This paper explores three interconnected dimensions of American political governance. First, it analyzes the ethics violations alleged against Rep. Duncan Hunter, focusing on his misuse of campaign funds and the House Ethics Committee's decision to defer the matter to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation. Second, it examines why third-party presidential candidates have historically struggled to succeed, citing voter psychology, the two-party system, and debate exclusion rules. Finally, it addresses the constitutional framework governing presidential accountability, specifically the impeachment provisions of Article II, Section 4, in the context of obstruction-of-justice allegations against a sitting president.
Due to the level of trust the general public places in them, members of Congress ought to conduct themselves in a manner that does not betray that trust. In the past, many members of Congress have been charged with various ethics violations. Those whose ethical conduct has been called into question include, but are not limited to, Rep. Patrick Meehan, Rep. Ruben Kihuen, Rep. Trent Franks, and Rep. Anthony Weiner. This paper concerns itself primarily with Rep. Duncan Hunter, against whom it was alleged that he converted "tens of thousands of dollars of campaign funds from his congressional campaign committee to personal use to pay for family travel, flights, utilities, health care, school uniforms and tuition, jewelry, groceries, and other goods, services, and expenses" (Office of Congressional Ethics, 2018).
On August 31, 2016, the House Office of Congressional Ethics recommended that the allegations against Hunter be further reviewed by the Committee on Ethics. On March 23, 2017, the Committee on Ethics deferred the matter to the Department of Justice, effectively placing the member of Congress under criminal investigation for the violations described herein. This paper supports the House Ethics Committee's decision to defer its investigation for criminal proceedings against Hunter.
According to the OCE report issued by the committee, Hunter was in clear violation of several rules of the House of Representatives — most specifically the Code of Official Conduct, item number 6, which states that "a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall keep the campaign funds of such individual separate from the personal funds of such individual… [and] may not convert campaign funds to personal use…" (Committee on Ethics, 2018). This clear disregard for established rules raises the concern that the member of Congress could be inclined to ignore other House regulations should an opportunity arise in the future.
Furthermore, the behavior of the concerned member of Congress calls into question his resolve to place public interest before personal interest. Elected officials are ordinarily expected to act in the best interests of their constituents. It is important to note that upon reviewing this matter and conducting extensive research into various ethical violations attributed to members of Congress in the past, public trust in elected officials is significantly undermined. Elective seats should not, and must not, be viewed as pathways to personal enrichment or convenience.
Many third-party candidates have been defeated in their bids for the presidency. Some of those who never made it to the White House include Ralph Nader (in 2000), Ross Perot (in 1992), and John Anderson (in 1980). Several reasons explain why these candidates have not succeeded. The first involves voter psychology shaped by the two-party system, which has been conditioned by a well-crafted narrative advanced by the dominant political players over time (McKeever & Davies, 2014). As a result, many voters fear "wasting" their vote on a candidate who does not come from one of the two major parties. This dynamic was evident in 2000, when Ralph Nader's support effectively tilted the scales away from Al Gore and toward George W. Bush. On his own, Nader could not win, but the vote share he drew proved decisive in a close race.
A second significant barrier is the polling threshold set by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which candidates must meet in order to participate in presidential debates. This requirement effectively denies capable candidates with substantive policy visions a platform to articulate their plans before millions of voters. For instance, the exclusion of John Anderson from the 1980 presidential debate may have cost him the opportunity to challenge the two major-party candidates directly and appeal to the many undecided voters at the time. Both Reagan and Carter carried considerable political baggage: Reagan was feared by some as a candidate likely to escalate nuclear tensions, while Carter was widely seen as an ineffective leader. Anderson represented the only moderate option. Even if a third-party candidate were to win a presidential election, that candidate would face significant challenges in Congress, where support for their policies would be difficult to secure given the dominance of the two major parties in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
One of the key issues facing the United States is the scenario in which a sitting president faces investigation for obstruction of justice. In this context, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is tasked with probing all allegations brought forth, with the aim of taking appropriate action — which could include pursuing criminal proceedings against the president and his aides if they are found culpable. As provided under Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, "the President, Vice President and civil officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" (Brazan & Henning, 2010). This constitutional provision underscores that no elected official, regardless of rank, is above the law, and that the mechanisms for accountability are embedded within the foundational legal framework of the nation.
Across all three issues examined in this paper — congressional ethics violations, the structural barriers facing third-party candidates, and the constitutional framework for presidential accountability — a common thread emerges: public trust in democratic institutions depends on the consistent application of rules and consequences. Elective office must not be treated as an opportunity for personal gain, and structural advantages enjoyed by the two major parties should not be allowed to permanently foreclose competitive democratic participation. The constitutional tools available for holding officials accountable, from ethics referrals to impeachment proceedings, exist precisely to protect the integrity of representative government.
Brazan, E. B., & Henning, A. C. (2010). Impeachment: An overview of constitutional provisions, procedure, and practice. Washington, DC: DIANE Publishing.
"Constitutional framework for impeachment and presidential oversight"
Office of Congressional Ethics. (2018). OCE report regarding Rep. Duncan D. Hunter. Retrieved from https://oce.house.gov/reports/investigations/oce-report-regarding-rep-duncan-d-hunter
You’re 95% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.