Sen. Ensign’s infidelity merits further investigation.
IT WAS JUST a week ago that Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) was in the spotlight for his admission of marital infidelity. Now comes fellow Republican and would-be presidential hopeful Mark Sanford’s clumsy admission of adultery, and Mr. Ensign is, so political pundits judge, yesterday’s news. That’s too bad, because there is still a lot about Mr. Ensign’s affair that the public has a right to know.
Interest in Mr. Ensign — and we make no secret that ours is influenced in part by his despicable role in undermining D.C. voting rights — is by no means absolution of Mr. Sanford. The latter abrogated his responsibilities as South Carolina governor and misled his staff and the public. Mr. Sanford’s infidelity should be a private matter between him and his wife, but his embarrassing confessional raised inevitable calls for his resignation. His announcement yesterday that he would reimburse the state for portions of a 2008 trade mission that included meeting with his Argentine mistress raises more questions about his conduct.
Likewise, there should be further investigation of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Ensign’s acknowledgment that he had an affair with his one-time campaign treasurer. Aside from the appropriateness of having a sexual relationship with a subordinate (a firing offense in much of the private sector), questions exist about whether Mr. Ensign violated the Senate’s rules of conduct and federal election law.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a watchdog group, filed complaints Wednesday with the Senate ethics committee and the Federal Elections Commission, seeking the appropriate inquiries. Among the issues are whether the dismissals of the woman and her husband, once a top Ensign aide, were tied to the affair and, if so, could constitute sexual harassment; whether improper severance payments were paid to the woman or her husband; and what the circumstances were behind the hiring of the couple’s son by the National Republican Senatorial Committee chaired by Mr. Ensign. CREW also questions Mr. Ensign’s conduct if, as some media reported, he told people close to him that he was being extorted for money by the husband. Mr. Ensign never publicly said he was being blackmailed; his spokesman said the husband, through an attorney, made exorbitant demands for “cash and other financial benefits.”
Mr. Ensign may have apologized, and another misbehaving politician may be in the headlines, but that doesn’t mean these troubling questions should go unanswered.
Editorial, Washington Post
__________
Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/25/AR2009062503424.html
