Ethics: Ethics Panel Finds Conflict With Senator's Job as Physician
The Senate ethics committee has ruled that Sen. Tom Coburn must close his obstetrics practice.
The ethics committee has ruled that his private practice constitutes a potential conflict of interest with his work in Washington, and it has given him until Sept. 30 to close his office in Muskogee, Okla
For nearly two decades, Senate rules have barred members from holding outside professional jobs, such as those as lawyers, real estate agents and physicians, for fear that such services -- and compensation for those services -- might conflict with their role as policymakers.OK, so this issue seems to have stupidity on both sides. What kind of conflict of interest is he going to have? A bias towards protecting pregnant women? Maybe if all of his patients worked for the defense industry or something I'd be worried, but he's an obstetrician. And after the recent Schiavo fiasco I think Congress could use a few more doctors (or at least better ones they have now). And how old and honored is this law barring him? A hundred years? Nope, less than 2 decades. Yeah, because in this country anything 20 years old is practically pre-historic.
On the other side of the issue I can easily see lawyers in congress making the same claim and then it's s snow ball effect. The easiest thing to do is just to start practicing pro-bono since it's the income that's not allowed, then again, he's a conservative Republican so I don't see that happening anytime soon. Any other opinions?
2 comments:
Isn't it a bit stupid to run for a Senate seat knowing that Senate rules bar outside professions? It's not like he didn't know.
I think the rule seems like a reasonable one, in that an elected Senator is paid a salary by the citizens of the United States, and thus should not have other professional ties. Maybe it's not reasonable to ask zillionaires to limit their earning potential to a few hundred thousand, but that seems to make sense to me.
However, if the premise of that rule is in fact based on the idea that practicing as a physician leads to a conflict of interest, well, yes, that's near-absurd. So if I agree with the rule, it is for reasons that seem to have nothing to do with its intended purpose.
I'm wondering if the rule doesn't exist as a way to prevent bribes from being funneled to lawmakers. If senators have outside professions where they are allowed to earn an unlimited amount of money, what's to stop a lobbyist *coughAbramoffhack* from paying you for professional services in exchange for some friendly legislation?
Granted, I feel like a physician's practice is a fairly benign thing. I'm not saying abuse would happen in this case. However, it would be harder to make a law barring outside income except for money made from professions x,y, and z.
But I'm just guessing here.
Post a Comment