Duke Cunningham
Posted by Moonage on 28 Nov 2005 | Tagged as: Ethics
Cunningham, 63, made his announcement after entering his guilty plea on felony charges in San Diego federal court.
The eight-term Congressman and decorated Vietnam War veteran had already said he would not seek re-election in 2006. He is scheduled to be sentenced on February 27, when he could be ordered to spend 10 years in prison and pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.
Hundreds of thousands? He needs to pay a $2.4 fine and forfeit all income made from the time he decided to represent himself over the people who elected him.
- Technorati Duke Cunningham
- Google blogs for Duke Cunningham
7 Comments »
on 29 Nov 2005 at 10:11 pm 1.Bryan Kerwick
said …
This is one of the many reasons we should not have career politicians.
For the most part, our elected officials couldn’t hold a candle to the private sector leaders and we all pay for incompetant, corruptable people who otherwise would not be able to make it in the “real world”.
I wonder why we have term limits on the executive branch offices but not in congress. Not really, congress makes those rules, just as they make rules all the rest of us must live by except congress. They have their own rules, social security type plans, health care plans, their own bank, which by the way would all be in jail if in the private sector, etc.
We need desperately to find a way to end this madness of career politicians and make them acountable by the same rules they impose on everyone else. They also should have to live by the same rules all other private sector fiduciaries live by. We should then make the payscale commensurate with the private sector to attract the truely gifted leaders we can not seem to lure into the public arena. Knowing the job only has a 4,6 or 8 yaer commitment would help as well.
I hope this guy fries. Usually the politicians skate after taking a bribe while those who pay them, generally because there is no other way to do business with those corrupt officials, take all the heat and weight of the law.
There is no excuse for this behavior and it is high time the politicians get to sink in the same boat as the rest of people who do dirty deals with public officials.
on 29 Nov 2005 at 10:31 pm 2.Moonage
said …
I don’t really see this as a reflection on the “career politician” debate. If anything, if someone is given access to billions of dollars for a very short time frame, I would think they’d be even more inclined to grab what they could from the second they took office. If anything, Cunningham was career military, serving from 1966-1987. A lot of his exploits were supposedly portrayed in the movie Top Gun. He got his exposure to politics reporting the Gulf War for CNN in 1990. His popularity then led to his Congressional run. IMO, his inexperience in dealing with federal funding sources combined with his obvious lack of self-protective skills is what got him in this mess. I don’t really think the guy was smart enough to know he was breaking the law. If anything, people like Cunningham make the case that we need career politicians. But, we need to educate and train them as we would a basketball player or corporate lawyer. Right now there really is no career path to becoming one of the people that controls the largest budget in the world with the capability of directing an army that can lay waste to any country on the planet. People elect the people with this power based on who is the better candidate. They rarely take into consideration the candidates’ job skills required for the position.
on 30 Nov 2005 at 2:25 pm 3.somesortamindo said …
Saying that Cunningham is not smart enough to know he was breaking the law seems a bit, well, silly. I’m sure he knew he was breaking the law but lacked the ability to continue to break the law. Maybe that’s where he has an intelligence deficit? Besides, lack of knowledge of any particular law is not an excuse nor is it a pass to actually breaking it. I do agree, though, that this is not a reflection on career politicans, but an expose of a thief and abuser of public trust.
on 30 Nov 2005 at 2:39 pm 4.Moonage
said …
If you read a bio on Cunningham, you might agree with me. He’s not a terribly bright candle.
on 30 Nov 2005 at 9:42 pm 5.StormWarning
said …
Political career path…a history of public service. Three examples:
(1)
(*) after a business career, became member of county legilature
(*) 6 years later ran for and was elected to state legislature
(*) 4 years later ran for and won seat in the House and served 4 terms
Honest as the day is long.
(2)
(*) County Comptroller for 8 years
(*) ran for a won seat on the House, now in 7th term
Honest as the day is long.
(3)
(*) Member of town council for 4 years
(*) Ran for and won seat in County Legislature for 4 years
(*) Ran for and won seat in the House, now running for 3rd term.
Honest as the day is long.
Although there seems to be alot of angst against lawyers, seems to me that being one is good training to be in politics. Aside from that, the three examples I gave include both sides of the aisle. I’m pretty sure that if you did a survey of the 435 Members, you’d find a preponderance of honest people.
I’d pose that Cunningham was the exception and not the rule. There will always be people in power who attempt to abuse it…some, as you put it, simply aren’t bright enough to be in the position.
on 30 Nov 2005 at 10:04 pm 6.Moonage
said …
I generally fall on the honest side. I think in addition to that survey, if you gauged what those 435 made before they were elected vs what they made upon being elected, you’d probably find that a lot are not in it for the money. From what I’ve read, Cunningham put himself in a position where he needed lots of money ( kid’s problems ).
on 30 Nov 2005 at 11:16 pm 7.StormWarning
said …
Contrary to many other “uninformed” opinions, my general feeling is that our men and women in the House of Representatives and the Senate all have “noble” intentions.
I think that given your experience, you’d agree.
One of my examples is on the same committee with “Duke.” He’s as straight as an arrow.