Should Congress members be held to higher ethical standards?

¶ … members of Congress be held to a different standard than other citizens?

I agree that representatives in Congress should be held to a higher standard than ordinary citizens. One of the synonyms for a congressperson is a 'public servant.' A member of congress is elected to serve the public interest, not his or her own interests alone. Part of the responsibilities and duties assumed by the representatives of congress include making public speeches and interacting as a public figure with other representatives.

It has been alleged that sexually explicit emails were sent out by Representative Foley. Should employers be able to monitor all emails sent by employees?

There is no expectation of privacy in the workplace. Whether it is wise to do so is debatable, and depends on the context and nature of the work. In the case of a member of congress, for security reasons, monitoring would seem warranted.

If legislative leaders knew or suspected about the emails, what actions should they have taken?

To protect the rights of the page, hearings should have been held immediately.

Response Robyn Finster Jul 18, 2011 8:23 PM

If a congressman cannot be taken seriously because of his or her publicized sexual actions, particularly if the politician used his or her office to obtain sexual favors from others, he or she should be judged more harshly than someone who commits an ordinary infidelity. A congressperson has special privileges, but with privileges come additional burdens and responsibilities. Also, regarding the question of monitoring emails -- the Representative had no expectation of privacy when using his work email account, in contrast to the expectation of privacy he would enjoy in his own home.

Response Derek Blackmore Jul 19, 2011 10:29 AM

I think there must be standards, in terms of the expectation of privacy that public figures have -- for example, they should be able to live unmolested in their homes. Their spouses and children should be 'off limits' to the public (although I am disappointed when public figures use their children as 'photo ops' when campaigning for office), unless the spouse is also a public figure. Public figures should be able to have private, family lives, but when they engage in private business at work, including the emails they send, such behavior becomes the business of the public. A representative at work does not just represent him or herself -- he or she also represents his or her district, and his or her actions reflect back on how that district is viewed in the House or Senate. Additionally, if the representative compromises his or her relations with other members of congress, this could result in a failure of the constituent's interests to be advanced and articulated. It is more significant than a company's resources being used to commit evil action. The actions of a congressman who makes sexual advances on a page compromise the interests of people who deserve to be heard. What about the citizens who lose jobs, for example, because money is not approved for a public works project because Foley has lost all of his political 'capital' and clout?

Response Elizabeth Laage Jul 21, 2011 11:06 AM

The 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine has many exceptions. However, it is necessary because if it were not in existence, the temptation would be too great for law enforcement personnel to overlook suspect's rights. You are assuming that all suspects, by virtue of being suspects are guilty. There have been many recent highly-publicized incidents of people who are innocent, but were incarcerated because of inappropriate or sloppy actions of law enforcement. It is easy to want to overlook constitutional rights -- until YOU are the one accused of a crime you did not commit!