In November 2003, House Republican leaders were having a tough time getting their own caucus members to vote for White House-backed legislation that would add a prescription drug benefit (as spotty as it was) to Medicare. The vote was going to be close and then-Majority Leader Tom DeLay went into full arm-twisting mode. DeLay told one hesitant GOPer, Representative Nick Smith of Michigan, that he would support Smith's son's congressional candidacy if Smith voted for the bill. Of course, this was a threat; DeLay would oppose Smith's son if Smith didn't back the bill. For this exertion of political muscle--or some might call it blackmailing--DeLay was later rebuked by the House ethics committee.
Which brings me to Mark Foley, the now page-less and disgraced former Republican congressman. In late July 2005, the House passed another controversial bill narrowly, CAFTA, by a 217 to 215 vote. Foley cast one of the deciding votes in favor of the trade pact. He had long been opposed to the trade accord, for he represented a district that was home to the sugar industry and the sugar barons of Florida feared CAFTA would lead to a rise in cheap imported sugar in the United States. According to Trade Observatory,
Hours before the House vote, President Bush called Foley, a Bush family friend since the early 1980s, and asked for his support.
Foley told him he was leaning against the bill because his district encompassed the third largest sugar-producing area in the nation. The sugar industry was dead set against the pact.
"I know this is hard for you, but if this is easy work, everyone would want to do it," the president told Foley. Bush did not pressure Foley or offer any incentives, according to the lawmaker.
Foley did vote for the bill. And he was indeed pressured. As The New York Times reported:
"It was difficult, a gut-wrenching night," Mr. Foley said....Republican leaders had already made it clear that they would punish the sugar industry in the next farm bill if they managed to defeat the trade pact.
"If the administration thinks that sugar brought about the demise of this, there would have been hell to pay in the farm bill," Mr. Foley said. "This was somewhat of a vote for the survival of my constituents."
So the Republican leaders were not above threatening to harm the most important industry in Foley's district to get him to support CAFTA. The obvious question is this: did they threaten anything else? According to some congressional aides, the House leadership had already been warned about Foley's sexual interest in male pages. Was this information turned into political ammo?
Yes, I am doing nothing but speculating here. But Roll Call is reporting today that the House ethics committee has begun asking leading House Republicans to testify about the Foley matter. As the ethics committee members question legislators and staffers about what they knew when, they also ought to ask if knowledge about Foley's conduct was ever put to political use. I am not saying it was. But I am saying it's one question--among many--that any thorough investigation would cover.
Posted by David Corn at October 12, 2006 02:24 PM
Which brings me to Mark Foley, the now page-less and disgraced former Republican congressman. In late July 2005, the House passed another controversial bill narrowly, CAFTA, by a 217 to 215 vote. Foley cast one of the deciding votes in favor of the trade pact. He had long been opposed to the trade accord, for he represented a district that was home to the sugar industry and the sugar barons of Florida feared CAFTA would lead to a rise in cheap imported sugar in the United States. According to Trade Observatory,
Hours before the House vote, President Bush called Foley, a Bush family friend since the early 1980s, and asked for his support.
Foley told him he was leaning against the bill because his district encompassed the third largest sugar-producing area in the nation. The sugar industry was dead set against the pact.
"I know this is hard for you, but if this is easy work, everyone would want to do it," the president told Foley. Bush did not pressure Foley or offer any incentives, according to the lawmaker.
Foley did vote for the bill. And he was indeed pressured. As The New York Times reported:
"It was difficult, a gut-wrenching night," Mr. Foley said....Republican leaders had already made it clear that they would punish the sugar industry in the next farm bill if they managed to defeat the trade pact.
"If the administration thinks that sugar brought about the demise of this, there would have been hell to pay in the farm bill," Mr. Foley said. "This was somewhat of a vote for the survival of my constituents."
So the Republican leaders were not above threatening to harm the most important industry in Foley's district to get him to support CAFTA. The obvious question is this: did they threaten anything else? According to some congressional aides, the House leadership had already been warned about Foley's sexual interest in male pages. Was this information turned into political ammo?
Yes, I am doing nothing but speculating here. But Roll Call is reporting today that the House ethics committee has begun asking leading House Republicans to testify about the Foley matter. As the ethics committee members question legislators and staffers about what they knew when, they also ought to ask if knowledge about Foley's conduct was ever put to political use. I am not saying it was. But I am saying it's one question--among many--that any thorough investigation would cover.
Posted by David Corn at October 12, 2006 02:24 PM
