why-arent-republicans-more-vocal-in-supporting-title-ix-reform
(Found this looking into the demise of the Standard. They have a couple of good articles occasionally, just not enough to keep readers interested, I suppose.)
Worthwhile comments from the LI post:
Bisley | December 14, 2018 at 10:26 am
I would expect this to go something like the EX-IM Bank — they’ll publicly eliminate it, and then restore it without mention as a part of some large, complicated hurry-up deal in the future.
[they did the same thing with restoring a Congressional-staffer exemption from Obamacare, and very likely a lot of other laws passed as virtue-signaling – to either side – and then quietly revoked, or ignored – Pay as You Go comes to mind]
PersonofInterests | December 14, 2018 at 10:45 am
Not good enough. How about those who have used taxpayers’ funds to pay off their accusers, refund the taxpayer with interest. Since this has been reported to have been taking place since about 1995, the amount could be “Yuge.”
[I’m good with that]
buckeyeminuteman | December 14, 2018 at 1:22 pm
Congress has to write a bill that tells themselves they can’t use public funds to get themselves out of moral trouble???
[well, yeah, apparently so]