s Washington----ii770731.html

Washington

By TOM LITTLEWOOD

Savoring a pay raise, swallowing an ethics code

POLITICS may be the only vocation that does not openly reward those who are the most successful with financial treasure in the same proportions. Clergymen and classicists, basketball players and bassoonists, are able to cash in on their fame, and the public approves. But the American people seem comfortable with an unstated arrangement that inspires those public officials who are so inclined to enrich themselves out of public sight.

About the only way state legislators have been able to make their pay raises politically palatable is to swallow some bitter along with the sweet. This year, Congress made the same trade-off by increasing the salaries of its members (to $57,500 a year) and then tightening the restrictions on outside moneymaking conflicts. The House and Senate both agreed to limit the additional "earned" income of their members to no more than 10 per cent of their salaries, thus setting the current individual earnings ceiling at $66,125.

Before the new ethical rules were adopted, several of the more economically deprived senators and representatives grumbled about the unfairness of applying different standards to "unearned" income from investments of a privileged class — those who were rich when they entered office. Sen. Charles H. Percy is often cited, as an example. The new code places no limits on income from dividends, rent, interest, land speculation or shares in a family business.

Representatives, who run every two years, are especially reluctant to sever their professional and business ties, should their return to private life occur unexpectedly. Beyond any question, service in the modern Congress is, or ought to be, a full-time job. Nevertheless, Rep. Otis Pike, Democrat, of New York reflects a point of view that is still common among congressmen whose districts are within easy weekend commuting range of Washington. Pike said he promised himself that he would never "get in a position where I needed a political job to feed my family, because I knew that very important people would come to me with unethical propositions, and I wanted to be able to say, 'Stuff it.' They did and I did."

The grumbling was even louder back home when the pay raise was accepted through the back door, without a recorded vote. Whereupon the strong code of ethics became unavoidable. The House gulped down the earned income limitation, 344 to 79. Among the 79 opponents were a surprisingly large number of lawyer-congressmen from Illinois. Rep. Morgan F. Murphy, a Democrat from Chicago, has supplemented his salary with over $50,000 a year from his law firm. He said he continued his law practice "to support my family." Rep. Robert McClory, Republican from Lake County, questioned the division of members into two classes: the very rich, who can continue to receive supplemental income, and the others, who cannot. He said he thought the "infringement on personal liberty" might "discourage people of substance from careers in the House." Rep. Henry J. Hyde, Republican from Park Ridge, echoed Pike's plea for financial independence, which he called an "indispensable ingredient" of political independence and good government. Other Illinoisans who were recorded against the earned income limitation (Hyde spoke against it but voted for it) were Cardiss Collins, Democrat; Philip Crane, Republican; John Erlenborn, Republican; John Fary, Democrat; George O'Brien, Republican; Dan Rostenkowski, Democrat; and Martin Russo, Democrat.

Senators, with their six-year terms, were more concerned about the speaking fees that the better known among them can command than they were with law firm ties. An organization that can buy influence by retaining a congressman's law firm presumably can try to do the same by inviting a senator to give a speech for a big fee. Sen. Adlai E. Stevenson supported the limitation on earned income, but opposed its extension to unearned income. Percy voted against limitations of either kind, saying he preferred full disclosure of all sources of outside income.

The Pike-Hyde contention is that paying a congressman $57,500 a year — on condition that he not pocket almost as much from a law firm connection on the side — somehow deprives him of needed independence by making him vulnerable to unscrupulous influence peddlers. That logic would lead Congress to a condition many state legislatures have been struggling to escape from. Instead of paying a reasonable wage for something at least approaching full-time career service, we would return to an imagined ideal of citizen-legislators who are somehow thereby in closer touch with their constituents; who are paid only token salaries and are given free rein to engage in occupational ventures that cannot help but conflict with their public responsibilities.

Properly executed, $57,500 worth of congressional service is a full-time activity, requiring not just attendance at the Capitol but other time spent in committee rooms, being available to individuals and groups in the district, and keeping a closer watch over how government programs are functioning _ a responsibility that is now neglected by most members of Congress. The need for strict limitations on outside income may be even greater in the future if congressional campaigns are financed with public funds.

July 1977 / Illinois Issues / 31