In the Right

That complaint would have required action of some form -- even a cursory investigation before dismissal.

But the rules changed in 1997.

Under a change that was adopted that year, outside groups and private citizens were barred from actually filing complaints with the ethics committee.

Now, only individual members of the House of Representatives can file a complaint with the Ethics Committee against a fellow member.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the result: The number of complaints (and, therefore, the number of investigations) dropped substantially.

And who was the mastermind who pushed through the change, so that outside groups and private citizens could no longer file complaints with the House Ethics Committee?

Why, none other than Murtha himself.

Wait, wait, wait.

Wasn't this one of the key issues on which Democrats campaigned in the 2006 cycle?

Didn't Nancy Pelosi promise to end the "culture of corruption" that existed under the GOP?

It was, and she did.

And when she became Speaker of the House in January 2007, she promised significant ethics reforms.

Pelosi led the charge for the creation of a new and independent "Office of Congressional Ethics," and in March of 2008, House Resolution 895 passed by a vote of 229-182.

This new OCE, she argued, once again would allow for more direct citizen participation in cleaning up Congress.

Now, as in the past, private citizens would be able to file charges directly against members of the U.S. House.

Except they can't, actually -- what private citizens can do now is to file a complaint with the new Office of Congressional Ethics, which then may or may not decide to pass the charges on to the House Ethics Committee.

The new OCE has no subpoena power to require anyone to appear before it.

It has no power to compel anyone to testify.

And it doesn't even have to initiate any kind of investigation of complaints filed with it unless at least one Republican member and one Democratic member agree that such a "preliminary review" is warranted.

In other words, it's a paper tiger.

But it sure does look good -- nice and shiny, to people who don't know any better.

And how do we know this?

Because we take a step back, and we ask ourselves, "If the new OCE allows private citizens or groups to file ethics charges directly, then why in the world would Fred Wertheimer and his ilk satisfy themselves with merely issuing a call for the House Ethics Committee to begin an investigation into PMA Group contributions and earmarks? Why wouldn't Democracy 21 actually file charges with the OCE, and get this party started?"

And then, after thinking about it a bit, we would answer ourselves thusly: "Selves," we would say, "They are smart and dedicated people, and they are doing the best they can do. They know that the OCE is nothing more than a charade, and that is why they are calling for action from the only place where action of this kind really counts -- the House Ethics Committee."

The dirty little secret for insiders, of course, is that even under the darkest of ethical clouds, Murtha is likely to prevail yet again at the polls -- not because 'his constituents adore him,' or any such tripe, but because his district is so heavily gerrymandered as to make him virtually invincible as long as he draws breath.

It may well be the case that -- at least until the next round of redistricting, which, happily, will take place after just one more election with the current boundaries -- an ethics investigation leading to a recommendation for removal is the only way Murtha leaves the House.

DISCLAIMER: When I write about the politicians in my past, CQ Politics says I have to turn the cards face-up. I worked for a candidate who ran against Murtha back in my campaign operative days.