As the 2006 Congressional races have kicked into full gear, Democrats have been salivating at the prospect of running against the so-called “culture of corruption” of GOP-dominated Washington. However, three recent controversies – inside and outside the Beltway – involving Southern and Mid-Atlantic Democrats, could nullify the efficacy of this strategy altogether.First, West Virginia Rep. Alan Mollohan (D) came under investigation for directing contributions to nonprofit organizations linked to his campaign contributors. Next, Louisiana Rep. William Jefferson (D) had his Capitol Hill office raided by the FBI. Now, the Washington Post is reporting that Doug Duncan, the chief executive of Maryland’s largest locality – Montgomery County – and one of the two high-profile candidates for the Democratic nomination for that state’s governorship, is returning campaign contributions that are “related to or affiliated with” disgraced DC lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Though each situation presents a different set of facts, and likely different outcomes, they all point to the fact that no political party has a monopoly on virtue or vice. Given the rules of the game, impropriety or the appearance thereof is merely a matter of degrees and who is in power. In a region like the South and a state like Virginia, where Republicans and conservatives are the dominant forces and “running against Washington” is commonplace, the corruption angle is probably not a ballot-box winner outside of a few specific districts.
In light of these emerging scandals, real or imagined, it would seem like a good opportunity for Democratic and progressive politicians, to actually offer alternative policy solutions and ideas that appeal to voters and to not simply cast themselves as more ethically sound than Republicans and conservatives. As the 2004 presidential race showed, merely presenting your party and candidates as the opposite of others is not enough; standing for something substantive is much more important.