Reprimand Rather than Censure More Appropriate for Rangel

Now that the House Ethics Committee has filed its formal report recommending censure of Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY), the senior statesman is hopeful that his colleagues will consider a sanction more appropriate to the charges levied against him.

If, indeed, the congressman is censured, he will be the first member of Congress to receive this penalty in more than 27 years.

Noting that the Congressman is not guilty of any acts of bribery, accepting improper gifts, personal use of campaign funds or sexual misconduct, the Ethics Committee seeks to censure Rangel based on “the cumulative nature of the violations and not any direct personal financial gain.”  Interestingly enough, however, the Committee’s Chief Counsel Blake Chisam is on the record during Rangel’s ethics hearing acknowledging that he saw “no evidence of corruption” in this case.

Censure, a harsh form of public castigation, would require the House Speaker to decry Congressman Rangel’s actions while he stands before his colleagues on the House chamber floor.  Reprimand, on the other hand, involves a lesser vote of disapproval, and would not require such public humiliation for the 40-year congressional veteran.

The facts on the record demonstrate the Congressman Rangel was not convicted of any criminal activity, nor did he engage in any flagrant or fraudulent violations of House Ethics policy.  To the contrary, though the violations against him were several, the Ethics Committee found that they were the result of sloppy record-keeping and that they did not result in personal financial gain.

Rangel has since paid restitution for the amounts he owed in back taxes and financial assessments for his properties in New York and the Dominican Republic.  And while the Rangel Center at CCNY was in his name, he did not receive any monetary gain from his solicitation efforts.

Historically, members charged with Rangel’s offenses have received a reprimand, while censure has been reserved for members engaging in sexual misconduct, the receipt of improper gifts and the personal use of campaign funds.

Charles H. Wilson, Jerry E. Studds, and Daniel B. Crane were the last members of Congress to be publicly censured.

Kristal Lauren High, Esq. is the Editor in Chief of Politic365. Prior to developing an expertise in the field of broadband for social justice through her work with the Minority Media & Telecommunications Council and the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies Media & Technology Institute, Kristal was a Labor & Employment attorney with LeClair Ryan. Hailing from Miami, FL, Kristal currently resides in Washington, DC.

More on Politic365

• Alaska Ballot Counting Leaves Senate Race Uncertain for Weeks
• Out-Newting Gingrich
• As Republicans Block Aponte, All Eyes on Rubio

3 Responses to Reprimand Rather than Censure More Appropriate for Rangel

1. Phil says:

   6:29pm December 3, 2010 at 6:29 pm

   How about prison, instead? If a normal citizen did this, they'd be in the slammer for years. And you can defend him, Ms. High? Who are you kidding?

   Reply
   • Clarinda says:

     3:12am October 3, 2011 at 3:12 am

     Why does this have to be the ONLY rlaeilbe source? Oh well, gj!

     Reply
   • ifgevwpjsug says:

     8:54am October 3, 2011 at 8:54 am

     ZWwnAY piplyzzcjhxz

     Reply